Karen Czapanskiy, Professor Emerita, Univ. of Maryland Carey School of Law, forwarded an issue that may be of interest to LWV members to League member Ellen West, Ellen.West42 [at] gmail.com

 

Between 17,000 and 32,000 rape-related pregnancies are estimated to occur each year in the United States, and between half and two-thirds of these pregnancies result in the birth of a child, most of whom remain in the care of their mother. Allowing the perpetrator of the rape to be involved in the life of the child and the mother usually results in trauma and distress. Nonetheless, the perpetrator usually has a legal right to be recognized as a parent, be involved in the life of the child, and prevent the adoption of the child by others.

 

In 2018, the Maryland Legislature passed the Rape Survivor Family Protection Act. The law empowers a court to terminate the parental rights of a perpetrator of nonconsensual sexual conduct when that conduct resulted in the conception of the child, so long as the court concludes that termination is in the best interests of the child. Unfortunately, the barriers against termination are so high that not a single order is known to have been ordered. 

 

One barrier is the entitlement of an alleged perpetrator to appointment of counsel, a right which does not exist in other private civil matters and which probably increases the alleged perpetrator’s likelihood of success. Another barrier is the standard of proof: both the sexual offense and the best interest of the child must be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence. The usual standard in civil matters, preponderance of the evidence, would be easier for the mother to meet. Termination is harder when the alleged perpetrator is married to the mother than not, although marital status makes no difference in terms of the trauma experienced by the child or mother. The statute insulates the perpetrator from financial responsibility for the child, even though conception occurred only because of the perpetrator’s gross violation of another person’s bodily integrity.

 

Five years of experience may give the Legislature reason to reconsider the barriers to termination and adopt provisions more like those in many other states. I encourage the LWV to study the question.