Rape victim to pay child support to her rapist

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

A country with an age of consent of 16 doesn't mean that all the adults there are constantly on the prowl for sex with high schoolers.

Some of them might actually have their own sense of morality that supersedes the law and tells them not to hav sex with children.

I have watched a fair number of British mini-series and am always amazed at how often the "16 is the age of consent" plot point comes up. It certainly seems as if the TV writers are very aware of the issue.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

While I do think there is an issue with older men and women having sex with consenting but under age (however it is defined) teens, I also have an issue with the naivety of thinking kids aren't sexually active as early as 12 (my girlfriend) or 14 (myself). Kids in my circle of friends were all sexually active by 16.

To be clear, I'm referring to age of consent when an adult is involved (in other words, I think adults should only being having sex with other adults, Romeo and Juliet laws notwithstanding).

What two 16 year-olds are doing together doesn't bother me.

[johnny karate]

I would bet that if anyone here championing sex between 30 year-old men and 16 year-old girls had a 16 year-old daughter who brought home a 30 year-old boyfriend, they would change their tune in a heartbeat.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

What two 16 year-olds are doing together doesn't bother me.

Even if one of them is your daughter?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Even if one of them is your daughter?

I certainly wouldn’t want to know about it, but I also wouldn’t be bothered by the idea of it. My primary concern would be that they’re being safe.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Wow! You ask a question, insist on a Y or N outcome then put caveats in!?

Try this, I mean it, try to answer this.

A yes or no question, answer with no elaboration.

Have you, smartcooky, stopped touching prepubescent children?

For the record, I don't think you've ever done such a thing but I hope you can see how unfair your, "answer me but only under the following conditions", is?

Ah, the old loaded question canard, more often that not brought into play by those who are nowhere near as clever as they think they are.

I never ask loaded questions, and I most certainly do not answer them.

If you want to rephrase the question such that it is not loaded, I will answer it for you.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Do you know that it wasn't?

It is characteristic of all newspaper articles, that every reader has a vivid recollection of them and that any given reader's recollection of them differs violently from every other reader's recollection. Consequently, we accept the convention that any facts read in any newspaper article are those, and only those which have been officially published in the article, from which it emerges with an elegant inevitability, that any facts which been officially published will be those facts in the article, and any facts which are not in the article have not been officially published, even if one or more readers believe they can recollect them, so in this particular case, if she named the boyfriend, that fact would have been in the article, and it isn’t, so it wasn’t.

[jimbob]

Moved a load of posts to AH, and I probably have missed some. The topic is this case, not other posters

Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:jimbob

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

How do we know what she told them ("them" being Louisiana Department of Child & Family Services)?

The Daily Mail story says "she never told anyone who the father was or that she had been raped".

The only quote I've seen from Abelseth is that her family believed that her then-boyfriend was the father.

"Everyone assumed he was," she said.

If you've seen something that indicates what, if anything, the DCFS asked her about the father and what she replied, please point me in that direction.

I had thought in one of the articles I'd read that she'd said it was her boyfriend's, but haven't gone back to look.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by lionking

Yes, I would like to see evidence of this as well. It seems some posters are clutching at every straw to excuse Barnes.

Still telling the same lie lionking. The only reason any of us are interested in knowing what she told people and child services at the time of the birth is to understand if child services dropped the ball at that time. It has absolutely nothing to do with Barnes.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

In this case she said it was her ' boyfriend ' .. Should we believe she didn't know his name? Or, that there was more than one boyfriend, in which case she could not be sure which one was the father?

I do think given the fact that the medical professionals/ child services (just going to use child services to cover all these in future) knew she had sex when she was under age they should have investigated that, at the moment it seems they didn't. I am still surprised that such a birth isn't notifiable if not to the police but to the likes of a child services department.

Obviously they could have done but it isn't in the reports so far.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Darat

Still telling the same lie lionking. The only reason any of us are interested in knowing what she told people and child services at the time of the birth is to understand if child services dropped the ball at that time. It has absolutely nothing to do with Barnes.

So you have evidence that the mother told child services about the father? Because there is nothing in the report that says that. Yet sarge defaults to the position that the mother told child services it was her boyfriend.

And please prove that I told a lie. You can only prove that if you have credible evidence that the mother told child services that her boyfriend was the father.

Edited by Agatha:

Removed FMF material. Please do not bring up forum management matters outwith FMF.

[Thermal]

So where are we at with Abelseth? If she stated her "boyfriend" was another minor, there as no rape under LA law and things went along as the story is told. We do not know exactly what she told to who, and how specifically. So...no problem there, pending further evidence, yeah? We can't say what halpened was or was not improper without those specifics.

Although it would be interesting to know if the boyfriend actually thought he was the father, and if he paid support and all. Or did he know he couldn't be, based on when they last had sex, or if they were having sex at all?

Side note: I suspect an awkward father's day celebration was had yesterday in the parish.

So starting from the point that we actually have information: Barnes decides in 2011 that he must be the father of this kid he never even saw, based on his recollection of a five years past rape that he may or may not know he committed. In 2012 it is entered into the record that the child is a product of rape and Barnes is consequently the rapist.

How does he gain custodial rights? Does he have officials in his pocket or what?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Darat

I do think given the fact that the medical professionals/ child services (just going to use child services to cover all these in future) knew she had sex when she was under age they should have investigated that, at the moment it seems they didn't. I am still surprised that such a birth isn't notifiable if not to the police but to the likes of a child services department.

Obviously they could have done but it isn't in the reports so far.

But she could legally have sex with people her own age and up to 20. So the fact that she clearly had sex is not evidence of a crime unless you know the age of the father.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

But she could legally have sex with people her own age and up to 20. So the fact that she clearly had sex is not evidence of a crime unless you know the age of the father.

I don't think so. Those are Romeo and Juliet provisions, which LA does not have. The partner has to be under 18 (both of them minors).

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Side note: I suspect an awkward father's day celebration was had yesterday in the parish.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

But she could legally have sex with people her own age and up to 20. So the fact that she clearly had sex is not evidence of a crime unless you know the age of the father.

This is the only point that matters in the discussion as to whether or not there was evidence of rape at the time of the birth. A birth is not, absent some other evidence besides the mother being 17, an indication of rape.

5 years later, once the (incredibly stupid) father came forward and proved he had committed rape, then it appears authorities in several agencies failed both the mother and the child.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by lionking

So you have evidence that the mother told child services about the father? Because there is nothing in the report that says that. Yet sarge defaults to the position that the mother told child services it was her boyfriend.

And please prove that I told a lie. You can only prove that if you have credible evidence that the mother told child services that her boyfriend was the father.

But circling the wagons by moderators has come to be expected.

The bolded is either an honest mistake or an additional lie.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I don't think so. Those are Romeo and Juliet provisions, which LA does not have. The partner has to be under 18 (both of them minors).

Even that doesn’t appear to be perfectly accurate. Both parties being under 18 does not necessarily shelter the elder of the two from statutory rape charges. A 17 year old can be guilty under LA law if (s)he is more than 4 years older than the younger participant.

And relative ages can work the other way as well. An 18 yo that has sex with a 16yo will be guilty of a misdemeanor instead of a felony.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by sarge

The bolded is either an honest mistake or an additional lie.

What on earth is this supposed to mean?

Quote:

allows everyone to believe that her boyfriend is the father also removes any reason to believe there was a rape.

“Everyone” includes child services and, discounting telepathy, how else could she allow that without telling them?

Stop with the lie allegations.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by lionking

So you have evidence that the mother told child services about the father? Because there is nothing in the report that says that. Yet sarge defaults to the position that the mother told child services it was her boyfriend.

In reply...

Originally Posted by sarge

The bolded is either an honest mistake or an additional lie.

Nope - it's not a lie or a mistake, it accurately reflects what you have said... multiple times.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=245

Originally Posted by sarge

No, it is not. It is a direct indicator that a 16/17 year old had sex. I’d wager that it happens every day in Louisiana and that it is almost never statutory rape. In a hospital where births are a routine occurrence, there is no reasonable expectation that a 17 year old giving birth should trigger an investigation into a possible rape, especially when the mother names a boyfriend as the father.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=253

Originally Posted by sarge

The mother, at the time of the birth, not only made no allegation of statutory rape, she actively covered up the fact by listing as the father a former boyfriend of hers.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=330

Originally Posted by sarge

My claim is that at the time of birth there was no indication of rape because the mother had listed as the father her teenage boyfriend and had not at that time named the true father.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=407

Originally Posted by sarge

When a 17 year old girl gives birth and names as the father her teen boyfriend, then yes it is ordinary and routine for statutory rape not to be considered likely, because …..there was at the time of birth no indication that rape had occurred.

You have been busted. Did you forget that we can go back and check what you previously said!

I'd call repeating the same, unverified claim four times, taking a default position... wouldn't you?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

In reply...




Nope - it's not a lie or a mistake, it accurately reflects what you have said... multiple times.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=245


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=253


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=330


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=407


You have been busted. Did you forget that we can go back and check what you previously said!

I'd call repeating the same, unverified claim four times, taking a default position... wouldn't you?

None of those are sarge assuming she told child services her boyfriend was the father.

It has been reported that she listed the boyfriend as the father, at the time of birth. That is the fact that sarge is arguing from.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by theprestige

None of those are sarge assuming she told child services her boyfriend was the father.

It has been reported that she listed the boyfriend as the father, at the time of birth. That is the fact that sarge is arguing from.

He said she “allowed everyone” to believe it. Any where is your evidence she listed the boyfriend as the father?

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Any where is your evidence she listed the boyfriend as the father?

I would like to see that as well.. It has been stated many times.

[sarge]

…..

[sarge]

….

[sarge]

Originally Posted by lionking

He said she “allowed everyone” to believe it. Any where is your evidence she listed the boyfriend as the father?

‘Everyone’ in context doesn’t actually mean everyone, everywhere.

Because there was no indication of rape at the time of birth, CPS isn’t a consideration. They would not even be aware that there was a birth. There was no indication of rape until some time after the birth.

But you know all of that, just as you knew I had not claimed that she told CPS anything. You also knew that I had not made any statement that could be called ‘rape apology’.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I don't think so. Those are Romeo and Juliet provisions, which LA does not have. The partner has to be under 18 (both of them minors).

Correct, but not complete (assuming the link from an attorneys office is correct).

In LA, it is possible for a minor to commit statutory rape if there are 4 years or more difference in age. And with an adult/minor that are two or fewer years apart in age, the act is a misdemeanor instead of a felony. That doesn’t make it any less a rape of course, but it might be quite a distinction at sentencing. So, if a guy on his 18th birthday gets some from his one day younger girlfriend, at least he won’t spend ten years in prison.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by sarge

‘Everyone’ in context doesn’t actually mean everyone, everywhere.

Because there was no indication of rape at the time of birth, CPS isn’t a consideration. They would not even be aware that there was a birth. There was no indication of rape until some time after the birth.

But you know all of that, just as you knew I had not claimed that she told CPS anything. You also knew that I had not made any statement that could be called ‘rape apology’.

What I do know is you said that the mother listed a boyfriend as the father. What evidence do you have of that? I’ll give you some help here. This is from the article:

Quote:

Everyone assumed it [the pregnancy] was from a boyfriend, and I let them believe that

That’s it. Where is your evidence?

You kept repeating that she told authorities that her boyfriend was the father. You use this bit of guesswork as a reason said authorities didn’t investigate further. That guesswork is doing some mighty heavy lifting.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by lionking

What I do know is you said that the mother listed a boyfriend as the father. What evidence do you have of that? I’ll give you some help here. This is from the article:



That’s it. Where is your evidence?

You kept repeating that she told authorities that her boyfriend was the father. You use this bit of guesswork as a reason said authorities didn’t investigate further. That guesswork is doing some mighty heavy lifting.

You are still lying. I have not once written that she told ‘authorities’ anything, and there is a world of difference between ‘she said her boyfriend was the father’ and ‘she told Child Protective Service her boyfriend was the father’. If the hospital and the mothers family believe that this is an ordinary, happens every single day, teen birth, then no ‘authorities’ specifically CPS, would be ‘told’ anything because they wouldn’t be involved.

This entire discussion is about my contention that there was, at the time of the birth, no indication that she had been raped. Everything since then is you trying to avoid having to admit that you were mistaken about what I had claimed, even to the point that you are willing to lie. Even to the point that you signed on to anothers claim that I was a ‘rape apologist’.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by sarge

You are still lying. I have not once written that she told ‘authorities’ anything, and there is a world of difference between ‘she said her boyfriend was the father’ and ‘she told Child Protective Service her boyfriend was the father’. If the hospital and the mothers family believe that this is an ordinary, happens every single day, teen birth, then no ‘authorities’ specifically CPS, would be ‘told’ anything because they wouldn’t be involved.

This entire discussion is about my contention that there was, at the time of the birth, no indication that she had been raped. Everything since then is you trying to avoid having to admit that you were mistaken about what I had claimed, even to the point that you are willing to lie. Even to the point that you signed on to anothers claim that I was a ‘rape apologist’.

You stated she listed the boyfriend as the father. Where is the evidence for that? And I didn’t mention CPS. Where I come from hospital staff (which have compulsory reporting obligations) are considered authorities.

You made stuff up (the boyfriend listed as the father).

[sarge]

Originally Posted by lionking

You stated she listed the boyfriend as the father. Where is the evidence for that? And I didn’t mention CPS. Where I come from hospital staff (which have compulsory reporting obligations) are considered authorities.

Originally Posted by lionking

Yet sarge defaults to the position that the mother told child services it was her boyfriend.

You not only specifically said that I claimed the mother told child services, you italicized it to indicate that this was really important to your claim.

You lied.

Quote:

You made stuff up (the boyfriend listed as the father).

Lie two. The article says that ‘everyone assumed the boyfriend was the father and I let them believe that’. That is functionally identical to her telling ‘everyone’ that the boyfriend was the father.

To drag this all back so that you don’t try to obfuscate further:

A poster questioned how, at the time of birth, the rape wasn’t investigated. I pointed out the fact that at the time of the birth, there really was no indication that a rape had occurred. A poster wrote that of course there was evidence of a rape and that my saying there wasn’t was rape apology. You then waded in and agreed.

Now, here we are. My claim is still that at the time of birth there was no indication of rape, in part because the mother claimed (by omission at least and more probably by commission) that a boyfriend was the father. You claim is that I’ve said all manner of things that I clearly did not say and you still have not abandoned your adopted position that I am a rape apologist.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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.




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!

I have not read the thread beyond here so this may have been pointed out but:
There is a proposal in one American state I forget which, when Roe vs Wade is binned, to require a rape victim to ask permission of her rapist to have an abortion.
To be clear I consider a woman should have complete determination.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by sarge

You not only specifically said that I claimed the mother told child services, you italicized it to indicate that this was really important to your claim.

You lied.



Lie two. The article says that ‘everyone assumed the boyfriend was the father and I let them believe that’. That is functionally identical to her telling ‘everyone’ that the boyfriend was the father.

To drag this all back so that you don’t try to obfuscate further:

A poster questioned how, at the time of birth, the rape wasn’t investigated. I pointed out the fact that at the time of the birth, there really was no indication that a rape had occurred. A poster wrote that of course there was evidence of a rape and that my saying there wasn’t was rape apology. You then waded in and agreed.

Now, here we are. My claim is still that at the time of birth there was no indication of rape, in part because the mother claimed (by omission at least and more probably by commission) that a boyfriend was the father. You claim is that I’ve said all manner of things that I clearly did not say and you still have not abandoned your adopted position that I am a rape apologist.

It’s a good thing I can read what you posted:

Quote:

My claim is that at the time of birth there was no indication of rape because the mother had listed as the father her teenage boyfriend and had not at that time named the true father.

Where is the evidence the mother “listed” the boyfriend as the father? That’s what you said. Listed where? It’s perfectly logical to conclude that such a listing is with an authority of some sort? So, listed where?

[lionking]

Oh and sarge, I haven’t lied once. I assumed that you were referring to child services when you used the word “listed”.

You on the other hand, have presented no evidence that the mother told anyone the boyfriend was the father.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by lionking

Oh and sarge, I haven’t lied once. I assumed that you were referring to child services when you used the word “listed”.

No, you lied. There is no logical way to get from what I actually wrote to attributing to me a very specific claim that I said the mother told CPS anything. And you know it……it’s why you are now backpedaling.

Quote:

You on the other hand, have presented no evidence that the mother told anyone the boyfriend was the father.

I presented the same ‘evidence’ that everyone has… news reports. Again, in the context of a discussion about whether or not at the time of birth there was indication of rape (the only context that matters as that is my sole position) there is no functional difference between ‘everyone believed and I didn’t correct them’ and ‘I told them’.

[ZiprHead]

..

[sarge]

Originally Posted by ZiprHead

Citation, please. So far all I've seen of this is conjecture on some people's part.

I have read it in news reports but not presented as a proven. I’ve not chased it further as it doesn’t in any way alter the nature of the events. Fake OD or no, in a bar or no, lied about her age or no, had a fake birth certificate, looked 25, none of it is relevant to the question of whether or not it was rape. It’s not relevant to whether or not the police failed to investigate. It isn’t relevant (to me) to the question of how the father, once it should have been clear that he raped her, ever got custody of any percentage.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by sarge

No, you lied. There is no logical way to get from what I actually wrote to attributing to me a very specific claim that I said the mother told CPS anything. And you know it……it’s why you are now backpedaling.



I presented the same ‘evidence’ that everyone has… news reports. Again, in the context of a discussion about whether or not at the time of birth there was indication of rape (the only context that matters as that is my sole position) there is no functional difference between ‘everyone believed and I didn’t correct them’ and ‘I told them’.

No backpedaling at all. You used the word “listed”. Where?

[psionl0]

In all this bickering about the whether the hospital or CPS was negligent in the first place, I haven't seen what LA law says about reporting under aged pregnancies.

Even if investigation of fatherhood is required by law, understaffed agencies are unlikely to give it priority unless they have reason to believe that a statutory rape has occurred.