I think in reality it is just "somebody has to look after this child, and screwy as it is, the father is the best provider that child has".
There may be better ways, but there are probably no GOOD ways to give this child a good life.
Statutory rape victim ordered to pay 15K in retro child support
- Thread starter Ashley V
- Start date
There may be better ways, but there are probably no GOOD ways to give this child a good life.
Not quite. Read Arrdvark's post: she wasn't charged or convicted of any crime. Therefore, as far as the courts are concerned, they can't hold her accountable for wrongdoing and the ages are irrelevant. So what western law say is really saying is if you father a child, you must support them barring mitigating circumstances. Had he plead that he was raped, charged her, and she still had the child, I doubt they would be asking him for child support. But by his own admission, he didn't consider it rape, he never pressed charges... He's just facing the normal consequences of having sex without protection.
The Dad's now a young medical assistant who wants to be involved with his child.
Two years ago the mother applied for welfare initiating this case though that probably was the result of desperation.
His involvement will only do good.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/05/nick-olivas-alleged-rape-victim-_n_5773532.html
He was too young to consent, therefore it's automatically statutory rape. He's also too young to consider if it was rape, therefore he couldn't be expected to press charges.
The state is negligent because they didn't press charges, therefore they should deal with the consequences.
Someone has to say something (usually this is the minor or their guardian), police are not clairvoyant and suddenly have a brain flash about a case of statutory rape.
Further, would we really want a society where police just went and investigated off their own bat to see if there might be statutory rape!
The state did investigate and determined he had sex with the woman. Nothing clairvoyant.
That was years later. If they did it at the time, and the Arizona Welfare people did not notify police, then indeed there would be some serious liability.
Didn't realize statutory rape had limitations on when the perp could be charged.
He can have the same lame excuse then, it was years ago when he fathered a baby, therefore he shouldn't be accountable for his actions.
Different states different statutes of limitations. This was in Arizona, so other than as a study in comparative law, it is pointless to say that it still could be prosecuted in New York.
That is leaving aside the profound issues raised when you can be accused of a crime that is alleged to have occurred 30 years ago. A murder I believe you would remember having committed, having had a sexual encounter with someone who said they were of age 30 years go on the other hand, how much assistance could you provide in your own defence?
It doesn't matter if the victim says they were of age or consenting, it's automatically statutory rape if they are underage.
The evidence is right there in the baby's DNA, no need for testimony and a failed memory doesn't matter.
I didn't say he should have to pay did I? I just asked why you thought the state should pick up the tab?
And in North America victims don't "make" charges, prosecutors do. Except in very rare private prosecutions.
Generally though, both biological parents have an obligation to support their child.
By the way Viggo, what you are really writing about is press charges, not make charges. Further, this varies from state to state in some the victim has to formally press charges, in others it is out of the victims hands.
She was 20 and should have been on birth control but obviously was to fucking stupid to do so. Now if she had of been 14 and the guy 20, even with 6 years gone by he would be charged with the rape. My opinion is the bimbo should fuck off and let him have his life since she never told him.
Unfortunately, the vast majority (if not all) jurisdictions in North America don't agree with you.
And there's also the issue that maybe HE should have had birth control.
In any event, all - I believe - North American jurisdictions put the best interests of the child before that of the father and therefore, the father must pay child support in pretty much any conceivable situation. All she wrote pretty much.
Which is disgusting in my opinion.
The rights of the child should trump BOTH MOTHER AND FATHER, however this case is not rocket science. He was a victim and should not have to pay.
OK, but she's already paying because she buys the groceries, pays the rent, etc. His support is just 50% (or less) of the bill to raise the child.
If you really believe that the rights of the child are top priority than you must support the child receiving the most support possible, and that would include some contribution from the father should it not?
If the rights of the child are supreme (which they are are should be) than the fact that the custodial parent gets some collateral benefit from the child support payment is immaterial is it not?
