Raped Pregnant and Ordeal Not OVER!

g under p

Raped Pregnant and Ordeal Not OVER!

Chicago, Illinois (CNN) -- When I was in law school, my criminal law professor introduced us to the crime of rape by reading us a quote from Lord Chief Justice Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century English jurist: "In a rape case it is the victim, not the defendant, who is on trial."

It was not merely a history lesson. I had lived it.

While a student in my final year of college, at age 21, I was raped. I have dissected that moment -- the horrifying moment that I became a "victim" -- from every possible angle. I have poked and prodded, examined and re-examined. Regrettably, I have even suspected myself in a desperate, ultimately futile attempt to understand how I became a victim.

Hard to believe in this day and age that a woman can be raped and the rapist file for custody of the child. Then later having to fight to get laws instituted to fight against a rapist even having the grounds to file for custody of the child.

Unbelievable but ONLY in America.

Editor's note: Shauna R. Prewitt is a lawyer in Chicago. She is the author of "Giving Birth to a 'Rapist's Child': A Discussion and Analysis of the Limited Legal Protections Afforded to Women Who Become Mothers Through Rape," written for the Georgetown Law Journal.

Peace

unsung

What kind of person (lawyer) would represent said rapist?

cincybearcat

I read this yesterday and was going to post it, thanks for dong so.

I am completely and utterly flabbergasted that a rapist could sue for and be given any parental rights. That is ridiculous. You would think that the first time this ever came up it would be corrected IMMEDIATELY!

I feel terrible for any woman in that situation. If a woman is raped and decides to have the child, the laws should do everything they can to protect that woman and her child.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around who thinks this is ok at all????? We can take children away from parents for neglect/abuse, etc.....so how does RAPE not fit in there?

mickeyrat

unsung wrote:

What kind of person (lawyer) would represent said rapist?

since they work for a fee, just about any lawyer would. Certainly would be a challenge to be able to win the case and perhaps thats why one would take this type of case? For the challenge of it?

Or a member of the he-man women haters club.

Johnny Abruzzo

cincybearcat wrote:

I read this yesterday and was going to post it, thanks for dong so.

I am completely and utterly flabbergasted that a rapist could sue for and be given any parental rights. That is ridiculous. You would think that the first time this ever came up it would be corrected IMMEDIATELY!

I feel terrible for any woman in that situation. If a woman is raped and decides to have the child, the laws should do everything they can to protect that woman and her child.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around who thinks this is ok at all????? We can take children away from parents for neglect/abuse, etc.....so how does RAPE not fit in there?

I think the problem is that only 9% of rapists are prosecuted, so there is no legal proof that the other 91% are in fact rapists. I don't really know what the solution is here.

comebackgirl

cincybearcat wrote:

I read this yesterday and was going to post it, thanks for dong so.

I am completely and utterly flabbergasted that a rapist could sue for and be given any parental rights. That is ridiculous. You would think that the first time this ever came up it would be corrected IMMEDIATELY!

I feel terrible for any woman in that situation. If a woman is raped and decides to have the child, the laws should do everything they can to protect that woman and her child.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around who thinks this is ok at all????? We can take children away from parents for neglect/abuse, etc.....so how does RAPE not fit in there?

I absolutely agree with you. There are a number of statutory provisions, but they are inconsistent and a lot of the laws only provide protection for 1st or 2nd degree rapes. In 31 states rapists can have parental rights. I think part of the problem is that rape is so under reported. Less than half will be reported to police, and only 9% are prosecuted, so there may be no legal reason to deny parental rights. This link outlines some of the statutory providssions

http://childsupportguidelines.com/artic ... 00106.html

comebackgirl

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

I read this yesterday and was going to post it, thanks for dong so.

I am completely and utterly flabbergasted that a rapist could sue for and be given any parental rights. That is ridiculous. You would think that the first time this ever came up it would be corrected IMMEDIATELY!

I feel terrible for any woman in that situation. If a woman is raped and decides to have the child, the laws should do everything they can to protect that woman and her child.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around who thinks this is ok at all????? We can take children away from parents for neglect/abuse, etc.....so how does RAPE not fit in there?

I think the problem is that only 9% of rapists are prosecuted, so there is no legal proof that the other 91% are in fact rapists. I don't really know what the solution is here.

exactly - and only about 5% will result in a felony conviction. Even some of the states that do have some protections only provide those protections for more egregious assaults.

comebackgirl

unsung wrote:

What kind of person (lawyer) would represent said rapist?

I wondered that about Sandusky

hedonist

.

comebackgirl

This is the law journal article written by Shauna Prewitt:

http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/p ... rewitt.PDF

She includes information about placing babies conceived from rape for adoption. It appears only 20 states remove the notification and consent requirements before a child is placed. Which means in some states, the survivor has to notify the rapist and he could potentially contest the placement.

"Twenty states have passed statutes that remove the notification or consent
requirements for women who choose adoption for their rape-conceived children.
It is both surprising and unsurprising that more states provide protection
for raped women who elect adoption for their rape-conceived children, as
opposed to women who raise the children themselves. It is surprising because
the statistics indicate that far more raped women who give birth to their
rape-conceived children raise their children rather than give them up for adoption.
Thus, in examining the numbers alone, it seems odd to find that states
have been more apt to adopt a protection that is less in need among the
pregnant-raped-woman population."

cincybearcat

Wait a minute, I can't believe I'm getting so worked up. This article is obviously a fake....if it were a "legitimate rape" her body would have shit that whole thing down.

No wonder that guy sued for parental rights!!!!







Seriously though, we have some really f'ed up laws.

Zoso

I wondered about this.. if the rape isn't proven in a court of law... the so called 'father' or rapist has rights? I guess in some cases they do.. this is sick HAS to open up politicians eyes who believe in no exceptions to abortion.. this must be an exception if the mother doesn't want the child. I couldn't imagine learning that I was a child of rape and that the rapist was my father who had rights to be my father...

cincybearcat

Zoso wrote:

I couldn't imagine learning that I was a child of rape and that the rapist was my father who had rights to be my father...

So, you'd rather be dead? Just saying.

In reality, this is the worst situation and the most difficult to reconcile by far when it comes to abortion, for me anyhow.

MotoDC

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

I think the problem is that only 9% of rapists are prosecuted, so there is no legal proof that the other 91% are in fact rapists. I don't really know what the solution is here.

Horrible story. Legally speaking, though, it's a challenging question. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything in the article as to whether the guy was convicted of rape, nor whether, if convicted, the rapist would still have the possibility of custody of the child. If a claim to rape is all that would be required to prevent the father any custody rights, custody cases would be pretty one-sided.

Again, this whole thing is really horrible. I'm sure the vast majority of rape claims are not fictitious, but likewise the vast majority of custody claims are not subsequent to rape. Objectively, the law has to rely on itself. If the rapist was not convicted, how can the court then turn around and treat the custody case as if the rapist had been found guilty? Is there some way to rely on civil courts, where the burden of proof is lower?

Zoso

cincybearcat wrote:

Zoso wrote:

I couldn't imagine learning that I was a child of rape and that the rapist was my father who had rights to be my father...

So, you'd rather be dead? Just saying.

In reality, this is the worst situation and the most difficult to reconcile by far when it comes to abortion, for me anyhow.

well it would be hard to know what it feels like to have a father that raped and abused my mother to give birth to me. No one wants abortions whether it's pro life or pro choice but this is when their has to be a choice... the women needs to be able to choose whether she wants to have a baby after it would be born through such a violent and traumatizing act. surely?

cincybearcat

Zoso wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Zoso wrote:

I couldn't imagine learning that I was a child of rape and that the rapist was my father who had rights to be my father...

So, you'd rather be dead? Just saying.

In reality, this is the worst situation and the most difficult to reconcile by far when it comes to abortion, for me anyhow.

well it would be hard to know what it feels like to have a father that raped and abused my mother to give birth to me. No one wants abortions whether it's pro life or pro choice but this is when their has to be a choice... the women needs to be able to choose whether she wants to have a baby after it would be born through such a violent and traumatizing act. surely?

Not "surely" but it is tough to argue against it. But it depends on who you are protecting.

But back to the article, its obvious that these laws need to be reviewed and changed.

comebackgirl

MotoDC wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

I think the problem is that only 9% of rapists are prosecuted, so there is no legal proof that the other 91% are in fact rapists. I don't really know what the solution is here.

Horrible story. Legally speaking, though, it's a challenging question. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything in the article as to whether the guy was convicted of rape, nor whether, if convicted, the rapist would still have the possibility of custody of the child. If a claim to rape is all that would be required to prevent the father any custody rights, custody cases would be pretty one-sided.

Again, this whole thing is really horrible. I'm sure the vast majority of rape claims are not fictitious, but likewise the vast majority of custody claims are not subsequent to rape. Objectively, the law has to rely on itself. If the rapist was not convicted, how can the court then turn around and treat the custody case as if the rapist had been found guilty? Is there some way to rely on civil courts, where the burden of proof is lower?

And therein lies the problem. These cases are so rarely prosecuted for a variety of reasons. Going through the legal process is horribly traumatic, despite all the changes that have been made with SART teams and SANE nurses. Typically for the 1st 72 hours the victim is in shock, trying to pretend the rape didn't happen and hoping they can move on as if it didn't. If they want evidence collected, they need to do it within 5 days, the longer they wait, the less likely evidence will be collected. By the time some realize they may want to prosecute, it may be too late to collect evidence. The evidence collection process is extremely invasive, despite how wonderful SANE nurses are. They have to pull pubic hair, do an internal exam (which may be very painful after an assault), scrape under finger nails, etc. This is all happening at a time when the last thing the victim wants is to be touched. She will be having body memories and traumatized throughout the process. If she's gone to the bathroom, showered, had anything to eat or drink, evidence might be washed away. And in addition to all of that, she has to tell strangers about the most traumatic and personal moment of her life. If there's enough evidence and the case goes to trial, she can then prepare to have every detail picked apart. The thing about trauma is that we remember things in pieces and we don't remember it coherently, so being asked about time and details is in direct opposition to how trauma is stored in our brain (which is in fractured pictures, rather than coherent memories). Look at the Sandusky trial - grown men sobbing on the stand. It's a re-victimization that most people want to avoid.

I think it would be much easier to void parental rights with a conviction, but that's not the case in every state. A lot of survivors will find that this is not something they can endure.

Johnny Abruzzo

comebackgirl wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

I think the problem is that only 9% of rapists are prosecuted, so there is no legal proof that the other 91% are in fact rapists. I don't really know what the solution is here.

Horrible story. Legally speaking, though, it's a challenging question. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything in the article as to whether the guy was convicted of rape, nor whether, if convicted, the rapist would still have the possibility of custody of the child. If a claim to rape is all that would be required to prevent the father any custody rights, custody cases would be pretty one-sided.

Again, this whole thing is really horrible. I'm sure the vast majority of rape claims are not fictitious, but likewise the vast majority of custody claims are not subsequent to rape. Objectively, the law has to rely on itself. If the rapist was not convicted, how can the court then turn around and treat the custody case as if the rapist had been found guilty? Is there some way to rely on civil courts, where the burden of proof is lower?

And therein lies the problem. These cases are so rarely prosecuted for a variety of reasons. Going through the legal process is horribly traumatic, despite all the changes that have been made with SART teams and SANE nurses. Typically for the 1st 72 hours the victim is in shock, trying to pretend the rape didn't happen and hoping they can move on as if it didn't. If they want evidence collected, they need to do it within 5 days, the longer they wait, the less likely evidence will be collected. By the time some realize they may want to prosecute, it may be too late to collect evidence. The evidence collection process is extremely invasive, despite how wonderful SANE nurses are. They have to pull pubic hair, do an internal exam (which may be very painful after an assault), scrape under finger nails, etc. This is all happening at a time when the last thing the victim wants is to be touched. She will be having body memories and traumatized throughout the process. If she's gone to the bathroom, showered, had anything to eat or drink, evidence might be washed away. And in addition to all of that, she has to tell strangers about the most traumatic and personal moment of her life. If there's enough evidence and the case goes to trial, she can then prepare to have every detail picked apart. The thing about trauma is that we remember things in pieces and we don't remember it coherently, so being asked about time and details is in direct opposition to how trauma is stored in our brain (which is in fractured pictures, rather than coherent memories). Look at the Sandusky trial - grown men sobbing on the stand. It's a re-victimization that most people want to avoid.

I think it would be much easier to void parental rights with a conviction, but that's not the case in every state. A lot of survivors will find that this is not something they can endure.

This is all just so terrible. Thanks for your valuable insight.

pandora

I skimmed the article and was wondering if she had reported the rape,
if the rapist was caught and charged, if the rapist was prosecuted and went to prison
and is now a registered offender.

I think if this had happened, chances are he would not be able to get custody...
at least I hope not.

Another reason to always report a rape to authorities immediately
and do not disturb any evidence.

comebackgirl

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

This is all just so terrible. Thanks for your valuable insight.

Thanks. I haven't done rape crisis for a long time, but I will never forget what that experience was like for the survivors. So many survivors don't want to come forward because talking about the assault or reporting it makes it real. Contrary to some beliefs, survivors don't generally "cry rape." The want to convince themselves that what happened was not rape. Many won't seek out counseling or legal resources initially. They will go to their medical provider to be checked for STDs or for emergency contraception and when the provider asks about why they're not using birth control it will be discovered that they were assaulted. I sometimes meet with survivors for weeks or months before they feel safe enough to tell me about their assault, and often they have never told anyone about an assault that happened years earlier.

I know this is all a little off topic, but I just wanted to explain why so many of these cases won't be prosecuted and therefore won't necessarily help with the parental rights issue.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

I gather from what she said about (paraphrasing) "agreeing to let the rapist go free in exchange for him to waive his rights as a father" means she agreed to drop the charges, or not report it to the police at all, if he dropped his bid for parental rights.

disgusting.