Statutory rape and child support

[EverCurious]

Statutory rape victim forced to pay child support

I find myself in a bit of a moral dilemma on this one... The father was 14 at the time of conception and really had no concept, but at the same time this is not the child's fault either.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Is the link dark for everyone? Can kinda read it, but not super well.

Woman was 20, and state law had the aoc at 15 according to the article (news to me, thought the only state with a 15 aoc was New Hampshire.)

Article also mentions he didn't know she got pregnant until years later? When presumedly she contacted him for the child support.

That's a tricky one. I can understand your moral dilemma. Seems like she avoided telling him about the baby to avoid the statutory rape charge, and now that the statute of limitations has expired is manipulating the law so she can get money while being untouchable for the original crime.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Oh I see, Arizona has a 'Rome and Juliet' sorta provision, although if she was 20 at the time, she was still too old,

Arizona
A. Age of Consent/ Voluntary Sex Between Minors

Children under 15 years of age are unable to consent to sexual conduct regardless of the age of the defendant.[69] Individuals who are at least 15 years of age and less than 18 years of age are unable to consent to sexual conduct[70] unless the defendant is: (1)less than 19 years of age or still attending high school and (2) no more than 2 years older than the victim.[71]
Statutory Rape A Guide to State Laws and Reporting Requirements State Laws

 

[JakeStarkey]

A judge can make an appropriate decision.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

A judge can make an appropriate decision.

King Solomon himself would need a minute.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Actually, I take that back. This decision's simple: Because the original act which led to the child was criminal, a legal claim for support made afterwords must be dismissed. As in other instances with other crimes, if the original action involved a crime, then later legal claims cannot be made. As when a crime commited results in bookd eals or movie offers, the actor of the original crime cannot financially benefit.

 

[EverCurious]

He was 14 when he became a father (I think you read the second paragraph talking about the Romeo Juliet) though that is doubly invalid...

That said, I suppose you are right in the legal decision. That's clearly not what the state is saying atm, or well at least its not what the child support division is saying - they're garnishing his wages and so forth; the sad part is that if a judge tosses it, he'll be lucky to get that unowed CS back. CS is a damned disaster frankly, but that's a whole another conversation...

If we were to presume that is the 'legal' standing, then what of his desire to see his child? Would that ruling also sever his paternal rights?

 

[Esmeralda]

This seems to be a situation of the State demanding child support so they don't have to pay the mother public assistance: "it was the state social-services agency that pursued the case after the mother sought public assistance." This young man was raped: he was below the age of consent and should not be held responsible to pay child support. The state should be giving the mother public assistance because the father is was raped.

However, the father says he wants to be in the child's life and is willing to pay child support and be part of his child's life, but not back payments for the 6 years he didn't even know there was a child, most of that time when he wasn't even an adult. That seems a fine solution. It is just disgusting the State is going after this guy, a rape victim. It would not happen to a woman.

 

[EverCurious]

This seems to be a situation of the State demanding child support so they don't have to pay the mother public assistance: "it was the state social-services agency that pursued the case after the mother sought public assistance." This young man was raped: he was below the age of consent and should not be held responsible to pay child support. The state should be giving the mother public assistance because the father is was raped.

However, the father says he wants to be in the child's life and is willing to pay child support and be part of his child's life, but not back payments for the 6 years he didn't even know there was a child, most of that time when he wasn't even an adult. That seems a fine solution. It is just disgusting the State is going after this guy, a rape victim. It would not happen to a woman.

You are correct, child support enforcement is the most gender biased place I have ever had to deal with in my life. It's sickening how easily a spiteful bitch can destroy a guys life. Hell they destroyed my ex-husband's life for a year over their clerical mistake; and he was 100% doing the right thing, we only wanted to put it into CSED because they'd take money right out of his check and put it into my account saving us both time. We're so damn scared of their complete incompetence that we flat out refuse to modify anything through them for our two boys - Its been 14 years, my ex has gone from counter to manager, plus our eldest had moved in with dad at 13. I don't even want to think about what they did to my current husband >.<

I'm getting a bit off topic though - I think you are correct on the rest in this case and I do hope that the court throws out all the back child support and that they set it to the % pay standards (not sure if its 30% there.)

Though this does raise a question of legal oddity; should the father actually be required to pay child support at all? I mean if we presume the rape legally invalidates his obligation to pay child support then would it not be 'all' child support rather than just the back child support? Not saying the father cannot take responsibility for his child and pay support if he wishes, I am just wondering about the legality of him paying only 'ongoing' child support if the law invalidates his obligation. (aka splitting hairs)

 

[Esmeralda]

They should not require him to pay child support because he was not a consenting adult when the child was conceived. Because it was a crime, the State should pay. But, if he wants to, it seems reasonable for him to pay child support, for one thing, it shows the child that his father cares about him. Also, it is a way to secure a role in his child's life. He wants to do the right thing, and the State should work with him in achieving that, not punish the victim of a crime.

 

[ricechickie]

If he wants to be part of the child's life, then I think he should pay some support. Back support is nonsense; he didn't know the child existed, plus the child was conceived out of a criminal act. I think he's got a good case for being part of the child's life if he wants, or washing his hands of the whole thing, if that's what he wants.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

He was 14 when he became a father (I think you read the second paragraph talking about the Romeo Juliet) though that is doubly invalid...

That said, I suppose you are right in the legal decision. That's clearly not what the state is saying atm, or well at least its not what the child support division is saying - they're garnishing his wages and so forth; the sad part is that if a judge tosses it, he'll be lucky to get that unowed CS back. CS is a damned disaster frankly, but that's a whole another conversation...

If we were to presume that is the 'legal' standing, then what of his desire to see his child? Would that ruling also sever his paternal rights?

Dunno family law, but I'd think if on the hook for child support he'd have some kind of infered right to see the kid he's paying for and made.

 

[Care4all]

something doesn't add up....

is the child now 8 years old or is the child now 10 years old...if this guy is 24 and the conception occurred when he was 14, the child should be 10 years old...if the child is now 8 years old then this young man continued the relationship with this woman, even after the age of consent, and if his child was conceived after the age of consent, this could have different rules, perhaps?????

I don't know....????

but in my gut, it doesn't seem fair for him to owe the child support in rears, because he was unaware of the child.

 

[ricechickie]

He was 14 when he started having sex with her, presumably she had the baby, he was already 16, 16 + 8 = 24. He's now 24. I'm guessing the relationship went on for some time, but the article makes it sound like it was a one-time thing.

 

[TheOldSchool]

He was 14 when he started having sex with her, presumably she had the baby, he was already 16, 16 + 8 = 24. He's now 24. I'm guessing the relationship went on for some time, but the article makes it sound like it was a one-time thing.

Yea the sex in question happened when he was 16 it seems. Which under state law makes him liable. I don't think he should have to pay for the years he had no idea but I'm also not familiar with the law.

He seems willing to comply and wants to be in his daughter's life so hopefully it works out.

 

[EverCurious]

The report is poorly written. At the time of conception he was 14 and she was 20, they went their separate ways after. He didn't find out about the daughter until he was 22 when got served papers for child support (2 years ago, daughter was 6 at that time.) Today, he's 24 and the daughter would be 8.

Family law says that a paternal parent has automatic rights to their child regardless of child support. He'd probably have to get a paternity test if she went bitch rogue on him, but child support has ZERO effect on the parental visitation rights. Unless he signs them away or the court severs them for some reason.

The rest of it is a moral issue for me. I'm not sure its right to charge him CS at all, but at the same time it's a bit of a knot to say that he's not obligated to pay the back child support and only ongoing. I mean I know the court can do it, they can excuse and modify CS %'s for any reason they deem appropriate; so they could scratch the back support and say only ongoing.

I'm just not sure about the particular disconnect between the two morality concepts... aka being responsible for his daughter vs the morality of charging him CS for a rape case.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If he wants to be the kid's parent and actively or regularly involved as such, that makes the whole thing much more complicated.

Thinking of King Solomon (and rejecting the notion of cutting the kid in half hehe) I'd say give him co-custody and equal time with the kid as his kid. That way he can provide for 'her' was it, as opposed to giving that money to his rapist.

 

[ricechickie]

That's difficult, to give an 8-year-old (or 10-year-old) child over to the co-custody of a stranger.

No, thanks.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Because he was kept in the dark about the child existence, he shouldn't have to pay for the time that he missed out on of the child's life. That right there in my opinion is enough payment already because that is time that he can't get back. That lady should be the one who pays because she is the reason why he knew nothing about the child, therefore, she is the one who stole from him what he can not get back and because she chose to rape an under age kid, not only should she be charged for it, but to me that guy should sue her for full custody of the child. She was nothing but a sexual predator who I think needs the book thrown at her.

God bless you and the young man and his child always!!!

Holly

 

[EverCurious]

Interesting takes. It sounds from the report that the father does want to be involved with his daughter and I'm thinking he doesn't actually want out of the ongoing child support, merely the back owed. (I was just personally curious about that bit)

That's difficult, to give an 8-year-old (or 10-year-old) child over to the co-custody of a stranger.

No, thanks.

yea I get what you are saying... Still it's not his fault, or his daughters, that the mother didn't tell him for so many years. There would have to be some 'get to know each other' time for daughter and father before even considering co-custody for sure.

That said, I do think co-custody would be the optimal moral outcome, though it kind of sounded like the parents were not living in the same local so the arrangement would have to be like one summers, one winters...