Replies

Yeah, the couple in question bought a kidnapped baby. You want an extreme case? I’ll give you one.

A man rapes a woman he used to date and with whom he is obsessed, but convinces the jury that the sex was consensual. The woman got pregnant, and decided to give the baby up for adoption. The rapist tries to make contact with the woman and sends her money, but she avoids him, gives birth secretly and places the baby for adoption. A married couple that had been waiting for years for a chance to adopt a baby finally get the call from the adoption agency telling them that a woman has given custody of her newborn to the adoption agency, and the agency brings the three-day-old baby to their doortep. They raise the baby as any married couple would, and 6-9 months later are eligible to adopt him. When the rapist sees the notice of termination of paternal rights in the newspaper, he immediately sues, saying that he is the father and the baby “belongs to him.” The married couple does what any parents would do, and seek to protect their child, but receive a letter from a FReeper named Jewbacca saying that they are “evil” for trying to deny the sperm donor’s property rights.

I recall reading a SCOTUS case about 15 years ago (the case was likely older than that) in which the Court gave parental rights to a biological father who had never married the mother or lived with her and their daughter, but had, years later, met and spoken with the girl a few times in her neighborhood and sued for visitation rights. Justice Scalia wrote a superb dissent in which he warned that under the rule adopted by the Court, which completely ignored the relationship between the biological father and the mother, a rapist would have parental rights if he later established some kind of relationship with the child. This ruling in Tennessee makes clear that Justice Scalia was prescient about how the law would go.

Justice Scalia wrote a superb dissent in which he warned that under the rule adopted by the Court, which completely ignored the relationship between the biological father and the mother, a rapist would have parental rights if he later established some kind of relationship with the child. This ruling in Tennessee makes clear that Justice Scalia was prescient about how the law would go.

If this same rapist could have been charged for child support if the mother had decided to keep the child, then yes he should have parental rights. (once he gets out of prison for the rape)

It's neither unreasonable nor extreme to expect that if the father has responsibilities then he also has rights.

But since the immediate case was not a rape that's really not germane to this discussion.