Rape victim to pay child support to her rapist

[casebro]

How do we know the father was NOT prosecuted? He may have done his time, and is doing the right thing, raising the child.

And 50/50 physical custody isn't. Typically fathers get two afternoons per week, and alternate weekends is ummm 60 hours in two weeks, 82/18.

50/50 LEGAL custody is the norm. The means there are decisions that can not be made unilaterally. Like which schools, or when some autonomy is granted- gun or cellphone use? At what age do girls start to wear lip stick, or a bikini? (in my family boys were issued a pocket knife at 6yo, a BB gun at 12, and real hunting gun (22 or shotgun) at 16.)

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by casebro

How do we know the father was NOT prosecuted? He may have done his time, and is doing the right thing, raising the child.

We read the article.

"Seven years ago, in July 2015, Abelseth pressed criminal charges against Barnes. A report she filed with the Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff's Office for simple rape details everything that was done to her. Abelseth said she waited to file the police report because she did not know the law.

"I thought if I didn't do it the next day, there was nothing I could do about it," Abelseth said. "I went to a trauma counselor, and he said, 'No, you have 30 years after you turn 18.'"

From 2015 until now, nothing has happened with the report. The Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff's Office says an investigation is still open."

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

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by casebro

How do we know the father was NOT prosecuted? He may have done his time, and is doing the right thing, raising the child.

Taking the media reporting at face value (and it is nigh impossible to discuss anything without doing so as a jumping-off point), the complaint against him is open/ongoing for a decade and inexplicably sealed. The journalists confirmed this independently with the parish police. They showed the filed complaint from Abseleth, but without details.

Quote:

And 50/50 physical custody isn't. Typically fathers get two afternoons per week, and alternate weekends is ummm 60 hours in two weeks, 82/18.

Not for a rapist. That's kind of the whole gig, here.

Quote:

50/50 LEGAL custody is the norm. The means there are decisions that can not be made unilaterally. Like which schools, or when some autonomy is granted- gun or cellphone use? At what age do girls start to wear lip stick, or a bikini? (in my family boys were issued a pocket knife at 6yo, a BB gun at 12, and real hunting gun (22 or shotgun) at 16.)

Not giving permission for a 16 yo to have a cel phone does not remotely sound like a credible reason for the court to remove custody rights in the 21st century. As others have said, there's something powerfully rotten going on here.

The tangential issue of Mistake in AOC is valid, upon more reflection, especially among close-in-age people, like a 22 yo guy trying to get busy with what he believes to be a 20-21 yo woman who is really underage but has fake ID and looks the part.

But you can't just make up your own laws. If the law says "on this side of the line, you can screw a barely legal girl, and on the other side, you are a felony rapist", it's best to be really, really clear on which side of the line you are on.

Think of it as a cliff. One side, terra firma. The other, a drop to certain death. How ******* casual you going to be about which side of that line you are on?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Taking the media reporting at face value (and it is nigh impossible to discuss anything without doing so as a jumping-off point), the complaint against him is open/ongoing for a decade and inexplicably sealed. The journalists confirmed this independently with the parish police. They showed the filed complaint from Abseleth, but without details.

The part I've highlighted really seems to be a sticking point with some people here. Apparently, we're supposed to assume the entire story is a lie because... reasons.

To me, it all seems laid out pretty clearly, and anything that seems strange or unexplained can easily be attributed to run-of-the-mill, good ol' boy, southern small town corruption.

Quote:

Not giving permission for a 16 yo to have a cel phone does not remotely sound like a credible reason for the court to remove custody rights in the 21st century. As others have said, there's something powerfully rotten going on here.

The tangential issue of Mistake in AOC is valid, upon more reflection, especially among close-in-age people, like a 22 yo guy trying to get busy with what he believes to be a 20-21 yo woman who is really underage but has fake ID and looks the part.

But you can't just make up your own laws. If the law says "on this side of the line, you can screw a barely legal girl, and on the other side, you are a felony rapist", it's best to be really, really clear on which side of the line you are on.

Think of it as a cliff. One side, terra firma. The other, a drop to certain death. How ******* casual you going to be about which side of that line you are on?

I was 22 once and I certainly didn't have an interest in cruising the sophomore class of the local high school for a date.

And as far as this epidemic of young girls trying to pass for adults to entrap men, my advice is to not have sex with anyone who you feel you need to card in case it might be a felony.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

The part I've highlighted really seems to be a sticking point with some people here. Apparently, we're supposed to assume the entire story is a lie because... reasons.

Right. If this was a tweet, more cynicism is warranted, but these were professional journalists, who did diligence in fact-checking, even consulting with an out-of-parish sex crime lawyer, who concurred that the case is outrageous. Doesn't bulletproof the tale, but it has up-front cred.

Quote:

To me, it all seems laid out pretty clearly, and anything that seems strange or unexplained can easily be attributed to run-of-the-mill, good ol' boy, southern small town corruption.

To some extent, sure. Not sure if Family court is limited to the parish, though? I don't know Louisianna procedures, but my neck o' the woods has different municipal agencies who deal with the different angles, ie State versus County versus City.

Quote:

I was 22 once and I certainly didn't have an interest in cruising the sophomore class of the local high school for a date.

Nor I. But I do recall meeting young women in bars who I found out were significantly younger than I was led to believe. I get that some 16s can easily pass for 21, even if a dude does due diligence in checking.

Quote:

And as far as this epidemic of young girls trying to pass for adults to entrap men, my advice is to not have sex with anyone who you feel you need to card in case it might be a felony.

Agreed. If the line has severe consequences, just stay away from the line. Plenty of willing full-on grown-ups out there. A hot babe is all well and good, but you don't want to find yourself being the hot babe in prison.

[Warp12]

So, after reading the Police report, it is as suspected. She was out drinking at a bar, and highly intoxicated. So, from this we can say A) She was misrepresenting her age. B) Her recollection of any forcible rape is suspect...especially considering she claims to have "woken up on the bathroom floor". She was near 16 years 4 months when she claims this occurred. Also, as shown in the photo of the report, it is not indicated that she wishes to press charges.

https://nypost.com/2022/06/15/louisi...t-john-barnes/

Now, some will squeal about her 16 years of age, but let's get real: 16 is the age of consent in many, many places. In fact, it is such in 31 states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_o...rn%20countries.

Quote:

State laws. Each U.S. state has its own general age of consent. As of August 1, 2018, the age of consent in each state in the United States is either 16 years of age, 17 years of age, or 18 years of age. The most common age of consent is 16, which is a common age of consent in most other Western countries.

Even in foreign jurisdictions, such as the UK and New Zealand...the age of consent is 16. So the faux outrage over her age is really misplaced.

Now what are we left with? A woman who makes a forcible rape claim 10 years after the fact...while admitting she was lying and misrepresenting her age on the evening in question, while also being heavily intoxicated at the time. I'd say there is little chance the forcible rape claim can be proven.

So, we have a pretty mundane example of a statutory rape case. We have a photo of a Police report...one which does not show the box wishing to pursue charges as being selected. We have an apparent violation of a custody agreement. We have a lot of missing details in the dramatic news story.

Of course, investigate her claims to the fullest extent. But, casting this man as a total villain seems a bit out of place at this point.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Now, some will squeal about her 16 years of age, but let's get real: 16 is the age of consent in many, many places. In fact, it is such in 31 states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_o...rn%20countries.

But what about the state where this took place? Isn't that the only real standard we should care about, legally?

[Shadowdweller]

Originally Posted by Warp12

So, after reading the Police report, it is as suspected. She was out drinking at a bar, and highly intoxicated. So, from this we can say A) She was misrepresenting her age. B) Her recollection of any forcible rape is suspect...especially considering she claims to have "woken up on the bathroom floor".
<snip>
Now what are we left with? A woman who makes a forcible rape claim 10 years after the fact...while admitting she was lying and misrepresenting her age on the evening in question, while also being heavily intoxicated at the time. I'd say there is little chance the forcible rape claim can be proven.

Your categorical inability to understand the concept of consent surprises nobody.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Warp12

So, after reading the Police report, it is as suspected. She was out drinking at a bar, and highly intoxicated. So, from this we can say A) She was misrepresenting her age. B) Her recollection of any forcible rape is suspect...especially considering she claims to have "woken up on the bathroom floor". She was near 16 years 4 months when she claims this occurred. Also, as shown in the photo of the report, it is not indicated that she wishes to press charges.

Translation: You think the fact she was intoxicated means she had it coming.
Got it!

Tell me, do you think women who wear short skirts and/or cleavage-revealing blouses also have it coming?

Originally Posted by Warp12

Now, some will squeal about her 16 years of age, but let's get real: 16 is the age of consent in many, many places. In fact, it is such in 31 states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_o...rn%20countries.

Even in foreign jurisdictions, such as the UK and New Zealand...the age of consent is 16. So the faux outrage over her age is really misplaced.

1. Its not faux outrage.

2. This happened in Louisiana, where the age of content is 17. The laws where you are apply to you unless there is a specific, superseding law.

3. The age of consent in other jurisdictions is entirely irrelevant. The standard is - was she over or under the age of consent in that jurisdiction. Nothing else matters.

Originally Posted by Warp12

Now what are we left with? A woman who makes a forcible rape claim 10 years after the fact...while admitting she was lying and misrepresenting her age on the evening in question, while also being heavily intoxicated at the time. I'd say there is little chance the forcible rape claim can be proven.

Rape apologism at its very finest.

This is statutory rape, so your "forcible" reference is irrelevant.

"She lied about her age" is NOT a valid defence against statutory rape.
"Well, she looked 18" is NOT a valid defence against statutory rape.
"But she said she was OK with it" is NOT a valid defence against statutory rape.

Originally Posted by Warp12

So, we have a pretty mundane example of a statutory rape case.

There is no such thing is as "mundane" when it comes to rape.

Originally Posted by Warp12

We have a photo of a Police report...one which does not show the box wishing to pursue charges as being selected. We have an apparent violation of a custody agreement. We have a lot of missing details in the dramatic news story.

Because rape victims are never ever confused, or upset, or under stress, or traumatised by what has happened to them. They are always able to think clearly and efficient and know exactly what they have to do to the follow police procedures.

Originally Posted by Warp12

Of course, investigate her claims to the fullest extent. But, casting this man as a total villain seems a bit out of place at this point.

A 30 year old man who ***** an under-aged girl IS a villain, right from the get go.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Tell me, do you think women who wear short skirts and/or cleavage-revealing blouses also have it coming?

If they go to extensive lengths to misrepresent their age, and then engage in consensual sex, maybe they do?

Obviously some jurisdictions agree, such as CA:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post13833159

[Thermal]

Gotta say, I still have a serious problem with banging a teenage stranger who was clearly too drunk to consent, regardless of which side of the legal line she straddled.

Also, 16 years 4 months is way below 17. Not exactly a close call. We could compare AOC with countries allowing child brides too, but that is equally irrelevant. Permitless concealed carry of firearms is legal in Vermont, but try it in DC. Jurisdiction matters.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Gotta say, I still have a serious problem with banging a teenage stranger who was clearly too drunk to consent, regardless of which side of the legal line she straddled.

That is certainly something she seemed to imply, 10 years after-the-fact.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Warp12

That is certainly something she seemed to imply, 10 years after-the-fact.

Which would bring us back to rape-rape, in addition to statutory. Even worse for this guy.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Which would bring us back to rape-rape, in addition to statutory. Even worse for this guy.

Except it is very unlikely to be proven, and a suspect claim at this point. I guess we will have see how much better her memory has gotten by the time it goes to court...if it does.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Warp12

If they go to extensive lengths to misrepresent their age, and then engage in consensual sex, maybe they do?

Wow, you actually said the quiet bit out loud

Originally Posted by Warp12

Obviously some jurisdictions agree, such as CA:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post13833159

1. Nothing in there about the was she was dressed

2. California is not Louisiana

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Thermal

We could compare AOC with countries allowing child brides too, but that is equally irrelevant.

I don't think that is a good comparison.

I'm not saying he might not have violated the law; I am saying that the circumstances are hardly outrageous (if consensual) when given perspective. Including the perspective of most of the states in this country. Especially when factoring in her misrepresentation of her age.

[theprestige]

The main problem I have with this thread's headline is that child support is for the good of the child. No matter who is taking care of the child, the parent(s) generally are expected to pay for the child's upkeep. Obviously a caretaker acting in bad faith can exploit this arrangement to line their own pockets at the child's expense. But the premise is not a priori wrong.

The real question here is the sequence of events by which the (statutory) rapist became the child's legal guardian in the first place. That, not the child support payments, are where the problem lies.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by theprestige

The main problem I have with this thread's headline is that child support is for the good of the child. No matter who is taking care of the child, the parent(s) generally are expected to pay for the child's upkeep. Obviously a caretaker acting in bad faith can exploit this arrangement to line their own pockets at the child's expense. But the premise is not a priori wrong.

"Caretaker"? Really? Is that what you're going with? Are you too scared to say "rapist"?

Originally Posted by theprestige

The real question here is the sequence of events by which the (statutory) rapist became the child's legal guardian in the first place.

Correct. The real question is why any sequence of events can lead to a rapist getting custody of a child born out of that rape.

Even more concerning is that, since this 30 year old man thought it was just fine to rape a 16 year old girl (which resulted in the birth of his biological daughter) has his attitude changed now that he has custody of his, ahem, 16 year old daughter?

Leopards and spots!

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

"Caretaker"? Really? Is that what you're going with? Are you too scared to say "rapist"?

I'm explaining the principle of child support. People who take care of children are caretakers, not rapists.

Your mom - a rapist? Foster parents - rapists? No. This particular caretaker is, but that doesn't affect the principle of child support.

Regardless of who's legally taking care of the child, child support still needs to be provided. So the fact that the mother is paying child support isn't the problem. She'd be expected to pay that support money for her child regardless. If she'd kept the child, we'd expect her to be spending about that much every month for the child's support.

Getting outraged because she's paying child support misses the point.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm explaining the principle of child support. People who take care of children are caretakers, not rapists.

Your mom - a rapist? Foster parents - rapists? No. This particular caretaker is, but that doesn't affect the principle of child support.

Regardless of who's legally taking care of the child, child support still needs to be provided. So the fact that the mother is paying child support isn't the problem. She'd be expected to pay that support money for her child regardless. If she'd kept the child, we'd expect her to be spending about that much every month for the child's support.

Getting outraged because she's paying child support misses the point.

Yeah but isn't it kind of like being ordered to pay for the bullet used to shoot you? The rapist seems far more well-off than Abseleth, so it smacks of insult added to injury.

Did she receive child support from el Rapo for the first 16 years?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Yeah but isn't it kind of like being ordered to pay for the bullet used to shoot you? The rapist seems far more well-off than Abseleth, so it smacks of insult added to injury.

Did she receive child support from el Rapo for the first 16 years?

According to the story, El Rapo had 50/50 custody since the girl was 5, but you would certainly think she could go after him for child support from birth to age 5.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Brainster

According to the story, El Rapo had 50/50 custody since the girl was 5, but you would certainly think she could go after him for child support from birth to age 5.

Makes you wonder about that initial 50/50 deal, doesn't it? Like maybe her prior story was that it was consensual sex, and she didn't want to pursue charges? Then again, it could be a complex conspiracy that was engineered by the "well connected" father. Remember, according to the article the records are "mysteriously sealed".

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm explaining the principle of child support. People who take care of children are caretakers, not rapists.

Your mom - a rapist? Foster parents - rapists? No. This particular caretaker is, but that doesn't affect the principle of child support.

Regardless of who's legally taking care of the child, child support still needs to be provided. So the fact that the mother is paying child support isn't the problem. She'd be expected to pay that support money for her child regardless. If she'd kept the child, we'd expect her to be spending about that much every month for the child's support.

Getting outraged because she's paying child support misses the point.

She ought to at least be getting a child welfare benefit... don't you think... or is that too "socialist/communist" for your taste. Plus, the rapist should be paying child support as well.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Yeah but isn't it kind of like being ordered to pay for the bullet used to shoot you? The rapist seems far more well-off than Abseleth, so it smacks of insult added to injury.

Did she receive child support from el Rapo for the first 16 years?

I don't know. Did she?

And a child is not a bullet.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

She ought to at least be getting a child welfare benefit... don't you think... or is that too "socialist/communist" four your taste. Plus, the rapist should be paying child support as well.

Are you more interested in finding a way to attack me, or are you more interested in discussing this case?

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Makes you wonder about that initial 50/50 deal, doesn't it? Like maybe her prior story was that it was consensual sex, and she didn't want to pursue charges? Then again, it could be a complex conspiracy that was engineered by the "well connected" father. Remember, according to the article the records are "mysteriously sealed".

No. There is actual information about this in the stories.

Timeline:

When she was sixteen he raped her. At a minimum, it was statutory rape. But it appears that she was drinking enough to be incapacitated.

Afterwards, she didn't report it. This is pretty common. Especially when the victim is a teenager. Why? because there are a lot of people she will have to deal with who will do exactly what you are doing: find a way to place blame and shame on her. You have speculated in a way to cast aspersions on her character without evidence of her doing anything more than underage drinking. In defense of the character of a man we know did something wrong. It's stuff like that that discourages reporting.

During her pregnancy and the first five years of her daughter's life she didn't tell anyone who the father was, and just let people make assumptions.

When she was 21-22, he apparently found out she had a child, did the math, and decided he wanted custody. He had a test done and got 50/50 custody. It's likely that he, being 37ish and her around 22, that he had more access to legal resources, so the outcome there is unsurprising.

At some point, she started counseling. Possibly because she now had to deal with the stress of dealing with this guy on a regular basis, having tried to just deal with it and move on until he forced himself back into her life.

During these counseling sessions she finds out that it is not too late to press charges, so she files a complaint. Why didn't she know this before? Probably because she hadn't had anyone to talk to about it before.

The police, with whom he has a business relationship, of course completely blow the case off.

Seven years later, he finds some technicality he can use to get full custody. Again, it appears that he has better resources than her, based on the fact that she is now relying on some advocacy groups to help her fight. Notre: this does not mean she is poor. Legal fees can be outrageous. Every continuance and court date costs you money. Deeper pockets have a serious advantage.

And the fact that it took him eleven years to get custody tells me that there are no serious problems with her parenting. Otherwise, it would have happened sooner.

The whole sequence of events makes perfect sense when you look at it from the viewpoint of a teenage girl whose decision making, in my opinion, became more adult as time passed and she grew up.

Of course, you don't see that. You see some poor guy being slandered by a drunk teenage slut. Because she didn't do the adult thing and report him right away. Because she didn't do the adult thing and use the rape to fight him when he initially forced his way back into her life.

Well, she's doing the adult thing now.

And, yes, I know I've fleshed things out a bit with some speculation. But not a lot.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by TomB

No. There is actual information about this in the stories.

Timeline:

When she was sixteen he raped her. At a minimum, it was statutory rape. But it appears that she was drinking enough to be incapacitated.

Afterwards, she didn't report it. This is pretty common. Especially when the victim is a teenager. Why? because there are a lot of people she will have to deal with who will do exactly what you are doing: find a way to place blame and shame on her. You have speculated in a way to cast aspersions on her character without evidence of her doing anything more than underage drinking. In defense of the character of a man we know did something wrong. It's stuff like that that discourages reporting.

EXACTLY!!!

Originally Posted by TomB

During her pregnancy and the first five years of her daughter's life she didn't tell anyone who the father was, and just let people make assumptions.

When she was 21-22, he apparently found out she had a child, did the math, and decided he wanted custody. He had a test done and got 50/50 custody. It's likely that he, being 37ish and her around 22, that he had more access to legal resources, so the outcome there is unsurprising.

At some point, she started counseling. Possibly because she now had to deal with the stress of dealing with this guy on a regular basis, having tried to just deal with it and move on until he forced himself back into her life.

During these counseling sessions she finds out that it is not too late to press charges, so she files a complaint. Why didn't she know this before? Probably because she hadn't had anyone to talk to about it before.

The police, with whom he has a business relationship, of course completely blow the case off.

Holy Cow!!

Originally Posted by TomB

Seven years later, he finds some technicality he can use to get full custody. Again, it appears that he has better resources than her, based on the fact that she is now relying on some advocacy groups to help her fight. Notre: this does not mean she is poor. Legal fees can be outrageous. Every continuance and court date costs you money. Deeper pockets have a serious advantage.

And the fact that it took him eleven years to get custody tells me that there are no serious problems with her parenting. Otherwise, it would have happened sooner.

The whole sequence of events makes perfect sense when you look at it from the viewpoint of a teenage girl whose decision making, in my opinion, became more adult as time passed and she grew up.

Of course, you don't see that. You see some poor guy being slandered by a drunk teenage slut. Because she didn't do the adult thing and report him right away. Because she didn't do the adult thing and use the rape to fight him when he initially forced his way back into her life.

Well, she's doing the adult thing now.

And, yes, I know I've fleshed things out a bit with some speculation. But not a lot.

Excellent post... nails the salient points!!

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Are you more interested in finding a way to attack me, or are you more interested in discussing this case?

I want you to justify you position, becaeu right now, I find that position, shall we say, less that satisfactory.

For starters, do you believe that it is right and proper that a rapist has access to a child born as a direct result of the rape he committed?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by TomB

<snipped fiction novel>
And, yes, I know I've fleshed things out a bit with some speculation created my own elaborate story and conspiracy theory based on thin details provided by a poorly written dramatized article.

FTFY

Or:

Originally Posted by Warp12

Makes you wonder about that initial 50/50 deal, doesn't it? Like maybe her prior story was that it was consensual sex, and she didn't want to pursue charges?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

The main problem I have with this thread's headline is that child support is for the good of the child. No matter who is taking care of the child, the parent(s) generally are expected to pay for the child's upkeep. Obviously a caretaker acting in bad faith can exploit this arrangement to line their own pockets at the child's expense. But the premise is not a priori wrong.

The real question here is the sequence of events by which the (statutory) rapist became the child's legal guardian in the first place. That, not the child support payments, are where the problem lies.

I agree 100%.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Warp12

FTFY

Or:

TomB's version is reasonable, well articulated and has merit - not conspiracy theory like at all.

Your version, on the other hand, is pure, unadulterated, evidence-free "pulled right out of your own butt-hole" made-up claptrap!

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Yeah but isn't it kind of like being ordered to pay for the bullet used to shoot you?

A child has rights no matter how it was conceived, it is for the child’s welfare the child support payments are made.

Originally Posted by Thermal

The rapist seems far more well-off than Abseleth, so it smacks of insult added to injury.

Did she receive child support from el Rapo for the first 16 years?

Good comments, this is one of the areas that we have little knowledge of.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Makes you wonder about that initial 50/50 deal, doesn't it? Like maybe her prior story was that it was consensual sex, and she didn't want to pursue charges? Then again, it could be a complex conspiracy that was engineered by the "well connected" father. Remember, according to the article the records are "mysteriously sealed".

It seems the law is clear on what is statutory rape, can’t see why her wanting to “press” charges or not would come into any decision as to prosecute. All that is required for a successful prosecution is proof of paternity and her birth certificate.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I want you to justify you position, becaeu right now, I find that position, shall we say, less that satisfactory. …snip…

You don’t believe a child has a right to financial support regardless of the circumstances of its conception?

I can’t understand why you think a rapist should not be made to be financially responsible towards the child.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

FTFY

Or:

No elaborate story needed as it doesn’t matter what she did or did not do in that state it was statutory rape. All that is needed to prosecute that is proof of paternity - which he has helpfully provided - and her birth certificate which is a public record. Very surprised neither the police or the prosecutor hasn’t wanted to make the arrest, place the charges and have him found guilty. Would help with clear up rates, successful prosecution rates and so.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Darat

It seems the law is clear on what is statutory rape, can’t see why her wanting to “press” charges or not would come into any decision as to prosecute.

I am not 100% certain of that. You would have to examine other such cases prosecuted in LA, if there are any.

Quote:

After the initial report is made to law enforcement, a survivor can decide whether or not they would like to move forward with the investigation, a process referred to as pressing charges. Ultimately, the decision to press criminal charges is up to the state. It’s possible, though uncommon, that a prosecutor may move forward with charges based solely on the available evidence, even if the survivor chooses not to be involved.

https://www.rainn.org/articles/what-...justice-system

Considering there was no claim of rape, and the other surrounding details in the case, it might make for an unlikely pursuit by the state. I mean she didn't even file the report until 5 years after the joint custody was awarded. And even on that report it was not indicated that she wished to press charges.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Darat

You don’t believe a child has a right to financial support regardless of the circumstances of its conception?

The rapist should have no access to the child ≠ child has no right to financial support regardless of the circumstances of its conception?

I wish you would just pay attention to what I have been saying instead of just knee-jerk reacting to the most recent post

Originally Posted by smartcooky

She ought to at least be getting a child welfare benefit Plus, the rapist should be paying child support as well.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

The real question is why any sequence of events can lead to a rapist getting custody of a child born out of that rape.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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!

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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.

For the removal any of doubt about what I think...

- That the mother should be getting child support for the child is a given

- That the rapist should be paying that child support is a given

- That the mother should not be forced to have to interact with her rapist is a given

- That the rapist is even allowed to see or access the child, let alone gain custody is ******* outrageous.

I don't know how it works in your country, but in this country, she would be paid a Domestic Purposes Benefit by the government, then the government goes after the biological father to clawback the cost, and that clawback is taken directly from his pay-packet by Inland Revenue. The mother never has to have anything to do with the rapist.

[casebro]

It's happened before. Remember this one: The case of the female teacher statutory raping a teen boy student. He had to pay child support. Until he married her.

[sarge]

Rather than quote various posts, I’ll provide my thoughts in general.

1. She was raped. There is no dispute about this. All the ‘she was drunk’ or ‘looked 18’ or ‘lied about her age’ stuff is legally irrelevant even if true.

2. In this society, guys 32 years old that consort with 16 year olds are creeps. That is also legally irrelevant, but true.

3. It is right and proper that while he has custody, she pays child support. Emotionally, it is quite normal for that to feel like an injustice, but it is not.

4. It is possible for a victim to be complicit in the crime. In this case she was. That does not make it any less a crime nor the criminal any less guilty.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I am not 100% certain of that. You would have to examine other such cases prosecuted in LA, if there are any.


https://www.rainn.org/articles/what-...justice-system

Considering there was no claim of rape, and the other surrounding details in the case, it might make for an unlikely pursuit by the state. I mean she didn't even file the report until 5 years after the joint custody was awarded. And even on that report it was not indicated that she wished to press charges.

We are talking about statutory rape, what happened is legally defined as rape, there is no exception for how old she was, how she acted and so on. And as you quoted it is not up to her to "press charges" or not, the state makes that call. I think you have been led a little astray by the fictional use of "I want to press charges" or "I don't want to press charges" in popular entertainment. I am surprised given the law that her giving birth when she did wasn't notifiable since it had to have been statutory rape. And a further "and" even if she was a hostile witness for the prosecution it wouldn't alter the cast iron case the prosecution has i.e. her birth certificate and his proof of paternity.

The man is a rapist and obviously a rapist of young people that should have been enough to bar him from ever gaining any custody or having a say in the upbringing of the child.