Statutory rape and child support

[Care4all]

The guy doesn't owe a dime in child support, nor should he have to pay just to be in the child's life. The onus is on the 20 year old, entirely. He is the father, and she was just a criminal; she has zero claims on the guy, and he owes the mother nothing. It 's pretty cut and dried; there is no 'grey area' here.

I can understand why you think this way, and it seems that most of us do as well,

however that is not the law in many states and not the law in the State this young man resides in....if you read the article, you can see he IS being held accountable for future child support AND child support in the rears....this could be due to him being at the age of consent when the child was conceived, 15 or 16 years old and NOT the 14yrs old that he was when the statutory rape occurred, I'm not certain?

once again, another journalist's article that does not answer the WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, WHY and HOW of the story....so we are all left speculating...

 

[Picaro]

The guy doesn't owe a dime in child support, nor should he have to pay just to be in the child's life. The onus is on the 20 year old, entirely. He is the father, and she was just a criminal; she has zero claims on the guy, and he owes the mother nothing. It 's pretty cut and dried; there is no 'grey area' here.

I can understand why you think this way, and it seems that most of us do as well,

however that is not the law in many states and not the law in the State this young man resides in....if you read the article, you can see he IS being held accountable for future child support AND child support in the rears....this could be due to him being at the age of consent when the child was conceived, 15 or 16 years old and NOT the 14yrs old that he was when the statutory rape occurred, I'm not certain?

Yes, hence my rant in my last post. The political hacks that pass those laws and the judges that enforce that sort of mindless idiocy should be thrown into asylums.

 

[ricechickie]

Is that what I said, idiot? I said the state should take over if the parent can't support the child. Have someone explain the words to you.

Are you on break from charm school?

Your sentiment is very close to "Have they no prisons? Have they no workhouses?" Only you add, "Have they no foster care?"

 

[Katzndogz]

Did you not read the thread, or are you drunk?

Does the article say that underage fathers should not have to pay child support? Put the bong down. Your eyes are starting to cross.

 

[EverCurious]

The report is poorly written and lends easily to misconception as the numbers don't add up, an unfortunate study in itself.

It proclaims he became a father at 14, but wasn't aware of it until 8 years later. Which would make him 22 when CSED began garnishing his wages; supposedly two years ago. Though it also says the daughter was 6 when CSED began garnishing his wages; which would make her 8 and that doesn't fit with a 14 year old conception line...

Did your research turn up a better article to determine everyone's ages Care4All?


I must digress because I strongly disagree with the idea of severing parental rights if the parent goes on state assistance, and such a ruling would have extremely dangerous repercussions. One must consider that the mother in this case was apparently able to care for the daughter for six (or eight) years WITHOUT state assistance, so to demand she put her daughter up for adoption over a rough financial patch is improper; especially when one considers the recent economic difficulty and unemployment situation.

A parents rights should not be severed without very strong evidence of a clear and unavoidable endangerment to the child's well being. Not to mention that the reason we offer such state assistance programs is to help, to tie that assistance into ones ability to retain their parental rights is quite simply unacceptable. To be completely honest, I find the very thought of destroying a mother/daughter (or father/daughter) relationship over mere money both disgusting and appalling in it's conception.

I understand that there are certain segments of our population that abuse assistance programs with children, however to pain the entire lot with such a cruel stereotype is not fair nor proper to the majority who do NOT abuse assistance programs, and in fact flies in the face of the good will that underpins the entire reason we, as a country, started such programs in the first place. I am no fan of our current welfare/assistance programs, but I do think the idea of them is proper and 'right' given our countries greatness.

 

[Iceweasel]

Is that what I said, idiot? I said the state should take over if the parent can't support the child. Have someone explain the words to you.

Are you on break from charm school?

Your sentiment is very close to "Have they no prisons? Have they no workhouses?" Only you add, "Have they no foster care?"

Wrong. Have someone explain the words to you. Idiot.