In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Woman Ordered to Bring Her Children to Visit Her Rapist in Jail

Jill

But it’s a father’s right!

Now, I’m all for prison visitation rights. But if the father of your children goes to jail for raping you, it seems a wee bit backwards to force you to bring your children to visit him.

Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children Mike McCormick said, “You don’t deny children the right to see their parents based on issues between the parents. I’m in no way downplaying the seriousness of the fact that he is convicted of raping her, but that consideration is separate and distinct from the issue of the child maintaining a relationship with their father, even in circumstances of incarceration. It’s not uncommon that a parent with custody wants to keep their children out of a prison environment. Let’s not kid ourselves, prison’s not a great place to go. But should it preclude a father’s ability to have a relationship with a child? Society has determined that no, it should not.”

Sick.

39 thoughts on Woman Ordered to Bring Her Children to Visit Her Rapist in Jail

  1. cue MRA/FRA bullshit:

    … chirp chirp chirp …

    damn. i’m really liking this moderation policy you got. 😀

  3. Pingback: Woman Ordered To Make Her Kids Visit Her Rapist at PunkAssBlog.com

  4. I’m sort of biased on this issue because I am going through a divorce right now, and my soon to be ex-husband often uses my son to get to me. If he is mad at me (like this past Monday when the child support hearing didn’t go in his favor), he suddenly calls and demands to speak to his son. And it is SO VERY CLEAR that it is not about speaking to his son (because he never seems to need to talk to him when there are no issues between us–his calls during those times are non-existant). It is more about being able to demand something from me that he knows I cannot say no to. Because how would the court look on me blocking him from talking to his son? He’s got me on this one. Its the last bit of control this controlling guy has over me.

    So I have a very hard time believing that this “father” (I use the term lightly because he’s more likely just a sperm donor) actually has any interest in seeing his children. Or, at the very least, that that’s his primary purpose here. Its more likely that this is a way to emotionally abuse his ex-wife/victim. Abusers are very clever with this sort of thing–using the system designed to protect their victims against their victims.

    The children are pawns. The wife is continuing to be abused. Its shameful that the court is indulging this.

  6. What if he was abusing the kids?

    It would be interesting to know what kind of assessment was done to determine that he is not a danger to his kids, although the court covers its ass by requiring “supervised” visits.

    Children who witness abuse of a parent, especially at the hands of the other parent, are experiencing abuse. I’d venture a guess that the rape was not the first blip of dysfunction on the radar of this family. These kids have probably been through a lot.

  7. A. The Father’s Rights morons dig themselves further into the hole with this ridiculous assertion.

    B. I hear you Kat and had the same problems with my ex, who I knew could cry , “Angry scathing bitch-ex won’t let me talk to/see the kids! Wah wah! Poor me! I’m so abused and neglected!” I only met him about a quarter of the way in most of his demands and for once I was thankful that he was a lifelong career leech and moocher, he had no money to use the courts against me. That most men can utilize the courts to force women to submit to their demands is a real problem.

    The Father Rights people are asses who wish to use the courts and now the legislature to further their domination of women and punish the ones who dare to leave them.

  9. for once I was thankful that he was a lifelong career leech and moocher, he had no money to use the courts against me.

    Hey Kate, I think we may have been married to the same guy! Such lucky girls!

    You nailed it–the protection I have from my sweetie is exactly that. That he is a deadbeat–no money to fight the fight (which is good, because I have limited funds too and couldn’t mount much of a defense if I needed to).

    In a disturbing turn of events at the last Monday’s hearing, they appointed him a public defender (even though they denied his request for a continuance based on the fact they know he’s staying underemployed to try to shake the fact that they are imputing income. Nice. But still, he managed to get a public defender, so his cry-poor tactic is working on some level.)

    I wonder if this rapist has public defenders helping him? If he’s in jail, I bet he does.

    “Angry scathing bitch-ex won’t let me talk to/see the kids! Wah wah! Poor me! I’m so abused and neglected!”

    All the men that are using this Wicked-Witch-of-the-West defense (mine does) in child custody/support issues are donating their tax-deductible dollars to the father’s rights cause, which in turn is probably helping to support this now-high-profile case.

    And he has time of his hands. Something that his now-single-mother victim probably does not.

    I truly believe in father’s rights (or really, more correctly, the rights of non-custodial parents). Because in some cases parents who truly have good intentions are thwarted by the custodial parent’s use of access to the children as a control/punishment.

    But when I see these groups working to faciliate a travesty like this, I can’t help but think it gives a bad name to cause and works against really helping those parents who have a good case for visitation/rights.

  10. Now as sick as this makes me, if they have to allow the children to see him, why in the world does she have to be the one to bring them? That just seems beyond wrong… there’s not another relative that can do it? Because honestly, I know if it were me, it wouldn’t be at all good for my kids to see what I’d have to say to the bastard that did that to me. It just doesn’t seem right that they can order her to bring them there… if he wants to see them, he can figure out another safe way to get them there.
    The fact that he shouldn’t be allowed to see the children is a whole other issue. I’ve never been one for not allowing children to see a parent because of a wrong against the other parent (in cases of adultery, fighting, stuff like that) but when one parent has abused the other parent then they have abused the child as well. If my husband were to hit me in front of my daughter, then I personally think we are both victims of abuse and he ought not see either one of us again until he goes through serious anger management counseling and proves to me that he is a safe person for my daughter to see. Neither one of us should be guaranteed rights to her simply because we are her parents. If he raped someone, me or anyone else, it would be over my dead body that my daughter would see him. It’s just sick.

  11. Why is it MRA bullshit to allow this guy to see his children? I don’t care what crime a person commits, the state should not be in the business of punishing people by denying them the right to see their children (unless the children were the victims). Shame on the people who think this is just. What if a woman tried to murder her husband and the husband refused to allow the children to see the woman? Are you all on board for that? Or if the woman committed, say, drug crimes and the father didn’t want to poison his children with her influence? Should we punish all crimes by taking away the right to see one’s childrens? Once again, rape victim advocacy on this site is heading in a decidedly fascist path.

  12. Why is it MRA bullshit to allow this guy to see his children? I don’t care what crime a person commits, the state should not be in the business of punishing people by denying them the right to see their children (unless the children were the victims).

    here is an example of bullshit. if this man raped their mother, by definition, he has victimized them as well. or do you think this was not traumatizing to them?

  13. Once again, rape victim advocacy on this site is heading in a decidedly fascist path.

    godwin, anyone? can you define the word ‘fascist’ please? you seem to be using it without knowing what fascism actually is.

  14. Once again, rape victim advocacy on this site is heading in a decidedly fascist path.

    And once again, the trolls start name calling.

  15. What if a woman tried to murder her husband and the husband refused to allow the children to see the woman? Are you all on board for that? Or if the woman committed, say, drug crimes and the father didn’t want to poison his children with her influence?

    Happens all the time. I have pretty much no problem with it considering the child advocacy I’ve done. When the parent can’t see what they have done has harmed the children, someone else steps in because they obviously can’t make good decisions regarding the children. Like when a guy thinks it’s okay to rape his kids’ mom.

  16. And once again, the trolls start name calling

    Leaving aside the irony of your statement evil fizz, part of fascism is creating a subclass of citizens that are not worthy of basic human rights. The slide toward fascism occurs when we don’t simply punish criminals by putting them in jail. It occurs when we take away their rights to have a family, to live amongst us, to vote, and otherwise live a productive life. This vengeful tendency is why we imprison more people per capita than anywhere else on the face of the earth and we still have people who want more blood. I know a lot of people here would have this guy castrated, put in a cage for the rest of his life with no human contact or comfort. That is not justice though. That is a fascist society.

  17. Leaving aside the irony of your statement evil fizz, part of fascism is creating a subclass of citizens that are not worthy of basic human rights.

    please learn the definition of ‘irony’ as well. he did not engage in name-calling. he stated an objective truth — you showed up here and stated that one can only be called a ‘fascist’ if one opines that this court decision is a grave miscarriage of justice. ‘trolls’ is a term in wide use throughout the internet for commenters who engage in such behavior. he used it correctly for behavior that is widely known as ‘trolling’.

  18. … part of fascism is creating a subclass of citizens that are not worthy of basic human rights.

    the law currently deprives parents of their rights to their children all the time with the full blessing of the voting public. he tramatized and victimized his children when he chose to brutalize their mother. in my opinion, that makes him an unfit parent. he does not have to physically attack the children himself. he only has to cause them harm and raping their mother is an egregious harm. if he was so concerned about access to his children, he could have chosen to not act like a monster.

  19. Thanks for the definitions Emily! I didn’t realize that trolling is defined as disagreeing with you. Nor did I know that it’s the objective truth that I’m engaging in trolling.

    Instead of trying to tell me how I’m a troll, tell me why I’m mistaken that a society that punishes criminals by denying them parental rights is a country with fascist tendencies.

  20. The slide toward fascism occurs when we don’t simply punish criminals by putting them in jail. It occurs when we take away their rights to have a family, to live amongst us, to vote, and otherwise live a productive life.

    To be clear, the issue here is whether or not he has a right to see his children while incarcerated. Does the slide to fascism occur when we take away someone’s right “to live amongst us” by putting them in prison? No. We can argue that it occurs if we take that right away after they’ve served their time, but it would be ridiculous to argue that one retains a human right to live amongst us while they’re incarcerated.

    And that’s the deal with a punitive system — you commit a crime, and the state takes away some of your liberty. How much of your liberty you’re deprived of depends on the severity of your crime. It certainly isn’t unheard of to be deprived of the liberty to see your children while you’re in prison if you commit a severe enough crime. Prison itself is a deprivation of liberty — not all liberties, and not basic human rights, but certainly some liberties. The inability to see people you want to see is part of the punishment. How extensive that is relates to the crime, and raping and beating your childrens’ mother is a pretty severe crime.

    Further, what would you say if this was a child custody hearing and had nothing to do with imprisonment? This guy has raped and beaten up this woman. Do you think that he should get custody of his children? Partial custody? Visitation rights? I’m not sure that any judge in their right mind would order that custody or visitation rights be awarded to a rapist whose victim was the childrens’ mother.

  21. And Emily, aren’t all criminals by definition unfit parents? After all, committing crimes is inimical to proper parenting. Their are plenty of parents that choose to act in ways that are not good examples for children. Hell, I only have to walk down the street to see poor parenting. Some parents spank, some smoke in front of their children, some verbally abuse children, etc. These parents shouldn’t complain if we take their children away from them because they made the choice to be bad parents.

  22. It occurs when we take away their rights to have a family, to live amongst us, to vote, and otherwise live a productive life.

    criminals, by defintion, have violated the social contract. they have proven that they cannot abide by the rules of that contract. the man in question is serving jail time for his crime. that is an example of how we deprive those who violate the rules of the social contract of their right to liberty. why are you crying a river over this man’s rights, but have nothing to say about the potential harm to the children he is using as pawns in a power game against their mother, whom he was convicted of raping. what about their rights?

    This vengeful tendency is why we imprison more people per capita than anywhere else on the face of the earth and we still have people who want more blood.

    outrage at the law for forcing a rape victim to take her children to visit her rapist in jail is not about a thirst for vengeance. strawman.

    I know a lot of people here would have this guy castrated, put in a cage for the rest of his life with no human contact or comfort. That is not justice though.

    now, you are really trolling. no one here said that. but, of course, you can read our minds. well, damn. he brutally rapes his childrens’ mother, but don’t be so mean as to deprive him of human contact. apparently, he’s so badly in need of it that he just couldn’t stop himself from brutally fulfilling his need for ‘human contact’ with a woman’s genitals without her consent. to advocate for this woman’s right not to have any further contact with this man is the real crime!

  23. Thanks for the definitions Emily! I didn’t realize that trolling is defined as disagreeing with you. Nor did I know that it’s the objective truth that I’m engaging in trolling.

    repetitive use of strawmen is another behavior widely known as trolling. the argument i actually made was that telling everyone who disagreed with the judge’s decision that they are fascists was trolling.

    Instead of trying to tell me how I’m a troll, tell me why I’m mistaken that a society that punishes criminals by denying them parental rights is a country with fascist tendencies.

    i believe i just did that. claiming that someone hasn’t responded to your arguments when they have already taken great pains to do so is also trolling.

  24. And Emily, aren’t all criminals by definition unfit parents?

    i didn’t say that. i said that a man who raped his children’s mother is an unfit parent in my opinion. in fact, i think any rapist or other criminal who commits a brutal physical attack on another person is an unfit parent. i consider that person a danger to their children, both in a physical sense and an emotional sense.

    After all, committing crimes is inimical to proper parenting. Their are plenty of parents that choose to act in ways that are not good examples for children. Hell, I only have to walk down the street to see poor parenting. Some parents spank, some smoke in front of their children, some verbally abuse children, etc. These parents shouldn’t complain if we take their children away from them because they made the choice to be bad parents.

    strawmen. please stick to the argument i made instead of making up one for me and then responding to that.

  25. Jill, when I mentioned taking away the right to live amongst us, I wasn’t referring to the period of incarceration (although for almost all crimes we incarcerate way too long). Rather, I was referring to the point when the prisoner is released. If you’ve committed a sex crime we are excluding people from living amongst us. In some areas the only place ex-cons can live is in rural areas. Also, we make it nearly impossible for an ex-con to rejoin society. Right now sex crimes, drugs, and “terrorism” are the three boogeymen that we over-punish.

    You also have a good point about custody hearings. Obviously, sometimes a court has to limit custody. When the children are young I think this guy should still gets to see his children, but probably under supervised situations at first. Also, when the children reach a certain age they obviously will have a say in how often they see their father, if at all.

  26. I didn’t realize that trolling is defined as disagreeing with you.

    No, trolling is defined by making wildly unsupported assertions, insulting others, engaging in thread drift and otherwise making a scene and then crying persecution.

    It’s perfectly possible to disagree without throwing around the word facist, setting up strawmen and being otherwise inflammatory. It’s those things and not disagreement that mean you’re acting like a troll.

  27. Also, when the children reach a certain age they obviously will have a say in how often they see their father, if at all.

    Worth noting: in this particular case, the kids have said emphatically that they don’t want to see their father.

  28. Jill, when I mentioned taking away the right to live amongst us, I wasn’t referring to the period of incarceration (although for almost all crimes we incarcerate way too long).

    you keep trying to talk about something that is not ON TOPIC. the subject under discussion is whether a rape victim should be required by law to take her children to see her rapist in jail while he is serving time for raping her.

    Rather, I was referring to the point when the prisoner is released. If you’ve committed a sex crime we are excluding people from living amongst us.

    again, off-topic.

  29. Wow Emily. You hit the blog accusation trifecta! I’m a troll. I’m calling people names. And now I’m uising strawmen. Sweet.

  30. Now as sick as this makes me, if they have to allow the children to see him, why in the world does she have to be the one to bring them? That just seems beyond wrong… there’s not another relative that can do it?

    I just feel for this poor woman. Going with her children is most likely not required. But as a mom, she probably can’t bear to see them go without her. To leave her babies under his influence without her there may be more upsetting to her than having to face him herself.

    If this is about his control of her (and my opinion is that it is) he wins whether she comes to jail herself or not. Because he knows she’s sitting at home completely distressed about her children being with him.

    Does anyone know if the kids have an attorney in this?

  31. Wow Emily. You hit the blog accusation trifecta! I’m a troll. I’m calling people names. And now I’m uising strawmen. Sweet.

    trolls use name-calling, strawmen arguments, and thread drift tactics.

    evidence for my accusation that you have engaged in name-calling:

    Once again, rape victim advocacy on this site is heading in a decidedly fascist path.

    you accused the proprietors and other participants of being nascent fascists. that is name-calling.

    Evidence of your use of strawmen arguments and thread drift tactics:

    don’t care what crime a person commits, the state should not be in the business of punishing people by denying them the right to see their children (unless the children were the victims). Shame on the people who think this is just. What if a woman tried to murder her husband and the husband refused to allow the children to see the woman? Are you all on board for that? Or if the woman committed, say, drug crimes and the father didn’t want to poison his children with her influence? Should we punish all crimes by taking away the right to see one’s childrens?

    no one has declared support for any of the positions you are ascribing to us. moreover, you refuse to stick to the topic of discussion — which is a very specific case with very specific circumstances. you keep trying to extrapolate from our responses to this very specific case and generalize what our positions would be in hypothetical scenarios that are unrelated to the question of whether a rape victim should be forced to take her children to visit her rapist in jail even though the children do not actually want to see him.

    this is engaging in strawmen arguments. engaging in strawmen arguments is trolling. engaging in strawmen arguments causes thread drift. engaging in active and sustained thread drift and strawmen arguments when you have been told repeatedly that this behavior is undesireable is also trolling.

    After all, committing crimes is inimical to proper parenting. Their are plenty of parents that choose to act in ways that are not good examples for children.

    i delineated a specific position: criminals who commit violent crimes are not fit parents. you pretended that i said something quite different: all those who have been convicted of crimes are unfit parents. that is not the argument i made. it is a much weaker one than the one i actually did make, and thus is a strawman.

    This vengeful tendency is why we imprison more people per capita than anywhere else on the face of the earth and we still have people who want more blood.

    no one here said that any drop of blood should be extracted from this man. since no one made this argument, you are arguing with a strawman. again.

    I know a lot of people here would have this guy castrated, put in a cage for the rest of his life with no human contact or comfort. That is not justice though.

    again, no one said this. you’re even claiming to be able to mind-read us here. then you go on to say that we said he should be keep in the equivalent of solitary confinement for life. strawman and thread drift all over again.

  32. Kat, hopefully the judge has the sense to get a CASA or a guardian ad litem in charge of these kids during this trial.

  33. That’s true Kat… I didn’t think of it that way. If it were me and my kids, I guess I would feel like I had to be the one to take them, I’d be afraid what would happen if I didn’t.

  34. Oh, and yes Jason… I would feel exactly the same if we were talking about a woman who had tried to murder her husband. If I tried to kill my husband and didn’t suceed, I would under no circumstance feel like I had the right to see my daughter. Unless I had tried to kill him because he was abusing her, but I fail to see any room for that defense in this case (I mean, “of course I raped her your honor, but I only did it because she was abusing our kids” just doesn’t sound right). When people show that amount of depravity and indifference towards another person, I feel that they lose the right to influence their children. Same with excessive spanking, verbal abuse, neglect, etc… There was a woman arrested in my town recently, she had a child who had been so neglected that he weighed 15 pounds at age 5 and had lice crawling over his body to the point where it was visible. They took him and his sister away and gave custody to the father. I would think it would be perfectly appropriate to say “Listen, until you can prove that you have your act together, you cannot have access to your children. Period”. Because frankly, what’s more important in this case, the rights of the father to see his children or the rights of the children to be free from harmful and negative influences?

  35. The rapist might feel that he did nothing wrong, and that he simply wants to see his children.

    But the children don’t want to see him, and it seems pretty clear that it would be traumatic for them to see him, as well as further traumatizing their mother.

    Protecting the children should be the first impulse in this case – not ensuring the father’s rights. And it seems to me that protecting them means keeping them out of that prison for visits.

  36. I think that the isue here is not simply that he committed rape and was convicted of his crime, but that the children in question are actually the products of his crime, and their mother his victim. I think that this should fall under the rubric of the old principle that a person not be able to profit from a criminal act; that is, he should not have the right to enjoy benefits from the act he committed (such as the right to see the children produced). The decision to grant him visitation is ridiculous.

  37. Women who don’t get out of abusive situations have been faced with losing their kids for “neglecting” them and exposing them to the harm witnessing abuse and living in an abusive environment can cause. Even though abusers often get some form of custody and continue to stalk, harass, and harm their exes and their children.

    Men who rape and abuse the mother of their children are entitled to see their children while doing their time. The concerns about exposing children to a harmful and abusive environment suddenly evaporate.

  38. Me Again-

    Feel free to post a comment, but we’re not going to let comments through that copy and paste entire op/eds. If you want to link to the op/ed, feel free.

  39. “The courts have recognized, when examining the facts and circumstances, it is beneficial to children to maintain a relationship with their father,” McCormick said. “We need to trust the courts’ decisions on that.”

    Wait one second…. I was distinctly under the impression that “Men’s Right’s” groups had gathered together under the banner of fighting unjust court decisions about divorce, allamony, custody and visitaion rights. I see though, that THIS court ruling is one that should be trusted implicity and without question of bias. Obviously.

    Additionally, the “facts and circumstances” mentioned that seem to suggest that “it is beneficial to children to maintain a relationship with their father” actually are studies that note the correlation between healthy developement and having contact with BOTH parents as opposed to ONE parent. The assumtion that this necessarily means FATHERS are the ones being jilted out of their fair custody (as we know is their actual viewpoint)belies their comedic suggestion that they are, in fact, standing up for the rights of jilted parents of either gender, including physically abused men. As if pretending to not aknowledge the disparity between male and female domestic violence isn’t enough, they claim to be attempting to help male victims of violenc by trying to shut down abuse shelters for women. Also, these studies showing better developement of children with their fathers around ignore the cause and effect relationship that seperation of any kind has on children, and the more frequently unhealthy, low-income or unhappy homelives that coincide with many eventual seperations.

    As a woman I am constantly horrified to see the most basic rights and privileges of everyone except women being afforded such intense scrutany. Finally, if you were at all interested in the ideology of these “Father’s” groups, check this out, some unbiased myth-busting from http://www.angryharry.com/

    “Were Women Oppressed in the West? – No. Not compared to the oppression faced by men.”
    “Men Earn Quarter of a Million Pounds more than Women – but it mostly gets spent on women”
    “Did Women Really Want To Go Out To Work? – no, they did not ”
    “Is the Training of Women Doctors A Waste of Money? – yep ”
    “[Are} Men..More ‘Domestically Violent’ Towards Women than are Women Towards Men[?] Not True. Only Women Are Offered An Alternative To Domestic Violence – which is why they are more often killed by their partners than are men.”

    Oh, LMFAO, is that why?

Comments are currently closed.