Well, she's going to accuse him of rape before a judge in the process of trying to get her hands on her inheritance, so they'll turn it around on her.
She has a sizable inheritance -- a large farm -- locked up in a trust. She can't get her hands on it until she marries. Her late father left her the land, but figured a woman couldn't run a farm and deal with the hands (it's a partly a cotton and vegetable/melon farm, so it'd be labor intensive), so he put it in a trust.
The boy is the son of the trustee. The father wants his son (the rapist) to marry her; failing that, he wants her declared unfit* and custody of the baby given to his son. He's a fairly influential, and very unethical, man. He figures that once his son has custody of the baby (eliminating the "she might disappear with the kid and pop up after she's found a husband" problem) they'll make
her disappear.
*Unfit = they're accusing her of making a living as a prostitute and being mentally ill. With false testimony from a vindictive neighbor. She's been ordered not to leave town, and she's given her word she won't -- and she keeps her promises. (And she has a few good friends who will disappear the baby if need be, once he's born. She promised
she would stick around -- not that she wouldn't hand the baby to friends to prevent him from ending up in his father's custody.)
Note: The lawsuit won't get very far; she ends up finding a husband, and her so-called pimp is actually a
very wealthy man (and purely a platonic friend) living incognito, who sics his solicitors on the two of them.
What I want to know is if it's actually a plausible threat, or if a father trying for custody of a newborn baby who isn't even weaned yet would get them laughed out of court.