International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Rape victim to pay child support to her rapist (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359636)

Segnosaur 14th June 2022 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13833252)
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?

Or when Josh Duggar molested several young girls and a cop helped cover up the crime.

Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

lionking 14th June 2022 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 13833242)
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 doesnít sound far fetched to me. The website of Ponchatoula Police show 5 staff. Itís more than feasible that a well regarded local could exert influence over a hicksville police department and for the local judge to simply accept police advice.

Darat 14th June 2022 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 13833222)
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.

The article is so badly written youíd think it had been through Google translation a couple of times but from what I understand there was shared custody 50/50 so the kid wasnít ripped out of the care of the mother. And it appears her custody was revoked because she breached a custody agreement by giving the kid a mobile phone when it hadnít been agreed with the father.

From the background in the article I canít understand how he was ever granted equal custody.

lionking 14th June 2022 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13833312)
The article is so badly written youíd think it had been through Google translation a couple of times but from what I understand there was shared custody 50/50 so the kid wasnít ripped out of the care of the mother. And it appears her custody was revoked because she breached a custody agreement by giving the kid a mobile phone when it hadnít been agreed with the father.

From the background in the article I canít understand how he was ever granted equal custody.

This is the most mind boggling thing about the whole story to me. What 16 year old kid anywhere doesnít have a mobile phone?

Warp12 14th June 2022 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 13833316)

This is the most mind boggling thing about the whole story to me. What 16 year old kid anywhere doesn’t have a mobile phone?


This is the thing...that is just a claim from the article.

It could be more like, in reality:

"Yes, I was shooting heroin in front of my daughter every day, but the real reason they took her from me is because I gave her a cell phone."

I would take zero from that article as fact. After all, it has statements in it such as:

Quote:

Mysteriously those records are under seal, hidden from public view.

Is it really a mystery? Or is it standard practice in similar cases? How deep does this conspiracy go?

Skeptical Greg 14th June 2022 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 13833316)

This is the most mind boggling thing about the whole story to me. What 16 year old kid anywhere doesnít have a mobile phone?

On what planet do they call it a 'mobile' phone?:D

lionking 14th June 2022 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg (Post 13833338)
On what planet do they call it a 'mobile' phone?:D

Well here. Itís far more descriptive than ďcell phoneĒ.

Skeptical Greg 14th June 2022 05:20 PM

How about "phone" ?

What kid has anything else?

theprestige 14th June 2022 05:20 PM

Do not question the outrage-bait. Do not try to examine the details of what really happened. Just get outraged like a good little consumer and leave real thinking to your betters. If you were supposed to know more, they would have told you more when they brought this to your attention.

Skeptical Greg 14th June 2022 05:23 PM

If we can't be outraged, what's the point?

mgidm86 14th June 2022 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13833190)
In point of fact, Warp12 isn’t being trolled. He’s being dunked on, which is a cherished and deeply-rooted tradition on this forum.


The **** it is.

I think he's made some good points in this thread. I'm reading it not logged in. I agree that others have dumped on him and handwaved, even bringing up other threads to do so.

I think California has the right idea with their "true attempt to assess the other person's age" law.

That makes me a child molester apologist, or whatever the claim was? Let's all calm down a little.

Remember a lot of people trying to have sex with hot young women are young men, say early 20s. They aren't all double to triple the girl's age.

Many 16 year old girls can pass for 20 or older. They get into bars and clubs all the time. Should a 22 year old man who checked her ID automatically go to prison? Let's get real.

I think automatically being guilty in every case is asinine.

sarge 14th June 2022 05:45 PM

Mod Warning The topic of this thread is pretty specifically identified in the title. Please stick to it and stop the personalizations
Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:sarge

cmikes 14th June 2022 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13833229)
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.


Exactly my thought. Child custody defaults to the mother in the vast majority of cases. I'm betting some unreported legal trouble or drug problem for a father to even have a chance of gaining custody, especially in these circumstances.

pgwenthold 14th June 2022 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 13833210)
Agreed. The story is so off-the-wall that it's hard to believe it could possibly happen..

This story isn't really all that "off-the-wall." It's not even unprecedented.

It's happened before, although the roles were reversed. A boy raped by an older woman (like a teacher) has had to pay child support when she ended up pregnant.

Yes, it's messed up.

Matthew Best 14th June 2022 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgwenthold (Post 13833467)
It's happened before, although the roles were reversed. A boy raped by an older woman (like a teacher) has had to pay child support when she ended up pregnant.

It's also happened to a woman before:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...sa-622315.html

"A woman raped by her husband must now pay him thousands of pounds in child maintenance, the Child Support Agency (CSA) has told her."

In that case, the children weren't actually conceived during the rape, though I'm not sure how much difference that makes. Not much, I don't think.

johnny karate 14th June 2022 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgidm86 (Post 13833373)
The **** it is.

I think he's made some good points in this thread. I'm reading it not logged in. I agree that others have dumped on him and handwaved, even bringing up other threads to do so.

I think California has the right idea with their "true attempt to assess the other person's age" law.

That makes me a child molester apologist, or whatever the claim was? Let's all calm down a little.

Remember a lot of people trying to have sex with hot young women are young men, say early 20s. They aren't all double to triple the girl's age.

Many 16 year old girls can pass for 20 or older. They get into bars and clubs all the time. Should a 22 year old man who checked her ID automatically go to prison? Let's get real.

I think automatically being guilty in every case is asinine.

We’re talking about a 30 year-old man who had sex with a 16 year-old girl.

I’m very puzzled why anyone would die defending this particular hill.

Brainster 14th June 2022 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgwenthold (Post 13833467)
This story isn't really all that "off-the-wall." It's not even unprecedented.

It's happened before, although the roles were reversed. A boy raped by an older woman (like a teacher) has had to pay child support when she ended up pregnant.

Yes, it's messed up.

What you are missing in both cases is that the child is not to blame and the child needs $ to be brought up. That is what the court is looking at. Where previously the father and mother had 50/50 custody and thus presumably 50/50 expenses, now the father has full custody and needs help with the expenses. I get the irony of her paying her rapist (whether statutory or not), but basically the family legal system says it's their kid and they have to share the cost.

smartcooky 14th June 2022 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 13833511)
What you are missing in both cases is that the child is not to blame and the child needs $ to be brought up. That is what the court is looking at. Where previously the father and mother had 50/50 custody and thus presumably 50/50 expenses, now the father has full custody and needs help with the expenses. I get the irony of her paying her rapist (whether statutory or not), but basically the family legal system says it's their kid and they have to share the cost.

Here's the thing though. The rapist should not even be anywhere near that child. Maybe things are done differently over there in Hicktown, Louisiana, but here, in the civilised part of the planet, a rapist has NO parental rights whatsoever.... ever! A woman in that position would be on a Domestic Purposes Benefit (Child Support Benefit) to help support the child, and the rapist would be paying child support. There would be NO chance of him being even allowed to even see the child, let alone be granted any sort of access or custody.

We are not talking about a teenage pregnancy here with a teenage father... This was a 30 year old MAN ******* a 16 year old CHILD - that is rape whether she consented or not, whether she lied about her age or not and whether she wanted it or not.

I find it vile and disgusting that there are members of this very forum who seem to be OK with a 30 year old MAN ******* a 16 year old CHILD and getting her pregnant. You know who you are - y'all ought to be ashamed of yourselves

Shadowdweller 14th June 2022 11:41 PM

...and the rapist was awarded full custody because the mother got her 16 yo daughter a cell phone? Wtf?

Shadowdweller 14th June 2022 11:43 PM

*duplicate*

Darat 15th June 2022 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 13833499)
It's also happened to a woman before:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...sa-622315.html

"A woman raped by her husband must now pay him thousands of pounds in child maintenance, the Child Support Agency (CSA) has told her."

In that case, the children weren't actually conceived during the rape, though I'm not sure how much difference that makes. Not much, I don't think.

I do think that parents should have to contribute to the costs of raising their children no matter what the custody arrangements are, the children have rights that are not dependent on whether one or both of their parents are evil, scum, unfit, angels best parents in the world and so on.

The issue that I see in these fringe cases is whether a parent is a fit person to have custody of a child or not.

Matthew Best 15th June 2022 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13833562)

The issue that I see in these fringe cases is whether a parent is a fit person to have custody of a child or not.

And in this case we have a man who apparently had sex with a 16-year-old child being given custody of, you guessed, another 16-year-old child.

lionking 15th June 2022 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 13833563)
And in this case we have a man who apparently had sex with a 16-year-old child being given custody of, you guessed, another 16-year-old child.

Assuming the report is accurate (and unlike others my default position is that news reports are accurate) this could only happen in a southern hick state. It would never happen in my or your country.

Darat 15th June 2022 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowdweller (Post 13833539)
...and the rapist was awarded full custody because the mother got her 16 yo daughter a cell phone? Wtf?

Because that breached the custody agreement.

lionking 15th June 2022 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13833573)
Because that breached the custody agreement.

You have evidence for that? Because I didnít see it in the report.

Could it simply be a Hicksville PD judgement?

And even if it was in the custody agreement, why? As parents we were very comforted that our children had mobile phones when they were teenagers. Purely for reasons of security and safety.

Darat 15th June 2022 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13833526)
Here's the thing though. The rapist should not even be anywhere near that child. Maybe things are done differently over there in Hicktown, Louisiana, but here, in the civilised part of the planet, a rapist has NO parental rights whatsoever.... ever! A woman in that position would be on a Domestic Purposes Benefit (Child Support Benefit) to help support the child, and the rapist would be paying child support. There would be NO chance of him being even allowed to even see the child, let alone be granted any sort of access or custody.

We are not talking about a teenage pregnancy here with a teenage father... This was a 30 year old MAN ******* a 16 year old CHILD - that is rape whether she consented or not, whether she lied about her age or not and whether she wanted it or not.

I find it vile and disgusting that there are members of this very forum who seem to be OK with a 30 year old MAN ******* a 16 year old CHILD and getting her pregnant. You know who you are - y'all ought to be ashamed of yourselves

Are you sure - being a criminal doesn't usually remove parental rights, but they of course should be weighed against any risk to a child and I am sure that in 99% of cases being a rapist would negate a rapist being able to have custody of a child. These are obviously fringe cases. (Of course the child does have rights and one of those is a right to family life and can use the legal system to find out who their father is regardless of the wishes of the mother.)

Secondly in the UK it is legal for a 30 year old to have sex with a 16 year old except if the 30 year old is in a position of trust/power over the 16 year old - so for instance a school teacher who teaches the 16 year old. In England and Wales it has been legal since the late 1800s when the age of consent was raised to 16. Obviously this does not apply if the 16 year old or the 30 year old was raped. In this case under the legal system in force it seems there was an offence committed i.e. statutory rape so it does stretch incredulity that he was awarded first of all 50% custody and then full custody. Something has gone wrong.

TofuFighter 15th June 2022 01:05 AM

A Facebook post by Rachael Byrd about the case links to Crysta Byrd Abelseth's Facebook page.

Naturally a person may choreograph what appears on their page, but from this evidence Abelseth does not appear to be someone who might be particularly irresponsible.

Darat 15th June 2022 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 13833579)
You have evidence for that? Because I didnít see it in the report.

Could it simply be a Hicksville PD judgement?

And even if it was in the custody agreement, why? As parents we were very comforted that our children had mobile phones when they were teenagers. Purely for reasons of security and safety.

That's what is given in the report - and that is all we have to go on so any comments I make are based on what was in the article - of course if the article is inaccurate or otherwise wrong my opinion will change. But at the moment that is all we have to go on.

Darat 15th June 2022 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TofuFighter (Post 13833586)
A Facebook post by Rachael Byrd about the case links to Crysta Byrd Abelseth's Facebook page.

Naturally a person may choreograph what appears on their page, but from this evidence Abelseth does not appear to be someone who might be particularly irresponsible.

Something really has gone wrong somewhere in this story. As ever all we can do is speculate based on what we know from the article. It's hard not to think that either the rapist has some sway in the local community given all this seems to have occurred at the local community level or we are missing some rather large chunks of information.

TofuFighter 15th June 2022 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13833590)
Something really has gone wrong somewhere in this story. As ever all we can do is speculate based on what we know from the article. It's hard not to think that either the rapist has some sway in the local community given all this seems to have occurred at the local community level or we are missing some rather large chunks of information.

Exactly right. Until we know more details, that's all we can do.
Judging by what seems like quite a few children, maybe a new husband, the FB request for financial support for the legal case and wedding pictures that don't seem particularly lavish, I'm leaning toward Abelseth perhaps being a bit financially strained being the reason for custody issues. But again, this is just speculation. I'm not sure how a judge can have disregarded the question of rape or whether that is material to how such judgments are made.

smartcooky 15th June 2022 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13833585)
Are you sure - being a criminal doesn't usually remove parental rights, but they of course should be weighed against any risk to a child and I am sure that in 99% of cases being a rapist would negate a rapist being able to have custody of a child. These are obviously fringe cases. (Of course the child does have rights and one of those is a right to family life and can use the legal system to find out who their father is regardless of the wishes of the mother.)

Read my post again, and this time, pay some bloody attention to the context.

A rapist has no parental rights with regard to a child they father as a result of the rape (that is what we are talking about here, not just general criminals). Why? Because we recognise the fact that rape is about power and control a lot more than it is about sex. If the legal system is forcing the victim of rape to have ANYTHING to do with her attacker, that system is in effect raping her over again, or at the very least, extending her pain and suffering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13833585)
Secondly in the UK it is legal for a 30 year old to have sex with a 16 year old except if the 30 year old is in a position of trust/power over the 16 year old - so for instance a school teacher who teaches the 16 year old. In England and Wales it has been legal since the late 1800s when the age of consent was raised to 16. Obviously this does not apply if the 16 year old or the 30 year old was raped. In this case under the legal system in force it seems there was an offence committed i.e. statutory rape so it does stretch incredulity that he was awarded first of all 50% custody and then full custody. Something has gone wrong.


Oh please, enough of this crap!! This is the same bull-**** argument that certain other posters kept trying to make in their apologism for convicted sex offender and child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell in another thread

The rape happened in Louisiana NOT England. The legal age there is 17 NOT 16. You should think of it this way - is it legal for a 30 year old man to have sex with a girl who is a year younger than the legal age of consent... THAT is the criteria you should be using, and the answer is, of course, an emphatic no!

shuttlt 15th June 2022 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 13833499)
It's also happened to a woman before:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...sa-622315.html

"A woman raped by her husband must now pay him thousands of pounds in child maintenance, the Child Support Agency (CSA) has told her."

In that case, the children weren't actually conceived during the rape, though I'm not sure how much difference that makes. Not much, I don't think.

Reading the story, it was a civil case. It doesn't look like he was ever found criminally guilty of rape. She lost custody before she sued.

Matthew Best 15th June 2022 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13833609)
Reading the story, it was a civil case. It doesn't look like he was ever found criminally guilty of rape. She lost custody before she sued.

.... and therefore...?

shuttlt 15th June 2022 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 13833613)
.... and therefore...?

And therefore saying that she "was raped by her husband" may lead people to the incorrect assumption that he was convicted of raping her. That isn't the case.

Matthew Best 15th June 2022 02:58 AM

That's what the link is for.

He was found guilty of raping her in a civil court. It says so right there.

shuttlt 15th June 2022 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 13833620)
That's what the link is for.

He was found guilty of raping her in a civil court. It says so right there.

Sure, but how many people actually read the articles? Maybe everybody, maybe not. Reading the description of it, I had assumed that he had been criminally prosecuted. That wasn't the case. It was also the first civil damages action for rape in the UK, so it isn't that surprising that the CSA didn't have a policy covering it. Also, I thought the civil terminology was "liable" rather than "guilty"?

Darat 15th June 2022 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13833606)
Read my post again, and this time, pay some bloody attention to the context.

I did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13833606)
A rapist has no parental rights with regard to a child they father as a result of the rape (that is what we are talking about here, not just general criminals).

As I said I don't think that is the case in countries like the USA, UK and so on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13833606)
Why? Because we recognise the fact that rape is about power and control a lot more than it is about sex. If the legal system is forcing the victim of rape to have ANYTHING to do with her attacker, that system is in effect raping her over again, or at the very least, extending her pain and suffering.

That may be your view and I actually agree but I don't think it is the legal view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13833606)


Oh please, enough of this crap!! This is the same bull-**** argument that certain other posters kept trying to make in their apologism for convicted sex offender and child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell in another thread


Perhaps you should try to read what I actually posted? A hint "....In this case under the legal system in force it seems there was an offence committed i.e. statutory rape..."
Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13833606)
The rape happened in Louisiana NOT England. The legal age there is 17 NOT 16. You should think of it this way - is it legal for a 30 year old man to have sex with a girl who is a year younger than the legal age of consent... THAT is the criteria you should be using, and the answer is, of course, an emphatic no!

To paraphrase something someone else posted: Read my post again, and this time, pay some bloody attention to the words.

Darat 15th June 2022 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13833609)
Reading the story, it was a civil case. It doesn't look like he was ever found criminally guilty of rape. She lost custody before she sued.

Yeah - that's probably why no one has said he was found criminally guilty of rape.

Darat 15th June 2022 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13833617)
And therefore saying that she "was raped by her husband" may lead people to the incorrect assumption that he was convicted of raping her. That isn't the case.

And saying he didn't in the eyes of the law rape her may lead people to the incorrect assumption he didn't rape her.

So what?

ponderingturtle 15th June 2022 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13833621)
Sure, but how many people actually read the articles? Maybe everybody, maybe not. Reading the description of it, I had assumed that he had been criminally prosecuted. That wasn't the case. It was also the first civil damages action for rape in the UK, so it isn't that surprising that the CSA didn't have a policy covering it. Also, I thought the civil terminology was "liable" rather than "guilty"?

The police have had a decade to bring charges but it is still an open case for some reason. CLearly it has nothing to do with his ties to the police department.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.