That makes no sense. Since he was not mature enough to make the decision of course he should not have to pay for it when taken advantage of. Otherwise we might as well do away with having laws that require children to be of a certain age to be held accountable.
It’s not (IMHO) simply a matter of contract law, and the laws concerning consent, statuatory rape, and child custody are screwed up. But there is something of a point to what you say.
Sure it does. Just because someone isn’t of age, doesn’t absolve them from having to deal with their choices.
We don’t treat child murders the same as adults, but there are reprocussions for their actions. Same with theft.
You are looking as a binary situation. It isn’t. Between the black and the white, there is a ton of shades of gray.
Its like saying theft is theft! Treat all theft the same! Well if I steal a person, a billion dollars or a pack a of gum, I will be prosecuted differently.
In all situations of the law there are shades of gray and this is a very obvious one. Your logic is off. Just because he shouldn’t be held to the same level as an adult, it doesn’t mean he should not be accountable at all. So many laws incorporate this line of thinking.
This is what explains it. Sometimes a minor acts in a way that would include the responsibilities of an adult taking the same action. If for some reason this kid had signed a contract for payments, that could be dismissed when he turned 18. But he’s still the father of the child, and has the responsibilities of a parent. But this case is so screwy it’s really hard to make a point about it.
Almost certainly, but statistics are virtually impossible to come by because the Justice Department pretended it didn’t count until last year (basing its definition of rape on the archaic common law definition). The same problem means lots of things which are clearly female-on-male rapes aren’t scored as such by states because their criminal law doesn’t define female-on-male involuntary sex acts as rape. There are some examples in this paper but I don’t think it’s publicly available.
Child murders, theft, etc. are handled (in most western nations) as a pedagogical problem, not a matter of holding the child accountable for his actions. Something has gone wrong in the raising of the child that needs to be taken hand of. But the examples are not comparable, since those you mention concerns a child that has broken the law, and those of the OP concerns one where the child has been the subject of a crime. And since a crime has been committed against the individual child the only person that should be held accountable is the woman. Perhaps a more apt comparison would be one where a man smashes his fist in the face of another man, breaking his fist in the process, and consequentially sues the other man for breaking his fist. I’m all for a change of law that follows the principle: old enough to do the crime, old enough to do the time. But then it has to be across the board, not singling out this one issue for special treatment.
In any case, these are such rare cases that it hardly is worth the time to think about.
Hasn’t that kind of been Der Trih’s point the entire thread? Woman have been shielded from all such actions while men have been told fuck you
So we should charge half the actual amount of child support?
How do you figure we half ass the collection of monies if its “for the children”?
I don’t think we will see eye to eye on this Rune my friend. You see the 15 year old boy 100% victim and the 23 year old women as 100% predator. I don’t and apparently neither did the judge. Sure she was a predator but I see him at best, 50% victim. He had sex out of the desire to have sex.
I don’t understand what you mean? How did you arrive at that idea?
OK, I know this is an old thread but thought some inside knowledge was needed.
I am one such statutory rape victim paying child support to a convicted sex offender.
Every story is different.
Now, I willingly had sex with this woman at 15 when she was 32, I’m not denying that, but what people may like to know is I said I’m not interested in anything more after this one time, I’m leaving and not coming back, well she threw herself on the floor in tears like a big baby sooking, I left anyway only to be called daily, to have all my friends told we were a couple and was suckered into going back to her out of sympathy because she was so pathetic and I was a stupid kid. I don’t want children I said, we should use protection I said, no no no she said, pull out, only do it on these days blah blah blah blah, I won’t get pregnant… BAM, I’m pregnant, if you don’t like it run home to mommy and my drop kick ex whose tried to bash your head in numerous times will raise the kid as his own.
Suffice it to say I stayed, and stayed FOR MY KID.
I got custody of my kid 8 years later, 5 years later the depression and PTSD from this horrible person was too much so I had her charged.
Mind you in this whole 5 years I received exactly $0.00 in child support from her, I did it all on my own, she never even wanted her child on the weekend because it interfered with her “me time”
It’s funny how the court case gave her incentive to convince my kid to go back, promise after promise that was never delivered and every lie about abuse they could throw at my wife and I.
Low and behold I am paying child support and my kid wants nothing to do with me because despite sacrificing my youth and always being there (never missed child support and had her every weekend while paying the full rate) always putting her first, I made a stand against a sick pedophile and it’s viewed as worse than me being molested and taken advantage of by a sick 32 year old.
Here’s a hypothetical scenario, me at 34 has sex with a willing 15 year old, I put holes in the condom or replace her pill with sugar lollies so she gets pregnant, I give her no option but to have the kid, when she has the kid I get custody and then make her pay child support, sounds fair? she consented to the sex, the fact I gave her no choice about getting pregnant and keeping the kid is irrelevant.
PTSD is tough to deal with, add to that paying your abuser and it’s just a never ending form of victimisation, you can go on and on all you want that I consented, I was 15, I had no idea about birth control and made it crystal clear I DID NOT want children, I trusted that this 32 year old women was telling me the truth that she would not get pregnant if we chanted at the moon. She new exactly what she was doing and was taking pregnancy tests frequently (to make sure she wasn’t pregnant).
Welcome anondude. What a crazy story. Sorry about your relationship with your kid. Hope it all works out in the end.
Wild double zombie rape thread.
Exactly. You DID NOT consent, because you were not capable of consent by virtue of your age. Your rapist should have been charged, and you should not have been held responsible in any way for the consequences of her raping you.
I believe judges have generally the position that child support is not about fault or consequences. It’s not any sort of punishment, but a law that people have responsibility for supporting their children. Those laws don’t happen to make any exceptions for minor children being statutorily raped.
Actually, you’re right.
I can see how statutory rape victims as adults should be willing to pay child support if they consent to parental status as adults. But they should not owe support for the years in which they themselves were minors, nor should they be forced to accept paternal responsibilities if they don’t want them.
Adult men choosing to have sex is one thing, but statutory rape victims absolutely should not be held responsible for the consequences of the sex their rapist forced on them.
This is just another reason why people who commit statutory rape should be charged with it. It’s not “okay” just because it’s a woman raping a boy.
Surely forced adoption is the solution here if the male does not want to or cannot pay?
I don’t see how you couldn’t - in this era - immediately pull the parental rights of a woman who is a child sex predator - which is what the 34 year old woman is. Giving the fifteen year old (and his parents if appropriate) the choice to place the child for adoption or raise the child.
But if it was “a few years” after 1993, I can see the whole “she was doing him a favor having sex with him” logic. I’d like to think we’ve changed over the past 20 years - maybe not enough.
That’s not how parental rights work. They can be terminated at the request of the non-rapey parent so that parent can have custody, but not just so they can be awarded to a third party.
I agree. However, it seems like basic legal concepts could apply to eliminate the rape victim’s responsibility.
Yes, each person has a duty at common law to support his or her minor children. Fault is not an issue as it is the child’s right to receive such support. The child didn’t choose the circumstances of his or her conception, so you cannot say, “Sorry, son, you’ll just have to eat 50% of what every other child eats because Dad was raped and he shouldn’t have to pay for you.” I get the basic concept.
However, the gross inequity of the situation should call for an examination of it. First, the child is a minor himself. HIS parents have a duty to support him, so does it follow that since his duty of support includes a child that his parents have to pay for that support? It does not under controlling case law. However, let’s assume for argument’s sake that the rapee father has multiple millions of dollars in the bank and he can afford to pay.
His continuing duty to support under the law could be a part of a judgment against rapist mom (for battery, etc.) and the damages could be that this duty is assigned to mom as a sort of specific performance.
The problem arises if Mom cannot pay (and by cannot pay, I mean the very basics, not income shares as a child support calculation; this is not a divorce case–child support calculations are in derogation of the common law duty to support and must be strictly construed, although I admit this is debatable)
So Mom is collecting food stamps, medicaid, and section 8 housing and the State wants subrogation against the rapee father because of his common law duty to support and/or the child (through a guardian) wants the lifestyle commiserate with a father who has millions of dollars.
In either case, the cause of action would arise under an implied in law contract. If you have children, you have either a common law (basic support) or statutory (income shares support) implied contract that by engaging in sexual intercourse, you assume the risks of having to support any children as a result of that voluntary sexual act. Nobody is drafted into becoming a parent. By default, you owe no duty to anyone unless you engage in certain acts, or fail to take certain precautions, to give rise to that duty. By your own free conduct, you can live a life owing no legal duty to anyone (again under basic common law).
It was only by a serious criminal act that the father in this hypo has had a situation forced upon him that would otherwise give rise to a duty. For example, if I own a business open to the public, I must keep my premises reasonably safe for my patrons. If a person slips and falls because my employee passed out drunk and spilled his whiskey all over the floor, I am liable.
However, if I was forced at gunpoint to sign a contract accepting ownership of a failing business, then I am not liable for those injuries because the contract was void at the outset.
This is a similar situation. As the father did not voluntarily engage in the acts (sexual intercourse) which gives rise to his duties to support minor children, then he has no such duties. This is a situation where the common law should be tweaked for equitable purposes and since the statutes have no explicitly overturned this element of the common law, the father should be held as a matter of law to have no duty to support this child.