Rape victim to pay child support to her rapist
 

Man, 30, rapes girl, 16, who gets pregnant and has a baby.

16 years later, man sues for custody of the child and is granted it. The mother (Abelseth) is forced to pay man's legal fees and contribute child support to him.

"He's well connected," Abelseth said. "He's threatened me multiple times, saying he has connections in the justice system, so I better be careful and he can take her away anytime he wants to. I didn't believe him until it happened."

Now child rapist has custody of child who is the same age as his last (known) victim. Something about this seems wrong, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

https://www.wbrz.com/news/investigat...child-support/

This is in modern day Louisianna, USA? What in the ever loving ****!?!?!? There has got to be some seriously criminal complacency going on at various levels of government to pull this kind of travesty off. Who is this rapist?

There's a lot I don't understand about this (the writing is all over the place,) but the father was given full custody because of a cell phone? I feel we're missing about 90% of what that's about.

As far as ignoring the rape goes, it (horribly) seems par for the course nowadays. Unless a woman shows up beat to hell at the hospital, someone will find a way to "wahtabout" it to death.

Jesus I'm glad I don't live in that area of the country. I'm especially glad I don't have any female loved ones who do.

From the article:


Only, there is no proof she was raped, right? They keep claiming she was raped by this man, but was he ever charged and convicted? I know she filed something of a report 10 years later, but I don't see how they can call him a rapist? I would think that could land them in some hot water?

Also, how did he "find out" about the child? That seems odd, unless they had some sort of continuing relationship, or he was stalking her?

Yeah, a lot is missing in this story.

When I saw the OP, I thought that this must be some third world country, but no, it's freaking Louisiana! Now I'm less surprised.

I agree, there's got to be a lot missing here, but still, unless she's got a criminal record and has had lots of run-ins with the child services people, I find this hard to understand.

The story says that as she was 16 when the baby was conceived, then the sex was illegal. I am unfamiliar with the age of consent in Louisiana - perhaps someone who is can chime in? If that's the case then it was rape by definition, as someone under the age of consent cannot consent to sex.

Her claim isn't statutory rape, though. Neither is that what the article is saying occurred. So, I am saying, he hasn't been charged, and he hasn't been convicted of any crime, but they are labeling him a rapist in the most egregious manner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

No doubt they need to pursue the case. But even with him fathering the child, I suspect there are a lot of possible outcomes besides a rape conviction.

Yep just the word of a "Split Tail." Women are always lying about that.

Hardly seems to matter, does it? 30 yr old bangs a tennybopper at that time, yeah that's a rape, statutory or no. She says it was rape pretty deadpan, with no further description, so it could have been consensual on her part at the time. But it doesn't matter. Bang a little girl when you're a full grown man, that's the dice you rolled. If he doesn't like the label, he could have stuck with grown-ups.

There are other possibilities.

First, she may have represented that she was older. What if, and who knows, he took her home from an establishment that didn't allow those under 18? Did she commonly use an illegitimate ID? And then, on top of that, it could have been consensual.

So, yeah, I'd say the fact that the report was submitted 10 years after-the-fact, and that there are no pending charges or conviction, probably influences whether we can justifiably call this man a rapist at this point.

Yes it's a decade long con game to pay *checks notes* be the one that has to pay child support. Surely a criminal mastermind.

CIVIL DEBATE everyone.

When I was in my teens and early 20's, age was like a serious consideration at any meeting with a new lass. Like, not a trivial concern, and I was no genius. Any 30 yr old has no excuse when sniffing on a teen except that he doesn't give a ****.

But he did give a **** anyway, and an unprotected one at that. The rapist label fits fine.

Got to wonder what kind of mother the 32 year old mom has been.

And/or, at 16 courts give credence to the child's choice.

It's not against the law to have sex with 18-year olds, is it? This is the sort of thing that could reasonably be expected to happen in exactly the scenario I described. And I seriously doubt you would see a rape conviction.


On top of that, yeah, we can't go around labeling people as criminals when they actually haven't been proven as such.

16 is legal in Alabama.
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...-rape-laws.htm

Assuming the article is correct in her age when it happened, which should be obvious from the date of the child's birth, then by definition this was statutory rape. I'll assume that the age of consent has been stable in Louisiana for the past 17 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_o...ates#Louisiana

Given the empirical evidence, I don't think anyone is taking a risk in calling him a rapist. Now, she states that it was not consensual sex, and therefore forced or coerced rape. But that is immaterial. Even is she is lying about that, he is still guilty of (felony) statutory rape. The child is empirical proof of that fact.

The problems with this case have nothing to do with the use of the term "rapist." Other than the POS himself, the police taking no action on an open and shut case in seven years. And, yes, it is open and shut, at least on the stautory part of it. Louisiana does not allow the Mistake of Age Defense:
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...-rape-laws.htm

Now, does that mean that she is a good mother? No. But it does mean that it is a factual statement that custody was given to a rapist of a child that was conceived during that rape.

This happened in Louisiana. Hammond, Louisiana.

The age of consent in Alabama is irrelevant.

As stated previously:

In most states, including Louisiana, it is still statutory rape even if you thought they were older. Even if they lied about their age.


In this case, proof of paternity is proof of rape.

If you had read what I posted, you would know that your scenario is irrelevant.
She could have lied her ass off and provided fake ID. He would still be considered guilty of statutory rape in Louisiana.

I read it and found it unconvincing.

Show me that outcome in court. Because if a man takes all reasonable precautions to verify age, including an ID check, and is deliberately misled, he should not be found guilty of rape.

If he is, that is the real crime.

The story says that sometime around when her daughter was 5 years old the father pursued and won 50/50 custody. So presumably the daughter has been living with him half the time for something like 11 years. Really the only part that she seems unhappy with is having to pay child support.

She filed charges seven years ago, which precedes the award of child support.

She doesn't seem too thrilled about the rape, either.

Statutory rape is one where your belief is irrelevant.

She could produce a birth certificate showing that she was 18 and a voter ID card, but if it shown later to be fake, you are still guilty.

Not in every state. For example, CA:


Now, I read the LA law in question. It does say that not knowing the person's age is not a defense. But I would think that the way people are sentenced and penalized would take this into account, or perhaps even impact the charges brought forth. This case is right on the borderline of such charges as it is, with the age of consent being 17 (assuming it was the same as current law).

And as I said earlier, if a man does everything reasonable to verify age of consent before engaging in consensual sex, and is then convicted of rape, he is the victim...imo.

I don't know how any reasonable person could see it any other way.

Another point of interest is that the article says she was 16 "at the time of conception". Is this just a claim, or verified fact?

Did she give birth then, at 17? Is there any possibility that she was actually 17 (presumed age of consent) when the child was conceived? This could be cut and dry to prove, or it could be very questionable depending on her full age when she gave birth.

So again, plenty of questions in the case.

If you guys could find it in your trolly hearts to stop trolling Warp12 (while complaining forum wide about getting rid of trolls), there is the little matter of a particularly horrendous series of travesties here?

This guy raped the girl. DNA and date of the child's birth date put this beyond dispute. So how does he gain custody? How unfit a mother could she possibly be for the court to award custody to a man under "active" investigation for raping her?

Is the smart money on him having major friends in high places? His line of work seems pretty pedestrian for that level of influence.

Are we certain of this?


So, while I'm all for investigating her claims, which should have been done long ago, I'm just saying there are a lot of unanswered questions.

I doubt that is the case. I bet it is something more mundane...like misrepresented facts in the article, general incompetence, or significant information that is not being conveyed.

The article is written in a manner to generate outrage, not seriously analyze the details of the case.

That’s just one “unanswered question”.

And it’s actually not unanswered or a question.

You’re just choosing to not believe the information that’s been provided.

Unless there is a massive, game changing math error that somehow got by everyone involved, we should accept it as fact. Twould be a rather massive bald faced lie to hinge the main factor on an easily disproved calendar consultation.

Should it turn out to be "whoopsie, math error", I do so solemnly swear never to give benefit of the doubt to reporting again.

Agreed. The story is so off-the-wall that it's hard to believe it could possibly happen. I'm riding on this guy being some kind of incredible puppet master, or the woman having a violent or neglectful history that wasn't mentioned. Not victim blaming, but trying to figure out some plausible way this could have gone down.

Yes, the idea of the police not doing their jobs is so far-fetched.

There certainly haven’t been any catastrophic examples of police incompetence recently that I can think of…

Ok, I'll agree that the story is presented to prompt sharpening pitchforks. But that makes it all the worse for the woman if she is found to be deceptive, no?

This is more than just police, though. Family court and ripping a child out of the care of her mother is no rubber stamp procedure.

I'm saying, there have to be more details. And significant ones. And I bet they aren't related to the accused guy having massive sway in the justice system.

Hard to believe that this is taking place in a society that has always placed such a high value on protecting women and victims of sexual violence.

Yeah, I hear that. But taking a child from her custody after she raised her for 16 years? That's unicorn stuff, unless the woman had more than a nodding acquaintance with police and DYFS. And come on- to her demonstrable rapist???

It's a small, Southern town. He's a white dude with connections in law enforcement. Not only is it not outside of the realm of possibility, it isn't even surprising.

Do you remember a couple of years ago when a Black guy was murdered in Georgia and the local cops and DA weren't going to do anything about it?

How is this any more far-fetched than that?

Well, it could make it worse...or she just may be in a place in her life where she has nothing else to lose. We really don't know.

But seeing the number of gaps in the story, and the emotional way it is written, doesn't give me a lot of faith in any of the information presented.