Interesting

Rapist fathers should not have rights over their victims’ children

Presumably they don’t have the CSA after them to pay either?

Or doesn’t it work like that? We’re to create a class of fathers who must hand over the cash but have no other rights are we?

20 comments on “Interesting

  1. It used to be that the CSA would chase a rapist father of the child.
    Child around, mother on benefit, she didn’t have a choice about naming him unless wanted to lose £20 a week in benefits and a referral to the fraud office.

    These days? No idea.

    However paying CSA does not give parental rights or visitation.

  2. I don’t see a problem with this particular class of fathers having to pay without getting any rights (provided, of course, that they have been duly convicted of rape in a court of law). Prisoners pay tax but (until the ECJ got involved) did not have the vote.

    In any event, it’s probably quite theoretical – very much doubt rapists are the sort who pay up voluntarily or otherwise…

  3. “Presumably they don’t have the CSA after them to pay either?”
    In this particular case he has been sent to prison for 35 years (yes, yes, I know – remission) so the CSA isn’t going to get very much out of him.

  4. The headline is not unreasonable – it just doesn’t quite relate to the case mentioned in the article, where the father was being notified of private court proceedings, not being given any power over the court’s decision. But this is The Grauniad, so what do you expect?
    As to the CSA chasing them – certainly they should chase them, holding them responsible for the consequences of their actions.

  5. I thought the Human Rights Act was introduced precisely to give rights to scum like this, to stick two fingers up at the boring squares and to rub their noses in it. Alas, it is no longer boring squares, the bourgeois, who are on the wrong end but people the Guardian likes, and now these human rights are a problem.

  6. It’s not so much child support as restitution to the other victim of the crime – specifically the child who was conceived from the rape.

  7. “I thought the Human Rights Act was introduced precisely to give rights to scum like this…”

    Yup! Also, I have seen it argued that the Human Rights Act underpins the Good Friday Agreement, so we can never repeal the HRA because Ireland…

  8. “We’re to create a class of fathers who must hand over the cash but have no other rights are we?”

    Happy to. Can we castrate him as well before deportation?

  9. Well, my position is that parents have *NO* rights over children, solely responsibilities. If you sprog or cause to be sprogged, you have lifetime (until adult) responsibility for it.

  10. We’re to create a class of fathers who must hand over the cash but have no other rights are we?

    I’m fine with this, so long as they’re actually convicted of rape.

    We should want the consequences of rape to be all downside and no upside.

  11. Matthew L – Yarp. An obligation to aliment the child doesn’t, in itself, create rights on the part of the “father” (I’m not sure rape-dads should be called fathers. Surprise sperm donors?)

  12. The agreement is that citizens give up their guns in return for the State providing protection. Clearly the State failed on this occasion and it should be the State (OK tax payers) that provide for this woman and her child. If the State wants to go after the rapist then fair enough, but she and the child should be left alone.

    Which brings me to: wtf is going on with social workers and the like? What sort of person goes on meekly because its the law in this sort of case? There was a time when, for all their faults, they would have ignored the law and raised merry hell themselves. I’ll bet they’d be quicker if Tommy Robinson was involved.

    When it comes to criminals I tend to be a bit of a bleeding heart liberal, except for the violent. Anyone who carries out that sort of crime has forfeited their rights to things like voting or being involved in the offspring of their deeds and the rest of society’s benefits. The default should be that they lose in any question of a rights discussion whenever the victims right to privacy is concerned.

    Steve,

    “(I’m not sure rape-dads should be called fathers. Surprise Violent sperm donors?)”

    FTFY

  13. “We’re to create a class of fathers who must hand over the cash but have no other rights are we?” Go right ahead.

    Well, go right ahead once we can have some faith of verdicts of guilty in rape trials.

  14. Bloke in North Dorset – yes there have been times social workers have ignored the law and made their own decisions. Usually you find such stories in the media with such things as gay men being refused adoption because they are gay, children removed from foster carers because they vote Green – that kind of thing.

    I’m one of those who prefer social workers to stick to the law. For stuff where the law is an ass I prefer other people without the same responsibility to take action – such as helping a homeless 12 year old girl.
    Social workers must take certain actions, non social workers can be a bit more flexible.

  15. “We’re to create a class of fathers who must hand over the cash but have no other rights are we?”
    Sounds fair to me. Although I would lock him up for so long that “his” children would be grandparents before he gets out.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.