What on earth could a judge be thinking when he awards joint legal custody of an 8-year-old boy, who was the product of rape, to the man who raped his mother … when she was only 12-years-old!!! This is horrifying.
Wow. I am trying to figure out why his sentence was so lenient?? It wasn’t a case of statutory rape. Not only did he rape her, he kidnapped her as well.
Hopefully this creates a precedent that prevents this from ever happening anywhere else - and obviously bars the joint custody (twice a child molester! O_0)
“Family” preservation… Crazy.
Sometimes there is an issue of he-said, she-said in such cases: she says he raped her, he says it was consensual. But (1) he was convicted of the crime of raping her, and (2) he had to have had intercourse with her to produce this child, and since she was 12 it was rape by definition. What on earth are they thinking?
How the judge could even rule in his favor is just mind boggling.
In many US states, it is legal for rapists to sue for some custody and/or visitation rights of the child produced by their rape. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/17/health/parental-rights-rapists-explainer/index.html
Some details of this case worth highlighting (for the life of me, the link will not open on my phone) that may or may not be in the article:
-She dropped out of school and went to work to support her child. She had to go live with other relatives after her parents encouraged her to abort or give him up for adoption.
-He didn’t initiate custody proceedings. It was done when she applied for welfare benefits and they tracked down the father to figure out why he wasn’t contributing. This is the result of a law change in Michigan a few years ago which allows the state to find and order the absent parent (if there is one) to contribute to the child. Good in theory (maybe), but it has cost the state a lot more than it’s saved- which was supposed to be the point.
-He spent 6 months in jail before being released and raping another girl.
-The son is almost the age that the mother was when she was raped. How the hell is that not child endangerment by the courts to allow him anywhere near the boy?!
**Reminder that there are still many, many sects in this country that marry off young girls who have been raped by other church members. Example: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/opinion/sunday/it-was-forced-on-me-child-marriage-in-the-us.html
I wonder why the prosecutor accepted a plea deal of criminal sexual conduct in the third degree. It looks to me like any sexual penetration of someone under 13 would be criminal sexual conduct in the second degree. Since the only required element to prove that charge would the age of the victim and with DNA from the baby, it seems like that case should have been a guaranteed win for the prosecutor’s office.
Maybe the prosecutor wanted to spare the child from having to testify.
The judge didn’t have to give the rapist custody. Indeed, Michigan law prohibits giving the rapist custody.
CHILD CUSTODY ACT OF 1970 (EXCERPT)
Act 91 of 1970
722.25 Child custody dispute; controlling interests, presumption; award of custody to parent convicted of criminal sexual conduct or acts of nonconsensual sexual penetration; prohibition; support or maintenance obligation; defense; “offending parent” defined.
…
2) Notwithstanding other provisions of this act, if a child custody dispute involves a child who is conceived as the result of acts for which 1 of the child’s biological parents is convicted of criminal sexual conduct as provided in sections 520a to 520e and 520g of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.520a to 750.520e and 750.520g, or a substantially similar statute of another state or the federal government, or is found by clear and convincing evidence in a fact-finding hearing to have committed acts of nonconsensual sexual penetration, the court shall not award custody to that biological parent.
Yet another head-scratching moment brought to us courtesy of my often-backward state.
This case is VERY upsetting and scary! Wow!
To summarize romani’s link. AL MD MN MS ND NM WY all have NO laws protecting rape victims from custody fights. If you live in one of those states, please let your local reps know that you want this changed.
The rest of the states have laws protecting rape victims, but most of them require a conviction. Michigan’s was passed in 2016. Did the judge overrule it? Unbelievable! And she was a CHILD when he raped her!
I have been in a rage about this since I read it yesterday.
The article that I read confirms that the custody petition was a result of the mother filing for welfare benefits and was not an affirmative filing by the rapist. It’s a good idea in theory - mothers have to identify the fathers of their kids, who can be called upon to support the children instead of the taxpayers having to do so. However, it seems that the young woman and her son have attorneys who will fight this on their behalves. The man should have to support his child, but he should never be allowed to see him or his mother.
@greenwitch - Many laws are not retroactive, so if Michigan’s law was only passed in 2016, it might not apply in this case.
The custody law was already in effect when the judge gave custody to the rapist.
I don’t understand how getting child support from him triggered shared custody–that is beyond crazy. There can b support without custody or visitation. or very, very limited.
Mirasolo plea-bargained the charges to “attempted third-degree criminal sexual conduct”, according to the Detroit News article linked in post #0. Does the law quoted in reply #9 apply to those convicted of attempted criminal sexual conduct? If so, seems odd that the judge ignored it. If not, that seems like a loophole in the law (but if the law does not otherwise require granting custody, that judge’s decision still looks odd).
child custody law 722.25 referenced in reply #9: [url=<a href=“http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-722-25%5Dhttp://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-722-25%5B/url”>http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-722-25]http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-722-25[/url]
attempted crimes in 750.92: [url=<a href=“http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-92%5Dhttp://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-92%5B/url”>http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-92]http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-92[/url]
third degree criminal sexual conduct in 750.520d: [url=<a href=“http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-520d%5Dhttp://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-520d%5B/url”>http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-520d]http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-520d[/url]
Correct.
Want to be even more outraged? (I have not seen this anywhere else):
https://patch.com/michigan/across-mi/rapist-gets-joint-custody-child-fathered-attack-michigan-judge
There is a hearing on Oct 25.
I’m trying to figure out why this doesn’t qualify under the rape survivor custody act. I suspect it is something along the lines of him not being convicted of “rape.”