It doesn't make sense, nor is it fair or right that the court system is forcing a 15-year old, a minor child, to pay child support to a person accused of statutory rape.

Bathia_Mapes: It doesn't make sense, nor is it fair or right that the court system is forcing a 15-year old, a minor child, to pay child support to a person accused of statutory rape.

I don't really expect logic from the family court system.

Bathia_Mapes: It doesn't make sense, nor is it fair or right that the court system is forcing a 15-year old, a minor child, to pay child support to a person accused of statutory rape.

"Now, a judge has ordered him to pay $50 a month in child support and set visitation at seven hours a week."

Boo hoo, they took his allowance away.

ArbitraryConstant: Bathia_Mapes: It doesn't make sense, nor is it fair or right that the court system is forcing a 15-year old, a minor child, to pay child support to a person accused of statutory rape.

"Now, a judge has ordered him to pay $50 a month in child support and set visitation at seven hours a week."

Boo hoo, they took his allowance away.

you completely missed the point. That's an amazing bit of doublethink.

Britney has another sister?

Weaver95: you completely missed the point. That's an amazing bit of doublethink.

meh. 15 is old enough to take some responsibility for your actions.

Just because an adult shouldn't be having sex with a 15 year old doesn't mean kids of that age can be held blameless for their actions.

ArbitraryConstant: Bathia_Mapes: It doesn't make sense, nor is it fair or right that the court system is forcing a 15-year old, a minor child, to pay child support to a person accused of statutory rape.

"Now, a judge has ordered him to pay $50 a month in child support and set visitation at seven hours a week."

Boo hoo, they took his allowance away.

You can't be serious. Please post and tell us you were joking so you can save some face.

I had an employee who was 19 with a 5 year old daughter. The father of the kid was 27 and lived in HUD housing. He sued her and won for child support. She was working two jobs, going to college, and had her daughter 3 days on 3 days off in the dumbest custody agreement I've ever seen. He hadn't worked in 2 years but applied for welfare as a single father and they came after her for support. She had to give that jackass $400 a month and he hardly ever actually got the kid.

Also he had it put into the court order that she wasn't allowed to move anywhere with his permission and until the child was 18 she wasn't allowed to move outside the county or she'd forfeit custody. When her mom found out she was trying to get an abortion she locked her daughter inside the house until she was too far along to get one. then once the baby came out it was "Well it's your responsibility now. I'm not helping you raise it."

Most farked up situation I'd ever seen in my life.

in-farking-credible.

ArbitraryConstant: Weaver95: you completely missed the point. That's an amazing bit of doublethink.

meh. 15 is old enough to take some responsibility for your actions.

Just because an adult shouldn't be having sex with a 15 year old doesn't mean kids of that age can be held blameless for their actions.

So you're really ok with a rapist getting money from the rape victim...? Remember the bit that's important here - the 'convicted rapist' bit.

Weaver95: Remember the bit that's important here - the 'convicted rapist' bit.

Don't waste the electrons, it's clearly futile.

Weaver95: I don't really expect logic from the family court system.

The legislature writes the laws. If they want to carve out a magic exception for this, that's their prerogative.

In this case a 18 year old isn't raping a 15 year old. All that abuser stuff is a bunch of crap. Now she maybe be a total psycho biatch and it abusing him mentally NOW. Consensual sex between a 19 and 15 year old shouldn't be criminal.

Weaver95: So you're really ok with a rapist getting money from the rape victim...? Remember the bit that's important here - the 'convicted rapist' bit.

Remember the bit that's important here: she hasn't been "convicted" yet.

Weaver95: ArbitraryConstant: Weaver95: you completely missed the point. That's an amazing bit of doublethink.

meh. 15 is old enough to take some responsibility for your actions.

Just because an adult shouldn't be having sex with a 15 year old doesn't mean kids of that age can be held blameless for their actions.

So you're really ok with a rapist getting money from the rape victim...? Remember the bit that's important here - the 'convicted rapist' bit.

Yeah but the "convicted rapist" thing is a bunch of shiat drawn up by the legislature to look tough on child molesters. They were having a sexual relationship at his parent's house and after she moved in with the kid's sister.

Weaver95: So you're really ok with a rapist getting money from the rape victim...? Remember the bit that's important here - the 'convicted rapist' bit.

It's statutory rape by virtue of his age at the time of conception. I'm not sure why his age should render him blameless if he was willing.

Dumb kids get slapped on the wrist all the time.

Gwendolyn: shouldn't be criminal.

"Shouldn't be" and "isn't" are not the same thing. It's criminal, like it or not.

ArbitraryConstant: Bathia_Mapes: It doesn't make sense, nor is it fair or right that the court system is forcing a 15-year old, a minor child, to pay child support to a person accused of statutory rape.

"Now, a judge has ordered him to pay $50 a month in child support and set visitation at seven hours a week."

Boo hoo, they took his allowance away.

So you have no problems in forcing the rape victim, granted a victim of statutory rape in this case, to pay child support to their rapist? Would the same apply if it was forcible rape?

Bathia_Mapes: So you have no problems in forcing the rape victim, granted a victim of statutory rape in this case, to pay child support to their rapist? Would the same apply if it was forcible rape?

He's paying support to the child.

What if the guy was 19 and the girl was 15? Would the outcome be the same? I think not.

kronicfeld: Weaver95: So you're really ok with a rapist getting money from the rape victim...? Remember the bit that's important here - the 'convicted rapist' bit.

Remember the bit that's important here: she hasn't been "convicted" yet.

But she will be and you know it.

ArbitraryConstant: Weaver95: So you're really ok with a rapist getting money from the rape victim...? Remember the bit that's important here - the 'convicted rapist' bit.

It's statutory rape by virtue of his age at the time of conception. I'm not sure why his age should render him blameless if he was willing.

Dumb kids get slapped on the wrist all the time.

so....rape victims can consent to their rape...?

Weaver95: But she will be and you know it.

Perhaps, but the courts cannot act on supposition and conjecture such as that.

kronicfeld: Weaver95: But she will be and you know it.

Perhaps, but the courts cannot act on supposition and conjecture such as that.

From what I understand of family court, that is exactly what they're supposed to do.

Bathia_Mapes: So you have no problems in forcing the rape victim, granted a victim of statutory rape in this case, to pay child support to their rapist? Would the same apply if it was forcible rape?

Of course not, but if we're throwing out hypotheticals what would you say if he'd knocked up another 15 year old? I don't have any trouble believing a 15 year old boy consented to sex.

That doesn't make it right, but it also doesn't render him blameless.

ArbitraryConstant: That doesn't make it right, but it also doesn't render him blameless.

so you're ok with punishing the victim...? I just wanted to be clear on this one.

Weaver95: From what I understand of family court, that is exactly what they're supposed to do.

You understand sh*t then. Bear in mind you're talking to a family law attorney.

Weaver95: so you're ok with punishing the victim...? I just wanted to be clear on this one.

How is his paying to support his biological child, over whom is certainly going to have parental rights one way or another, "punishing" him?

kronicfeld: Weaver95: From what I understand of family court, that is exactly what they're supposed to do.

You understand sh*t then. Bear in mind you're talking to a family law attorney.

so you're ok with a rape victim paying child support to his rapist?

Weaver95: so you're ok with a rape victim paying child support to his rapist?

Prior to an actual hearing on custody based on that "rape," yes.

kronicfeld: Weaver95: so you're ok with a rape victim paying child support to his rapist?

Prior to an actual hearing on custody based on that "rape," yes.

*sigh*

lawyers.

Weaver95: so you're ok with a rape victim paying child support to his rapist?

Also, he's paying support TO HIS CHILD, not "to his rapist."

Weaver95: *sigh*

lawyers.

Wait, Mr. Law and Order and Mr. Anti-Government, you're telling me you'd like the government to establish respective rights summarily and on the basis of pure allegation, without the benefit of due process and a full evidentiary hearing on the merits? Is that what you're saying? And you're lamenting the fact that someone is advocating due process? Really?

kronicfeld: Weaver95: so you're ok with a rape victim paying child support to his rapist?

Also, he's paying support TO HIS CHILD, not "to his rapist."

split hairs all you want, that kid won't be cashing the checks. come to think of it, can mommy cash them from the joint? I guess we'll find out.

it's always interesting to watch the abuses that occur when criminal law meets the family court system. everyone just does thier job, nods sagely and lets the injustice grind all parties down into the dirt.

kronicfeld: Weaver95: *sigh*

lawyers.

Wait, Mr. Law and Order and Mr. Anti-Government, you're telling me you'd like the government to establish respective rights summarily and on the basis of pure allegation, without the benefit of due process and a full evidentiary hearing on the merits? Is that what you're saying? And you're lamenting the fact that someone is advocating due process? Really?

I think it's just wonderful that a rape victim can be forced to pay his rapist.

Weaver95: so you're ok with punishing the victim...? I just wanted to be clear on this one.

I think you're taking liberties with your semantics here.

The whole reasoning behind statutory rape is that minors can't meaningfully offer consent. That doesn't mean the kid didn't consent, just that the woman had no business accepting his consent. But to whatever extent he can consent, he's responsible. If she'd been 15 and he got the same slap on the wrist, nobody would be complaining.

Well, same sex, older woman, how does that diminish his responsibility?

Weaver95: I think it's just wonderful that a rape victim can be forced to pay his rapist.

You seriously think of this kid as a victim. You do realize that she didn't tie him down and force him to have sex. He's not mentally disabled.

This lurker normally agrees with you but that is some serious bullshiat right there. A fifteen year old failed to use protection (the dumbass) and now has to take some responsibility for his actions. That's what this is about. Victim my ass.

Weaver95: I think it's just wonderful that a rape victim can be forced to pay his rapist.

I do think it depends a lot more on the circumstances of the "crime." If it was statutory rape and not forcible, then there's a decent likelihood that the sex was consensual, the minor's parents found out, and they filed the criminal charges. Despite the 19-year-old committing a "crime," the fifteen-year-old in this instance should bear at least some responsibility for an act in which he may have willingly participated.

If you believe that, because he's a minor, he should be let off the hook entirely in regards to future responsibilities, then you're no longer allowed to charge any minor as an adult for any crime.

Well, that's because a 15-year-old guy engaging in sex is a delinquent horndog, whereas a 15-year-old girl engaging in sex is an innocent victim of rape.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

DaNightTripper: Well, that's because a 15-year-old guy engaging in sex is a delinquent horndog, whereas a 15-year-old girl engaging in sex is an innocent victim of rape.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

I don't believe the latter is true, necessarily, either.

Well if there is a moral behind this story, it is:

DON'T RAPE PEOPLE!!!!!!

angryjd: Well if there is a moral behind this story, it is:

DON'T RAPE PEOPLE!!!!!!

But livestock is still okay?

Weaver95: I think it's just wonderful that a rape victim can be forced to pay his rapist.

The second she's convicted, and there is a hearing on custody, she loses the child. Get your head out of your ass, you're smarter than this and you know it.

What a load of poopy ca-ca. This is the sort of case where the term rape is inappropriate and insulting.

I'm granting custody of the child to the local orphanarium.

/Case dismissed

Step 1: RAPE
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!

/ cant believe im the first

Weaver95: So you're really ok with a rapist getting money from the rape victim...? Remember the bit that's important here - the 'convicted rapist' bit.

I'm amused by the fact that Weaver calls him a rape victim, but in threads where the minor is a girl and her boyfriend is facing charges for statutory rape, the words "rape victim" never cross his screen.

/And then he accuses others of doublethink.

Weaver95: So you're really ok with a rapist getting money from the rape victim...?

It's to the child, not the mother. Court is looking at the baby's welfare, not at how the baby got there. Someone has got to pay for that kid until it turns 18, if not the parents then it will be the state.

I don't see anywhere in the article where it mentions rape, so it seems as if he wanted to do it. Why should he not pay?

Weaver95: ArbitraryConstant: Bathia_Mapes: It doesn't make sense, nor is it fair or right that the court system is forcing a 15-year old, a minor child, to pay child support to a person accused of statutory rape.

"Now, a judge has ordered him to pay $50 a month in child support and set visitation at seven hours a week."

Boo hoo, they took his allowance away.

you completely missed the point. That's an amazing bit of doublethink.

this.

I have a perfect solution.
(1) take the child away and give it to an adoptive family.
(2) kill everyone else including the judge
(3) profit (to society)