Statutory rape and child support

[Iceweasel]

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.

Why should the tax payers pay her? The state should take the child if she can't or won't support it. There are plenty that would adopt.

 

[EverCurious]

The mother apparently went on state assistance, which is why CS went after him. We can't terminate parental rights based on needing state assistance heh

 

[ricechickie]

Why should the tax payers pay her? The state should take the child if she can't or won't support it. There are plenty that would adopt.

"Have they no prisons? Have they no workhouses?"

 

[Katzndogz]

Underage fathers are always required to pay child support. This kid is nothing special.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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

 

[Rikurzhen]

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.

That doesn't work under the laws we have. Here's the counter argument which always prevails. It's not the child's fault. The interest of the child comes first. This means that a mother can't bargain away child support because it's not hers to bargain.

The way out of this is for the child support to be paid by the state but then again, what did taxpayers do wrong?

Alternatively, since the boy was a child when he's victimized this dispute comes down to one child's interest versus another child's interests, and you shouldn't punish one to uphold the rights of the other. A child doesn't have a right to child support from a dead parent, so that child is just out of luck and the same here, this is out of luck.

 

[Rikurzhen]

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.

What did I do wrong? Why should I pay for that child? When you talk about the State you're not talking about some entity with limitless resources, you're talking about us taxpayers.

 

[EverCurious]

That doesn't work under the laws we have. Here's the counter argument which always prevails. It's not the child's fault. The interest of the child comes first. This means that a mother can't bargain away child support because it's not hers to bargain.

The way out of this is for the child support to be paid by the state but then again, what did taxpayers do wrong?

Alternatively, since the boy was a child when he's victimized this dispute comes down to one child's interest versus another child's interests, and you shouldn't punish one to uphold the rights of the other. A child doesn't have a right to child support from a dead parent, so that child is just out of luck and the same here, this is out of luck.

Just as a heads up, child support is not going to be paid by the state, period. That doesn't happen, what does happen though, is that the state takes a vested interest in finding the non custodial parent and charging them child support if the custodial parent goes on state assistance. They also demand that the father assist in paying for the labor and birth costs that used assistance funds. Which is what appears to be happening in this case.

That said, yes, if the mother is on welfare or any state assistance, ultimately the taxpayers end up paying for it.

 

[Rikurzhen]

That doesn't work under the laws we have. Here's the counter argument which always prevails. It's not the child's fault. The interest of the child comes first. This means that a mother can't bargain away child support because it's not hers to bargain.

The way out of this is for the child support to be paid by the state but then again, what did taxpayers do wrong?

Alternatively, since the boy was a child when he's victimized this dispute comes down to one child's interest versus another child's interests, and you shouldn't punish one to uphold the rights of the other. A child doesn't have a right to child support from a dead parent, so that child is just out of luck and the same here, this is out of luck.

Just as a heads up, child support is not going to be paid by the state, period. That doesn't happen, what does happen though, is that the state takes a vested interest in finding the non custodial parent and charging them child support if the custodial parent goes on state assistance. They also demand that the father assist in paying for the labor and birth costs that used assistance funds. Which is what appears to be happening in this case.

That said, yes, if the mother is on welfare or any state assistance, ultimately the taxpayers end up paying for it.

I wasn't clear. Some states have funds for victims of crime, so if the state paid it could come from such a fund. The kid was a victim of crime and it's unjust to punish him for being a victim of a crime. The baby can be supported from the Fund.

 

[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.

 

[Iceweasel]

The mother apparently went on state assistance, which is why CS went after him. We can't terminate parental rights based on needing state assistance heh

We can and we should.

 

[Iceweasel]

Why should the tax payers pay her? The state should take the child if she can't or won't support it. There are plenty that would adopt.

"Have they no prisons? Have they no workhouses?"

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.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Underage fathers are always required to pay child support. This kid is nothing special.

There is a difference when the kid was molested, by a sexual predator. She should be thrown in jail, and if she has no relatives to care for the child, the child should go to the father.

Or would you rather a sexual predator raise a child?

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

If this scenario had played out:

A 20 year old man, infatuates a 14 year old girl, he moves her in and impregnates her, she gives birth to a child, and the man takes the child and leaves, not to be seen again for 8 years.

After a debilitating illness the man is on government assistance, and the state finds out about the mother, so they sue her for child support, the judge agrees, stating it's not about the mother, its about the 8 year old.

PEOPLE WOULD BE OUTRAGED!

A sexual predator who is a man, is judged to be much more dangerous than a sexual predator who is a woman. Please.

The woman should be locked up! Period.

 

[Esmeralda]

That doesn't work under the laws we have. Here's the counter argument which always prevails. It's not the child's fault. The interest of the child comes first. This means that a mother can't bargain away child support because it's not hers to bargain.

The way out of this is for the child support to be paid by the state but then again, what did taxpayers do wrong?

Alternatively, since the boy was a child when he's victimized this dispute comes down to one child's interest versus another child's interests, and you shouldn't punish one to uphold the rights of the other. A child doesn't have a right to child support from a dead parent, so that child is just out of luck and the same here, this is out of luck.

Just as a heads up, child support is not going to be paid by the state, period. That doesn't happen, what does happen though, is that the state takes a vested interest in finding the non custodial parent and charging them child support if the custodial parent goes on state assistance. They also demand that the father assist in paying for the labor and birth costs that used assistance funds. Which is what appears to be happening in this case.

That said, yes, if the mother is on welfare or any state assistance, ultimately the taxpayers end up paying for it.

Okay, but this should not apply when the father was under the age of consent when the child was conceived. It was statutory rape, and his is therefore not responsible for child support.

 

[Iceweasel]

Okay, but this should not apply when the father was under the age of consent when the child was conceived. It was statutory rape, and his is therefore not responsible for child support.

The problem is the mother isn't responsible either. Time to find the kid a new home.

 

[Care4all]

From googling this....seems like there ARE lots of grey areas in the law....and even with him being statutory raped....he may still be held responsible for child support'....wow.....it's hard to believe....I would have thought not.....

 

[Care4all]

If the child is 8 now and he is 24 now....the child was born when he was 16, so he was 15 or16 when his daughter was conceived....and 15 is the age of consent....right? Though I would or it could be argued that he was messed up already by the rape that occurred at 14.......

 

[Esmeralda]

If the child is 8 now and he is 24 now....the child was born when he was 16, so he was 15 or16 when his daughter was conceived....and 15 is the age of consent....right? Though I would or it could be argued that he was messed up already by the rape that occurred at 14.......

It's a bad situation. Teenage boys think it's cool to have sex with an 'older' woman. Their parents need to warn them about this kind of shit.

 

[Picaro]

I'm surprised at the number of posters who actually think there is some sort of 'grey area' here. Well, not really; with rampant over-indulgent parenting and school systems dominated by infantlilized sociopaths it's inevitable that these hordes of naricissistic emotional midgets incapable of adult discernment skills will end up in the legal systems, media, academic careers, and political leadership positions, etc.