Fox 25 News in Boston posted a story yesterday about a rapist who is requesting visiting rights to the child he fathered in the rape. Seriously?

The story reports:

An admitted Massachusetts rapist is seeking visitation rights to the child he fathered after raping his underage victim, setting the stage for a precedent-setting legal fight in the Bay State.

There is a sentence in this story that indicates where our society is going:

The attorney for the man who admitted raping the teenager would not comment on his client’s fight for visitation rights. But he did claim the relationship was consensual, even though he acknowledged it was inappropriate, given the victim was only 14 and his client was 20.

The bottom line:

“The consequences of sentencing this man to probation for 16 years, which is really until the child becomes an adult, and making him declare paternity and pay child support, includes that this guy gets a legal father-child relationship out of the deal,” Murphy (family attorney attorney Wendy Murphy) said.

Murphy has filed a motion with the court, asking the judge to amend the sentencing conditions and order the man to pay restitution instead of child support, which would force him to support the child he fathered but not give him visitation and other parental rights.

Murphy’s motion also asks that the man be ordered to stay away from the mother and the child.

“All this family wants is to cut the cord. Get the rapist out of their lives. And if the judge wants to help them financially that’s great. But let’s call it restitution, not child support,” Murphy said.

It will be interesting to see how the court rules on this. I really can understand the judge’s decision for probation, but I think a restraining order should be included in that sentence to protect both the mother and the child. Regardless of whether or not you choose to blame the victim, it is obvious that the 20-year-old father had very poor judgement and very poor moral standards.