California could make it easier to strip alleged rapists of child custody

California lawmakers are considering legislation to make it easier to remove parental rights from alleged rapists when a child was conceived during the alleged assault. The proposal would create a presumption of unfitness if a court finds clear and convincing evidence that conception resulted from sexual assault. Exceptions would be allowed if both parents voluntarily agree to share parental rights. The measure is intended to reduce the likelihood that survivors must co-parent with someone who raped them. The clear and convincing standard is positioned between criminal proof beyond a reasonable doubt and civil proof by a preponderance of evidence. The proposal would not change child support obligations, and the number of affected cases is uncertain because birth data tied to sexual assault is not tracked.

"“No survivor should be forced to co-parent with the person who raped them,” state Sen. Caroline Menjivar (D-Panorama City) told the Senate Judiciary Committee last month. “It makes it likely that a survivor will be forced to deal with ongoing abuse and harassment.”"

"Senate Bill 1364, authored by Menjivar, would create a presumption that a father is also unfit to have child custody if the court finds “clear and convincing evidence” that the child was conceived from sexual assault. Exceptions would be allowed if both parents voluntarily agreed to share parental rights."

"Elizabeth Kristen, legal director of the California Women's Law Center, which supports the legislation, explained that there are different legal standards of proof. She said a criminal court conviction requires proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the highest standard, whereas winning a civil court case requires only a preponderance of evidence, meaning one party must show that their claims are more likely true than not. Clear and convincing evidence falls in the middle."

"“This would be a high burden, just not as high of a burden as we have now,” Kristen said. “It would still be a difficult standard to meet.” Those who felt a judge had ruled in error could appeal, she added."

Read at Los Angeles Times