> teenager fucks a 20-year old chick
> 10 years later
> realizes he fathered her kid and has to pay child support
> "b-but i got statutory rape'd"
> judge doesn't care
This seems like it sucks, but for us sexual freedom supporters this is a GOOD thing. It means the law recognizes that people this age (teens) should be held responsible for their own sexual actions. So the question is, then, why treat the woman as a criminal for an act willingly entered into by a young man who understood what he was doing? Age of consent reform is happening, believe it, and get with the times.
>women commits statutory rape
>boy has to pay child support
>woman suffers no consequences
>man commits statutory rape
>sent to prison for years
>career is destroyed
>life is ruined
If you can invalidate the rape, why can't you invalidate the child support?
Also, this. Although there are some sensible judges throughout the country, this seems to be common place in America. Especially in liberal states, so just stick with Texas if you want to safe.
Well, I was going to link to the wikipedia article on the case that set the precedent for this sort of thing but your article mentioned it. It is really stupid, like being liable for injuries a robber suffers while breaking into your house type stupid bullshit.
>you're missing the "10 years later" part ehich invalidates the "rape"
Instead of pointing fingers like a horde of religious fruitcakes have done for centuries, why not explain to the children like, before they get the midnight wood, what happens when you stick it in the poo and the goo. AIDS and fucking babies.
Not him, but because they're two seperate legal items.
1) You have a rape. Offense against the state in general and against the victim.
2) You have paternity. Regardless of parentage, the child is considered in U.S. jurisprudence to have the right to have its parents support it to the extent of those parental material ability.
Just because the father didn't consent to parenthood, or even sex, doesn't affect #2, that the child has a right to be supported.
Article says he fucked her when he was 14.
Then it says he is 24 in school. But that 2 years ago (when 22) he found out he has a daughter who was 6 years old.
The child cant be his. 6+2 is 8 years plus the 9months pregnancy is still less than 9 years, which is less than the 10 years in which he had fucked her.
Not him but I agree.
However, she SHOULD now face a separate criminal prosecution for statutory rape. In the meantime the child should be handed over to the father or another family member.
Yeah, but the guy was a child when the child was born. He owes more than $15,000 to make up for that entire child's life, including the 4 years that the victim himself was still a child.
You're saying that's right? If it was 18 and up, I'd consider that at least a little more reasonable, but you're defending this shit?
Here's how the story went down
>20 year old RAPES a 14 year old
>Doesn't say anything about it for 8 years
>She finds out he's a medical assistant with a decent salary
>She finds some lawyers that twist the case around entirely
>Now this poor sap who was raped as a kid has to pay the bitch who raped him 10 years worth of child support including the birth of the kid, for a kid he's never even seen
It's such a fucked situation
>Fucked her when he was almost 15, but still 14
>add 9 months, he's 15, almost 16 when the child was born
>Add around 6 years, he's 22
They didn't give exact dates. It's best to assume they approximated some of it
>woman gets raped by man
>10 years later her rapist gets out of jail
>rapist wants visitation and possibly custody of child her fathered when he raped her
>"b-but I was raped"
>judge doesn't care
You are missing the point op. Until males start getting away with statutory rape, we are not getting anywhere. The pussy pass regarding statutory rape has existed for a long time and this is just another example.
If this happens enough then MAYBE they will be forced to change laws a bit just to protect these older women.
Because you're focusing entirely on what's fair to the father, which I suppose is a reaosnable perspective.
As someone who has worked in family law, child support, at least in theory, is based entirely around the right of the child to have material support from its parents. That child still needs food, shoes, a warm home, etc, no matter how he or she was conceived.
It is fucked, I freely admit that, but a presumably innocent child shouldn't have to suffer for it.
I'd agree to support the child if she agrees to serve jail time for rape.
Hey, legal responsibility works both ways. Any judge that would not uphold that fair ruling is a fucking idiotic feminist cuck.
The child doesn't need $15,000 in BACK PAYMENTS to survive. I understand him supporting the child now, that's reasonable. The kid's 8 years old at the time of the story. The father is required to pay for at least 3 years of child support where he himself was a child.
I don't see how you can possibly see that as justified in any way.
>the child is innocent
What a load of horse shit.
The situation of the child being conceived under rape makes the very act of the paternity a non-consenting issue. He had zero say in the matter of paternity, given she was an adult, she deprived him of any choice or recourse. She, the parent, chose to impose a child onto a minor, who rightfully should not legally be able to parent a child without the rape.
You cannot disconnect the two.
Except that's NOT what child support is predicated upon. Child support is predicated upon the absolutely fucking retarded notion that a child is ENTITLED to the lifestyle that the child would have had in a two-parent household with both of the child's parents. Were it just "minimal support," there would be some sense to it. As it stands, however, a father's obligation to pay is only limited by his income (and not his actual income, but the income the court determines he COULD make - say I just can't take the BigLaw life any longer and take a pay cut to work government or small firm: the judge might well compel me to pay some amount based on a previous BigLaw salary based on an arbitrary judicial determination that I would have spent that much on the kid had the "family" remained a family). This isn't even getting into the absolute insanity of a system that tries to handwave away the biggest demonstrable flaw in that whole delusion - the payment of two rents, which is the largest single expense for virtually any household.
>Person who cannot consent to sexual intercourse or the responsibilities that come with having a child
>Person does not know the child exists. A woman would have the choice to abort the baby and not deal with the responsibility, yet this man had no idea the child existed until the child was 6 years old
>Despite the fact that he could not consent in the act where the child was born, and he could not consent with the decision that the child would be born and supported, he is required by the state to pay over $15,000 to make up for the 6 years he was completely unaware of the child's existence, which he did not consent to having
Nice job Phoenix.
Because child support is a civil matter, it's not about right or wrong or fair or unfair. It's about a duty and the right of compensation for the child.
I know it's an emotional issue, but searching for someone who acts "unfairly" and making them pay is not how the civil court structure works at all, and there are far more egregious from a theoretical perspective cases that aren't so emotionally charged that get passed over every day.
Yes, it was incurred in an unfair manner, but the obligation to support the child is attached to the child, and stems from birth.
Father's recourse should be to sue for that same balance as damages resulting from sexual battery, (or whatever they call it in that state), and while that will come out to a net zero payment, and would be "just", it doesn't do to muddle the concepts.
Your playing this too fast and loose
Someone get this horny fuck out of here !
Enough judges ignore things like student loan repayment that even that 6-pack is not guaranteed. Educational debt leaving law school can easily be $30k/year repayment. That's not a small number. I'm not in this kind of insane situation, but it just makes me frothing mad to even contemplate the kind of shit someone in my situation would be in after just one fuck-up that puts him in this kind of situation.
No it doesn't. Statute of limitations for civil matters stem from the date the financial damage is incurred. Which is when he has to pay the judgment. Unless he sits on his ass for another decade, he can sue under it, same as any act which leads to a later injury, physical or financial.
>The civil court is unfair and that's just the way it is
So you agree with that on the basis as "It's just the way it is?"
>but the obligation to support the child is attached to the child, and stems from birth.
I'd agree with that. But he was completely unaware of the child's existence, and he could use the money he makes for the child anyways, instead of paying the woman who raped him $15,000 in hopes that she puts it towards the child's wellbeing.
>Father's recourse should be to sue for that same balance as damages resulting from sexual battery, (or whatever they call it in that state), and while that will come out to a net zero payment, and would be "just", it doesn't do to muddle the concepts.
Unfortunately, like you said, statutes of limitations only apply to real crimes, or whatever, so he wouldn't even win the case.
I don't get what you're saying, still. You want this man's life to be ruined, despite the fact that he's willing to support the child now, and let's face it, the child will be lucky if they see half that $15,000.
Except his only damages would have arisen under the statutory rape, not the legal obligation to pay child support. The recognition of child support obligations does not constitute legally cognizeable "damages."
>So you agree with that on the basis as "It's just the way it is?"
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that fairness and unfairness are issues that are dealt with, if at all, by criminal courts. Civil courts are concerned with compensation and ensuring that lines of obligation are followed.
>I'd agree with that. But he was completely unaware of the child's existence, and he could use the money he makes for the child anyways, instead of paying the woman who raped him $15,000 in hopes that she puts it towards the child's wellbeing.
So challenge for custody, or try to get some kind of oversight into the spending (theoretically possible, but I've never heard of a court granting it). Fear of poor spending by the guardian of the child doesn't relieve of obligation.
>Unfortunately, like you said, statutes of limitations only apply to real crimes, or whatever, so he wouldn't even win the case.
No it doesn't. In every state I'm aware of, statutes of limitations start tolling when you become reasonably aware of injury, not when the injury is incurred. If you're investing money in my firm, and I pull a Bernie Madoff, embezzle all of it, and you come asking for your money and interest 15 years later, after the statute of limitations as calculated by the initial embezzlement, you still have a case.
>I don't get what you're saying, still. You want this man's life to be ruined, despite the fact that he's willing to support the child now, and let's face it, the child will be lucky if they see half that $15,000.
I'm saying there's a number of factors at work here. Child support focuses on a single one of those issues, paternity and obligation to support. The other issues should be handled in other proceedings, not all lumped together to make a parity in the child support hearing..
So OP (fag) according to you I should be able to
> rape a 10-yr old
> go to prison for 10 years
> get custody of her kid (age 10)
Not saying I want to do this, just that according to your fucked-up pro-consent worldview I should be able to do this
That is not the case in Tennessee. I don't know if that's true in other states' jurisprudence, but at least over here, child support, its imposition and possible alterations and the like, are considered in the same legal category as newfound damages, and re-open the statute of limitations.
>paternity and obligation to support
That sort of goes hand in hand with fairness, don't you think? I don't think a child should be obligated to pay for another child he did not consent to having.
It's basically the same as breaking into a man's home, jacking him off for semen, putting that shit inside you, having the baby, and then demanding child support.
>It's basically the same as breaking into a man's home, jacking him off for semen, putting that shit inside you, having the baby, and then demanding child support.
Women have in fact stolen semen, impregnated themself, and then successfully sued for child support.
Holy shit, this is gold medal mental gymnastics material right here.
Right, because a supposedly overbearing patriarchy that doesn't care about women would allow a "byproduct" like this to continue to exist when it clearly hurts men more.
Jesus, you fucking SJW cannot even get a glimpse of your own insane bullshit
Men need a way to safely ensure they have temporary sterility. Some kind of off switch for viable sperm that can be turned back on. It's the only true way besides abstinence to protect men.
Men only get custody in the most extreme cases, where the mother is completely incapable of caring for so much as a pet rock. Child support is likewise laughably impossible.