ALLcrimesfood&drugstaxestelecomcommercehealthconservationtransportationagricultureveteransbrowse all titles »
0

34 U.S.C. § 21302Findings

submitted 11 years ago by Pub. L. 114-22 to r/title-34-CRIME-CONTROL-AND-LAW-ENFORCEMENT · 254 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

Congress explains why it passed this law about children conceived through rape. It notes that rape is under-prosecuted, most states lack a clear way for survivors to end a rapist's parental rights, and forcing survivors to interact with rapists over custody causes lasting harm.

Congress found the following: (1) Men who father children through rape should be barred from visiting or having custody of those children. (2) Thousands of rape-related pregnancies happen every year in the United States. (3) Many women choose to raise a child conceived through rape, and as a result may end up in custody fights with their rapists. (4) Rape is one of the most under-prosecuted serious crimes -- fewer than 5 percent of rapes end in a criminal conviction, by some estimates. (5) Among the states, territories, and the District of Columbia, "clear and convincing evidence" is the most common standard used to terminate parental rights. (6) In Santosky v. Kramer (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that the "clear and convincing evidence" standard satisfies due process when terminating or restricting parental rights. (7) Only 10 states currently let rape survivors petition to terminate a rapist's parental rights, based on clear and convincing evidence that the child was conceived through rape. (8) When a rapist pursues parental or custody rights, the survivor must keep interacting with him. This can traumatize the survivor psychologically and make it harder for her to recover. (9) That trauma can badly hurt the survivor's ability to raise a healthy child. (10) Rapists may threaten to pursue custody or parental rights to pressure survivors into not prosecuting the rape, or to otherwise harass, intimidate, or manipulate them.
the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain

Congress finds the following:

(1)

Men who father children through rape should be prohibited from visiting or having custody of those children.

(2)

Thousands of rape-related pregnancies occur annually in the United States.

(3)

A substantial number of women choose to raise their child conceived through rape and, as a result, may face custody battles with their rapists.

(4)

Rape is one of the most under-prosecuted serious crimes, with estimates of criminal conviction occurring in less than 5 percent of rapes.

(5)

The clear and convincing evidence standard is the most common standard for termination of parental rights among the 50 States, territories, and the District of Columbia.

(6)

The Supreme Court established that the clear and convincing evidence standard satisfies due process for allegations to terminate or restrict parental rights in Santosky v. Kramer (455 U.S. 745 (1982)).

(7)

Currently only 10 States have statutes allowing rape survivors to petition for the termination of parental rights of the rapist based on clear and convincing evidence that the child was conceived through rape.

(8)

A rapist pursuing parental or custody rights causes the survivor to have continued interaction with the rapist, which can have traumatic psychological effects on the survivor, and can make it more difficult for her to recover.

(9)

These traumatic effects on the mother can severely negatively impact her ability to raise a healthy child.

(10)

Rapists may use the threat of pursuing custody or parental rights to coerce survivors into not prosecuting rape, or otherwise harass, intimidate, or manipulate them.

Source credit: (Pub. L. 114–22, title IV, § 403, May 29, 2015, 129 Stat. 256.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit
  • 2015Enacted · Pub. L. 114-22 · 129 Stat. 256

A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 114-22 on 2015-05-29.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

0/280

no arguments yet — make the first case