"He won't get the kid," eh? I wouldn't have thought he would get paroled....or get a court ruling in his favor, regarding parental rights, for that matter...but apparently those both happened. Accordingly, I can see some asshat of a judge granting him full custody, as well. If 'best interests of the child' were the operating principle here, the judge(s) failed miserably all the way around...what's to stop them from sticking to that pattern?He won't get the kid; he's a felon on parole and I would presume also now a registered sex offender. But she can keep him in court for a very long time and at tremendous cost.
The question in my mind is, why the hell did they allow a 14yo rape victim to have a kid to begin with?
To answer your question, the mother had no intention of 'allowing' her 14 year old to gestate this baby...but the daughter must have agreed to the abortion, or she wouldn't have been given one. Their motives / reasons for the abortion might have differed. From what I understand, dude was mom's boyfriend first. Circumstantial evidence supports the idea that mom wanted kid to abort, to keep from giving evidence of paternity...to keep the rape charge against him from materializing, due to the lack of same.
Nonetheless, the decision to abort the fetus is well within the legal purview of the daughter, and the legal procedure, for collecting DNA evidence of paternity from the products of conception, was not followed. Mom should be absolved of criminal charges, if there are any. JMO