Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

No parental rights for rapists

Massachusetts is often touted as one of the most liberal and progressive states in the nation, and for good reason. Famously blue, the Commonwealth is a national leader in health care, education and energy efficiency. It was one of the first states to legalize gay marriage and, on the whole, it’s not a terrible place to be a woman.

Unlike women, in, say, Texas, women in Massachusetts don’t have to worry about their state government going on a crusade against our reproductive rights. Birth control is easy (and, depending on your insurance, relatively cheap or even free) to procure and there are world-class healthcare facilities located around the state to keep women, pregnant or not, healthy. And, if a woman chooses to undergo an abortion, she’ll face few obstacles to obtaining a safe one.

It may sound rosy, but a recent complaint filed against the state has highlighted an insane law on the books in Massachusetts and 30 other states. A young woman identified only as H.T. is suing the Commonwealth for forcing her into “a court-ordered 16-year unwanted relationship with her attacker,” a man named Jamie Melendez.

And why would the state do such a thing? Because H.T. became pregnant as a result of the rape, and in those 31 states, rapists who impregnate their victims can sue for visitation or custodial rights of the child.

As if being raped and impregnated (and, in H.T.’s case, undergoing that trauma at age 14) isn’t bad enough, the courts can impose yet another violation on you: unwanted encounters with your attacker, who may also want to take your child from you.

Melendez pled guilty in 2011 and was sentenced to 16 years of probation, as a condition of which he must participate in family court and follow that court’s orders until H.T.’s child comes of age. One order required that Melendez pay $110 a week in child support, which, he argued, gave him a right to see that child. He offered to withdraw his visitation request if the court freed him from making payments.

H.T. asked the judge to order him to pay criminal restitution instead of child support, which would eliminate the need to face him in family court. In response to the judge’s refusal, H.T. filed a complaint against the state, asking to be freed from any ongoing legal interactions with Melendez.

It’s pretty disturbing that this law has gone all but unmentioned and unnoticed, especially given recent political discussion about birth control, abortion and reproductive rights. That a rapist can sue for parental rights and, even worse, possibly be granted those rights is patently absurd and should be written right out of our legal code.

And this isn’t a once-in-a-blue-moon occurrence. Though Todd Akin (of “legitimate rape” fame) may believe otherwise, about 5 percent of female rape victims of reproductive age become pregnant as a result, adding up to over 32,000 pregnancies a year. Approximately a third of those women carry the child to term.

Many politicians who are otherwise against abortion understand the need for exceptions in cases of rape or incest, as carrying a baby conceived in such a way would be a harrowing experience for an adult woman, let alone a teenager. But some staunchly anti-abortion ideologues believe that abortion isn’t an option even in those cases.

Richard Mourdock, one-time Indiana GOP Senate candidate, said in a 2012 debate that “life is that gift from God, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape. It is something that God intended to happen.”

Needless to say, he lost.

So if you’re a woman impregnated by your rapist, you’re in an incredibly difficult position. Either you undergo an abortion so you don’t have to bear your rapist’s child (but face conservative wrath), or you carry the baby to term, like H.T., and hope your attacker doesn’t want custody once it’s born.

There are legal ways to get a rapist’s parental rights waived: 13 of the 19 states with laws on the subject require proof of the rapist’s conviction before waiving his parental rights. But many victims never report their rapes in fear of retaliation, so that solution clearly doesn’t work.

Rape survivors are shamed and further victimized by society enough as it is. The legal system is often incredibly unsympathetic to them, sometimes even blaming them for their own assaults. Those women and girls unlucky enough to become pregnant through rape yet brave enough to carry the baby to term deserve, at the very least, to have control over their actions and bodies from that point forward. Being forced to interact with the creeps who raped them is not how that happens.

The best solution in this case is to write provisions that will keep legal messes like H.T.’s from happening in the first place. According to the complaint, “no Massachusetts law forbids the enforcement of visitation rights by a biological father who causes a child’s birth through the crime of rape.”

So then, Massachusetts, you bastion of progress, let’s forbid it.

Hannah Sparks is a Collegian columnist. She can be reached at [email protected].

View Comments (2)
More to Discover

Comments (2)

All Massachusetts Daily Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • D

    Dr. Ed CuttingSep 11, 2013 at 11:18 am

    This is a really messy situation far more complex than it might appear.
    .
    First, if I’m not mistaken, this is a case of *statutory* rape — consensual sex where one person was under the age of consent — the age at which one can get married without parental permission. We think of “rape” as when a woman said “no” — this is a case where she said “yes” (if not initiated it) but wasn’t old enough. (Think 20-years-old & Bud Lite.)
    .
    In Massachusetts, it can be a couple who are only ONE DAY apart in age — and it’s statutory rape.
    .
    As an aside, the statutory rape statute was written when the age of majority was a set 21-for-everything, which meant that there was a five-year-gap between the age of consent and age of majority — now that 16-year-olds can be charged as “adults”, consensual sex between a boy on his 16th birthday and a girl whose 16th birthday is tomorrow constitutes “rape.”
    .
    Second, there are some very serious issues with how we view child support — and the argument he raises here can not be dismissed as simply as Ms. Sparks would like to do it.
    .
    In assessing child support, the court is defining him as a parent with parental rights & obligations — you really can’t have one without the other. Child support is under the divorce law with the mandate of best interest of the *child* — not the father NOR the mother but the *child*. Child support is based on his income and assets — not on the facts of his crime — and he doesn’t have the protection of the 8th Amendment.
    .
    So the real issue here is the ability of a woman to concurrently prosecute a man for rape *and* fathering her child, essentially arguing that he both raped her and that the two of them consented to conceive the child — it’s one or the other, she can’t have it both ways.
    .
    Remember that – essentially – this is a divorce without a prior marriage. In creating the child, the court is presuming that the two were, in a sense, married — and the child support proceedings follow the lines they would had they been married and are now divorcing. Remember that in an earlier era, a husband was financially responsible for any child born to his wife, but *not* to a woman he was not married to — the paternity concept was introduced for equity to the unmarried woman.
    .
    She can be pregnant as the result of having been raped — yes — but that is a CRIMINAL matter, not a paternity/divorce issue. She, like any crime victim,can sue the perp for damages, but (a) she won’t get anywhere near as much money and (b) won’t have the enforcement ability to collect it that she does to collect child support. Remember that there is no concept of a de-facto marriage under the legal concept of her being a crime victim.
    .
    She also would be faced with her duty to mitigate damages — which in this case would be to have an abortion — so his “restitution” would only be the cost of an abortion. Furthermore, her “damages” would be reduced by whatever public assistance (including MassHealth) she is getting — so she likely wouldn’t get a whole lot of money. The “percentage of what he’s got” approach of child support is hence a much better deal for her.
    .
    But in arguing that, she’s arguing that it was consensual sex — not a crime — and that’s the problem.
    .
    One could amend the rape statute to have a *fine* but that would go to the state, not her. Court-ordered restitution would only be for unpaid expenses she has — not to elevate her living standards and that of the child — which is what child support is for.
    .
    It’s called “kettle pleading” — she has to be consistent and can’t have it both ways — if she’s the victim of a crime the rules regarding people who are victims of crimes (and the rules that protect those who are accused of having committed them) should apply. This includes the 8th Amendment’s prohibition of “excessive fines.” On the other hand, if she’s getting a divorce from what is essentially considered to have been a marriage, then she’s not a crime victim, not in terms of the conception.
    .
    And the most important thing here is that if a man (or woman) is required to pay child support, he (or she) must also be given visitation rights as well. Her mistake was in pursuing the child support from him instead of suing him for civil damages in the capacity of being a victim of a crime.

    Reply
  • A

    AmySep 10, 2013 at 9:35 pm

    Great op-ed. A lot if interesting info in your piece.

    Thank you!

    Reply