The rapist violated her civil rights and he is a convicted rapist. Why should he have any rights to the child that was resultant from a violent act against this young mother. No, he should not have any rights to the child.

This answer is simple, no he should not have visitation rights. If any of our legislators are listening into this, now would be a very good time to propose a very simple law that states that a convicted rapist may not have visitation with the child and a permanent restraining order should be in effect in dealing either with the child or the child's mother. Child support must be paid and, the convicted rapist may not exclude the child from his Will or any resulting trusts. The child must inherit as any other child would or, if there are no other children, the child must take as if there was no Will at all.

In a word? NO.

Absolutely not. He is a criminal and it never should have been sent to family court for child support. That sounds like it is the judge's mistake. The convicted rapist's sentence should be changed to paying restitution instead of child support and a restraining order enforced.

Equally upsetting is that this weed actually found a Lawyer to represent him in this. What kind of a person would take this case?

This kind of case apparently has cropped up in states across the country because there are laws about it in some states; Massachusetts apparently is one of more than 30 states to not yet have a law curtailing parental rights of rapists.

The fact that we are even entertaining this request is ridiculous. If the child reaches 18 and decides he or she wants to meet with him, well that's allowable. I'm guessing the sex was "consensual", i.e. he wasn't hiding in the bushes and ambushed her, otherwise he would be in jail. I'm hoping that's the case at least. I'm also guessing the judge decided that with a record the guy could never get a job and that the child and the mother would wind up on welfare and he wished to save the taxpayer's some money. That guy doesn't realize how lucky he is. He should shut up, go to work, and pay his debt to society literally,

Statutory rape implies consensual relations with an underage person. Anyone who is paying child support should have a right to visit the child, on a limited and monitored basis. Sad case - One must feel compassion for any child in such a no-win situation.

NO! NO! NO! The child will have sufficient impediments to a normal, full life because of the circumstances of the birth. Let him/her enjoy as much normallcy as possible without having to deal with a father who could only embarrass the child and further stigmatize him/her.

I can't believe this is actually being considered... he is a violent criminal and should be in jail. NO way should he have any rights!

Catherine

Statutory RAPE does not imply consent in EVERY case nor does it imply consent in any case. Look up the true and legal definition. Just because you pay child support does not entitle you to visitation rights. He should be in jail. I hope she is able to get the restraining order and if the child wishes to see the father when there 18. That is there choice.

I agree with everyone except Dennis! No way should this rapist be allowed to ever see the child he produced (unless the child looks him up after turning 18). He is lucky to not be in jail and should pay the child support as restitution.