Rape victim ordered to pay her abuser child support

[Derec]

Louisiana allows child marriage, and the exception refers to spouses.

Underage marriage has nothing to do with the "with consent" clause. It is there to differentiate what probably happened here, consensual sex with somebody just under the legal line and the more serious crime of rape that the woman is alleging 10 years after the fact.

Even you can understand the difference between two kids who get married and a 30 year old man who offers a 16 year old a ride home and instead takes her to his own home and rapes her.

Again, this has nothing to do with marriage.
I guess even you can understand the difference between having consensual sex with somebody below the legal line, and actually raping a person. She is alleging the latter, but there is no evidence for it, so you cannot assume it happened the way she is alleging.

 

[Arctish]

I guess even you can understand the difference between having consensual sex with somebody below the legal line, and actually raping a person.

There is a difference between having consensual sex with someone above the legal line for being able to give legal consent, and raping them.

If they are below the legal limit then it's statutory rape even if it isn't forcible rape.

She is alleging the latter, but there is no evidence for it, so you cannot assume it happened the way she is alleging.

You cannot assume it happened the way he is alleging for the exact same reason. But there is more than enough evidence he committed statutory rape for him to be charged under Louisiana state laws. IMO he should have been arrested and charged when the DNA test results came back.

And I think she should sue him for child support going back to the day her kid was born.

 

[Toni]

Note to self:
- if you are a 16 yo woman, we must allow for the assumption that you are lying.
- if you are a 30 yo man, we must allow for the assumption that you are not lying.

Obviously, either of them may be lying.
We should not blindly believe the woman. Especially since in this case she has a vested interest in lying - she wants to prevent the father from having shared custody.

Regardless of whether she is lying about consent, it is a simple fact, confirmed by birth certificates and DNA as well as Louisiana state law that she was unable to consent to having sex with a 30 year old man at age 16.

 

[Toni]

Louisiana allows child marriage, and the exception refers to spouses.

Underage marriage has nothing to do with the "with consent" clause. It is there to differentiate what probably happened here, consensual sex with somebody just under the legal line and the more serious crime of rape that the woman is alleging 10 years after the fact.

Even you can understand the difference between two kids who get married and a 30 year old man who offers a 16 year old a ride home and instead takes her to his own home and rapes her.

Again, this has nothing to do with marriage.
I guess even you can understand the difference between having consensual sex with somebody below the legal line, and actually raping a person. She is alleging the latter, but there is no evidence for it, so you cannot assume it happened the way she is alleging.

Marriage was one exception in some states to the statutory rape law. I mentioned it only for thoroughness. You are correct, it does not apply in this case. She was unable to consent to sex. She was not just barely under the legal limit.

You are correct, there is very little likelihood that any evidence of consent in this case, although she was legally unable to give consent because it is now 16 years after the fact.

IF she had consented to the sex, she could have simply told everyone who the father of the child was and could have sued for and received child support. She would have been better off financially. Instead, she allowed everyone to assume she was pregnant by some unnamed boyfriend. Why would she do that? She carried the pregnancy, gave birth, raised the child. It's not as though she was trying to pretend that she had not had sex with someone.

 

[Gospel]

I don't think we need to look any further.

A sixteen year old kid wants to live with their dad.
Mom files rape charges.

You don't think we need to look any further.

That's so Woke it makes me ill.
Tom

I'm only talking about the 30-year-old having sex with a 16-year-old being a felony. You said it wasn't a felony and I replied with state law proving it is. Stop squirming sir.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I mean how else is a is a fucking gross rapist (like the subject of OP)

There is no evidence he raped her.

supposed to achieve "the dream" of getting their very own experience of raping a 16 year old, taking their teen child, and raping them too, too?

There is also zero evidence of that disgusting suggestion.

So all we know is that he had unlawful sex with a minor... and then went to court to take custody of the child from that unlawful sex. That is pretty disgusting.

Do you think a man can't be a good father just because he had sex with a 16 year old at one point?

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts she wasn't the only one.

 

[Jarhyn]

Also, to be clear, yes, I do not think any 45 year old who had sex with a 16 year old minor at the age of 30 can possibly be a good parent to a 16 year old.

CPS needs to be there tazing him as he resists as they take the child away from him and place her back with her mother.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think we need to look any further.

A sixteen year old kid wants to live with their dad.
Mom files rape charges.

You don't think we need to look any further.

That's so Woke it makes me ill.
Tom

Wow! Talk about first blush misogynism. Could be true, but we have nothing to suggest as such. This woman could be a drug addict. So much we don't know, like almost all of the story.

However, what we do know is that the court knew the man had unlawful sex with a minor and regardless, he was initially provided partial custody of the child. And with this being one of the only knowns, it does provide a small glimpse in to the situation, and it implies, the guy has his thumb on the scale. Maybe this woman is completely screwed up in the head, and the court realized this guy was the kid's only hope. But if that were the case, why initially shared custody?

 

[Toni]

I don't think we need to look any further.

A sixteen year old kid wants to live with their dad.
Mom files rape charges.

You don't think we need to look any further.

That's so Woke it makes me ill.
Tom

Wow! Talk about first blush misogynism. Could be true, but we have nothing to suggest as such. This woman could be a drug addict. So much we don't know, like almost all of the story.

However, what we do know is that the court knew the man had unlawful sex with a minor and regardless, he was initially provided partial custody of the child. And with this being one of the only knowns, it does provide a small glimpse in to the situation, and it implies, the guy has his thumb on the scale. Maybe this woman is completely screwed up in the head, and the court realized this guy was the kid's only hope. But if that were the case, why initially shared custody?

Also it isn't as though she just now filed rape charges. She filed them years ago and the police did....nothing.

Why didn't she file immediately? Believe it or not, rape is traumatic. Her rapist is a well connected adult; she was a kid. Also, she was a kid. It could well have taken her some time to realize that it was rape (statutory or forcible) because of the shock, the shame and the fact that girls absorb even more than boys do the lesson that 'they should have known better/worn something different/not had that drink or drug/not gone to that person's room or home/not accepted that ride home. She should have had better judgment. It was her fault for being stupid. She's probably a slut as well. Girls absorb that lesson as well as any rapist could dream.

 

[ZiprHead]

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

The mom's facebook page. Apparently she is discussing the issue in PMs.

 

[Gospel]

It has not been shown she was a "rape victim". Even the law in question acknowledges that sex with a person below 17 can be consensual.

What does the law say about consent in this particular case between A 30-year-old and a 16-year-old at the time? To my knowledge, it's a felony even with consent. My only curiosity at this moment is has the state of Louisiana enforced its law and if not why not?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think we need to look any further.

A sixteen year old kid wants to live with their dad.
Mom files rape charges.

You don't think we need to look any further.

That's so Woke it makes me ill.
Tom

Wow! Talk about first blush misogynism. Could be true, but we have nothing to suggest as such. This woman could be a drug addict. So much we don't know, like almost all of the story.

However, what we do know is that the court knew the man had unlawful sex with a minor and regardless, he was initially provided partial custody of the child. And with this being one of the only knowns, it does provide a small glimpse in to the situation, and it implies, the guy has his thumb on the scale. Maybe this woman is completely screwed up in the head, and the court realized this guy was the kid's only hope. But if that were the case, why initially shared custody?

Also it isn't as though she just now filed rape charges. She filed them years ago and the police did....nothing.

Why didn't she file immediately? Believe it or not, rape is traumatic. Her rapist is a well connected adult; she was a kid. Also, she was a kid. It could well have taken her some time to realize that it was rape (statutory or forcible) because of the shock, the shame and the fact that girls absorb even more than boys do the lesson that 'they should have known better/worn something different/not had that drink or drug/not gone to that person's room or home/not accepted that ride home. She should have had better judgment. It was her fault for being stupid. She's probably a slut as well. Girls absorb that lesson as well as any rapist could dream.

Based on the known information, it is near impossible to really justify any conclusion, other than 1) what is presented looks awful and 2) the little we know implies something is not right. That the court (family court) didn't even take the crime of statutory rape into consideration seems bizarre, unless politics is involved.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There has to be more to this story, because if there isn't, this is an abhorrent breach of justice. Of course, this is Louisiana.

Why does there have to be more to it?

1) Child support laws are really fucked up.

2) As you say, it's Louisiana. Fucking a 16 year old is just being a manly man.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most of the states (21) for which the age of consent is 16 have so called Romeo and Juliet clauses to allow sex between minors under the age of consent and partners who are near their age, typically allowing fir an age difference of 2-4 years. Even some states for which the age of consent is 17 or 18 still utilize age difference ranges. In NONE of those states which allow similar age partners would the 30 year old man to have consensual sex with a 16 year old. Not one.

Which is a good way to handle it, although personally I would like to see one change: An existing relationship can't become illegal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If a young man meets a young woman at a party and she tells him she is 18 or 19 but turns out to be 16, do you really think he should go to prison for a felony charge and have to register as a "sex offender"? I definitely do not.

Here I partially agree with you. Statutory rape should not be a strict liability offense, although I would not accept your example. Her simply saying she's 18 isn't enough in my book--but if she shows an ID showing she's 18 at that point he's got a reasonable belief that she's of age and he's not guilty even if that ID turns out to be fake.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Clearly there are multiple injustices in this case. But if this woman now owes child support doesn't this guy owe lots of back child support?

He owes jail time.

That too. But since he hasn't been charged or convicted, I doubt it is going to occur.

But he ought to pay for back child support, especially if he is demanding current child support.

I would be surprised if it could occur--the statute of limitations is probably long since expired.

 

[Toni]

Most of the states (21) for which the age of consent is 16 have so called Romeo and Juliet clauses to allow sex between minors under the age of consent and partners who are near their age, typically allowing fir an age difference of 2-4 years. Even some states for which the age of consent is 17 or 18 still utilize age difference ranges. In NONE of those states which allow similar age partners would the 30 year old man to have consensual sex with a 16 year old. Not one.

Which is a good way to handle it, although personally I would like to see one change: An existing relationship can't become illegal.

Really? So if a 30 year old adult takes into their sphere of influence/bed a 13 year old and this is undiscovered first the two years, but then the relationship/abuse is discovered and the poor child is expected to continue to put up with it? The kid would still be a minor and presumably under the control of the adult.

How do you envision that working, exactly?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most of the states (21) for which the age of consent is 16 have so called Romeo and Juliet clauses to allow sex between minors under the age of consent and partners who are near their age, typically allowing fir an age difference of 2-4 years. Even some states for which the age of consent is 17 or 18 still utilize age difference ranges. In NONE of those states which allow similar age partners would the 30 year old man to have consensual sex with a 16 year old. Not one.

Which is a good way to handle it, although personally I would like to see one change: An existing relationship can't become illegal.

Really? So if a 30 year old adult takes into their sphere of influence/bed a 13 year old and this is undiscovered first the two years, but then the relationship/abuse is discovered and the poor child is expected to continue to put up with it? The kid would still be a minor and presumably under the control of the adult.

How do you envision that working, exactly?

30 with 13 is illegal. Her aging into legal doesn't make it legal.

I'm talking about relationships that are legal and then become illegal either through crossing state lines or in some states one person going above 18. (There are places where 16+17 is legal, but a year later the same couple is 17+18 and illegal.)

 

[Toni]

There has to be more to this story, because if there isn't, this is an abhorrent breach of justice. Of course, this is Louisiana.

Why does there have to be more to it?

1) Child support laws are really fucked up.

2) As you say, it's Louisiana. Fucking a 16 year old is just being a manly man.

Yeah, well, sadly almost none of us live in Louisiana and so we can continue to fool ourselves that such things only happen in backwards southern states and not, for instance, in sophisticated urban northern states, I guess.

Which is bullshit. This happens in every single state in the union and all over the world, in every socioeconomic class that there is,

Even where laws are what we non-southerners like to consider more modern and progressive.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There has to be more to this story, because if there isn't, this is an abhorrent breach of justice. Of course, this is Louisiana.

Why does there have to be more to it?

1) Child support laws are really fucked up.

The child support angle is ugly. The state giving partial custody to a guy that illegally had sex with a minor is a tad worse. Hence, the hope there is more explaining why this is legitimately in the child's best interest instead of another LA political scandal.

2) As you say, it's Louisiana. Fucking a 16 year old is just being a manly man.

And against the law.