Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The Rape Survivor Family Protection Act unanimously passed both chambers of the state's general assembly last week. It allows a victim to ask a court to terminate a rapist's parental rights, even if the attacker hasn't been convicted of the crime, as long as there's 'clear and convincing evidence' of guilt.
Gov. Larry Hogan said he'll sign it."
This is disturbing. Maybe the legal eagles on CD can shed some light? If a full investigation and/or a criminal trial could not produce "clear and convincing evidence" to convict, how does one produce said evidence?
The burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is a higher standard that "clear and convincing evidence." In most civil matters, the burden of proof is "by a preponderance of the evidence," which is generally described as 51%. That's why people can be acquitted in criminal matters and then sued for damages in a civil trial for the same actions.
"Clear and convincing evidence" falls in between the criminal standard and the civil standard. It's often the burden of proof in things like child custody cases and other civil and criminal matters.
All this means is that the Democratic lawyers in the Maryland Legislature found a work around after not voting it out of committee for that last 8 or 9 years.
The burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is a higher standard that "clear and convincing evidence." In most civil matters, the burden of proof is "by a preponderance of the evidence," which is generally described as 51%. That's why people can be acquitted in criminal matters and then sued for damages in a civil trial for the same actions.
"Clear and convincing evidence" falls in between the criminal standard and the civil standard. It's often the burden of proof in things like child custody cases and other civil and criminal matters.
I was thinking they'd go the civil route. So, they would have to take it to family court, yes?
It is very disturbing to think that a man that raped a woman would have any rights at all over the child when he gets out of jail. I am sure somewhere out there is a rapist that sued and won the right to see his child that resulted from the crime on the weekends.
That is pretty sick.
We do need to be careful with this case though because I could see a crafty woman with a good lawyer successfully bar her ex husband from seeing his child because she claims in court that the night the kid was conceived she had a bit too much to drink and even though she was a willing participant her husband should have known better then to mess around with her when she was drunk.
In the interest of the child end the rapist's parental rights but not financial obligations.
Based on accusations that could not get a conviction? If such an accusation can result in a loss of visitation rights but a sustained requirement to pay child support, I predict a sharp rise in rape accusations coming up here in child custody cases. And not because fathers are about to get more rapey!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
