Originally posted by @sonhouse
" only 9 out of 50 states making it illegal for the rapist to get visitation rights."
At least in the US. There is a chart on that link showing only 9 out of 50 states making it illegal for the rapist to get visitation rights. Disgusting.
We are going through that here, one of my son's has a gf who was kidnapped and raped at 12 and had the baby, the dude got like 10 years and just got out and is making noises about joint custody. That won't happen, I can guarantee that. He might just fall upstairs.
For a state to make this illegal would require the legislators to accept the likelihood - more than just a remote possibility - that a judge would rule in favour of the rapist in a case such as the one under discussion. Either you cannot trust an American judge to think about the interests of a child and its mother, as against the property rights of a biological father, or in fact you know damn well that unless there is a specific law to prevent this, an American judge is very capable of prioritising the property rights of a father and willingly accepting the resulting prospect of harm to both a child and its mother. Put simply, some American judges hate women and children and think fathers can do what the hell they want to do until a law stops it.
This judgement only makes sense if a father has property rights over his biological child that are not conditional.
English law dictates that, in a case concerning access to a child and rights over a child, the primary concern in such matters is not the rights of either parent but the best interests of the child. The child would be represented in any hearing. The judge would not be just administering a set of rules, but doing what it says on the tin - making a judgement.
When making this judgement, I am trying to work out a line of reasoning that suggests it is in the interests of a child to be placed in intimate contact - possibly under the control of - a convicted child rapist, and I have to be honest, I am struggling to find a way to see this being so. I just cannot imagine the possibility.
So I have to assume that the American court was not thinking this through from the perspective of the rights of the child. This judge must have been so determined to uphold paternal (father's) rights as to utterly put out of their mind concern for with the mother or the child.
In a very different case, the recent uproar over the rights of parents in the case of Charlie Gard, I had to respond to American demands that the right of the parents should be final and absolute, as though a child was no more than property, and childrens rights were a sub-set of property rights in which the state must never interfere, because property (not children, property) is sacred.
I disagreed and argued- in line with English law - that this is wrong in principle and the rights of the child are paramount. No need to repeat that debate as such - we can all read over the historical threads on the topic.
But we do see here where pushing parental rights can take you if it over-rides those of the child. And where pushing the unconditional rights of a biological father takes you - to hell in a handcart. There is no other way to describe this - the US has a system based on hatred of women and children.
Reducing humans to property rights - that is American capitalism in a nutshell.