Rape victim ordered to pay her abuser child support

[Jimmy Higgins]

this has been proven where?

Which part?
Almost none of the details are proven.
She had an alcoholic beverage in a public place, minimum drinking age 21.
The age of consent, I presume is 17 or 18. Even if she told him she was underage to buy alcohol, she'd still have been old enough to have sex legally.

Heck, she could have "admitted" to only being 18. Nobody really knows what happened, probably not even Abelseth and Barnes. It was 16 years prior and alcohol was involved.
Tom

No one really knows what happens, yet you continue to excuse his behavior.

Actually TomC condemned both, despite the 16 year old NOT getting an abortion. And the condemnation was more important to express than the idea of the legal system, of which this man apparently had links to, giving him custody of the child despite the legal statutory rape issue that wasn't in question... and making the mother pay alimony. Which was the whole purpose of the thread.

But TomC be like:

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes.
She was in a bar, drink in hand, minimum age requirement 21, and she got laid.

Those are the facts.
Tom

This. I think the state should have to prove that the defendant either knew or should have known that the person he had consensual sex with was underage. Something like picking up somebody at a bar should be considered sufficient defense and lead to a judge to dismiss charges.

While I don't like it being a strict liability offense (I don't believe they should exist at all) I think you're going too far here. I believe the older person has a responsibility to determine that their prospective partner is of legal age, same as there are age requirements for bars. I do not expect the older partner to be an expert at spotting fake ID, though, and I think that their presence in an age-restricted space is a reasonable determination of their age. If he really picked her up in a bar (and it's a state that doesn't let minors in bars) that's good enough in my book--but I'm not convinced he picked her up in a bar. "Should have known" is too high a bar. If he had any reason to suspect she's underage he should find out!

"Gee officer, that kid over there was in a bar when I saw her, and had a drink in her hand! I mean, I know now that she was only 14, and she looks like a kid and sounds like a kid... but how was I to know? I mean, she was in a bar, so obviously she was an adult right?"

It's nice to know that in your book, it's just fine if a full grown adult man exploits a minor, as long as you feel comfortable giving HIM the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that the girls was some evil temptress and he just couldn't help himself.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that men so very often have the backs of predatory men, and willing to excuse away the misbehavior of other men as long as it's only women and girls who get hurt by it.

 

[Emily Lake]

Be that as it may, and again I don't know about Lousiana, but where I live it is common knowledge (in the sense that every adult, or in fact anyone over the age of 12, can be expected to know) that teenagers will sometimes try, and occasionally succeed, to get drinks before they are legal to do so. If his defence were - and I haven't even seen anything suggesting that it is - that he concluded she must have been 21+ because he found her at a bar, her is declaring himself mentally 11 and clearly unfit to raise a child arguably more mature than himself.

If someone has a fake ID good enough to get into a bar I see no way a prospective partner can be expected to ascertain if someone young-looking is legal or not. And I will not hold people to an impossible standard.

I don't know, err on the side of caution maybe? Maybe get to know a person before diving into bed with them? Maybe, as a 30+ year old fucking man, he ought to have taken a minute and given some thought to whether or not he really ought to be hopping in the sack with someone who looked so young?

But hey, it's just a girl, no big deal. We've got to protect the reputation and feelings of the man here, gotta have our priorities straight, right?

 

[Emily Lake]

No one really knows what happens, yet you continue to excuse his behavior.

Yep. Nobody really knows what happened, so lets believe the man 100% and disregard the girl's claims completely.

 

[TomC]

It's nice to know that in your book, it's just fine if a full grown adult man exploits a minor, as long as you feel comfortable giving HIM the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that the girls was some evil temptress and he just couldn't help himself.

Where did you get the idea that anyone thinks it's "just fine" for a 16 y/o to have sex at all? With anyone?
It certainly wasn't me.
Tom

 

[TomC]

No one really knows what happens, yet you continue to excuse his behavior.

Yep. Nobody really knows what happened, so lets believe the man 100% and disregard the girl's claims completely.

Whoever said that?
Certainly not me.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's nice to know that in your book, it's just fine if a full grown adult man exploits a minor, as long as you feel comfortable giving HIM the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that the girls was some evil temptress and he just couldn't help himself.

Where did you get the idea that anyone thinks it's "just fine" for a 16 y/o to have sex at all? With anyone?
It certainly wasn't me.
Tom

The thread is about an adult who was involved with illegal sex with a minor, and eventually the minor who became an adult had to give up custody to the person who broke the law... and then help pay for child support. At best, it was "only" statutory rape. Your personal position on the morality of sex and teens in general isn't on-topic. Not every thread has to be about TomC's high pedestal moral code on things outside the topic of discussion.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's nice to know that in your book, it's just fine if a full grown adult man exploits a minor, as long as you feel comfortable giving HIM the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that the girls was some evil temptress and he just couldn't help himself.

Where did you get the idea that anyone thinks it's "just fine" for a 16 y/o to have sex at all? With anyone?
It certainly wasn't me.
Tom

The thread is about an adult who was involved with illegal sex with a minor, and eventually the minor who became an adult had to give up custody to the person who broke the law... and then help pay for child support. At best, it was "only" statutory rape. Your personal position on the morality of sex and teens in general isn't on-topic. Not every thread has to be about TomC's high pedestal moral code on things outside the topic of discussion.

Really the heart of the discussion is "corrupt judge gives corrupt asshole custody of his rape baby from a grown woman as that girl becomes the same age as her mother was when she was raped.

There's no excuse giving a sick fuck who fucks kids access to a kid the age of the kids he fucked

 

[TomC]

The thread is about an adult who was involved with illegal sex with a minor. At best, it was "only" statutory rape. Your personal position on the morality of sex and teens in general isn't on-topic. Not every thread has to be about TomC's high pedestal moral code on things o

You're contradicting yourself.
Earlier you posted

And the condemnation was more important to express than the idea of the legal system, of which this man apparently had links to, giving him custody of the child despite the legal statutory rape issue that wasn't in question... and making the mother pay alimony. Which was the whole purpose of the thread.

Is the purpose of the thread to discuss sleazy behavior or the family court decision?

The fact that a family court made an extremely unusual ruling gives me to believe that they know more about the actual situation, the events and people involved, than the posters on IIDB.

But unlike Abelseth, the court and Barnes didn't go on social media to weaponize the daughter in an ugly domestic drama.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is the purpose of the thread to discuss sleazy behavior or the family court decision?

The fact that a family court made an extremely unusual ruling gives me to believe that they know more about the actual situation, the events and people involved, than the posters on IIDB.

The initial events imply the man had connections with the court seeing how they overlooked the statutory rape thing. Additionally, the events imply that the mother has issues she needs to get resolved. Issues that may very well stem from having been potentially sexually assaulted, and definitely becoming a mother at the age of 16.

But unlike Abelseth, the court and Barnes didn't go on social media to weaponize the daughter in an ugly domestic drama.

Social media as in the newspaper, because she was being ordered by the court to GIVE A RAPIST MONEY!

 

[laughing dog]

But unlike Abelseth, the court and Barnes didn't go on social media to weaponize the daughter in an ugly domestic drama.
Tom

They didn't have to - Both the court and Abelseth got what they wanted.

 

[laughing dog]

No one really knows what happens, yet you continue to excuse his behavior.

Yep. Nobody really knows what happened, so lets believe the man 100% and disregard the girl's claims completely.

Whoever said that?
Certainly not me.
Tom

Apparently you don't read your own posts. You are not fooling anyone but yourself with such nonsense.

 

[TomC]

But unlike Abelseth, the court and Barnes didn't go on social media to weaponize the daughter in an ugly domestic drama.
Tom

They didn't have to - Both the court and Abelseth got what they wanted.

Who is "they"?
I thought the reason that this became a thing on IIDB was because Abelseth didn't get what she wanted, so she went to the court of the internet.

Was is there a thread about this?
Tom

 

[TomC]

Apparently you don't read your own posts. You are not fooling anyone but yourself with such nonsense.

I've never said

so lets believe the man 100% and disregard the girl's claims completely.

Never.
Not even close.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

But unlike Abelseth, the court and Barnes didn't go on social media to weaponize the daughter in an ugly domestic drama.
Tom

They didn't have to - Both the court and Abelseth got what they wanted.

Who is "they"?

The court and Barnes. Duh. Please try to read with a modicum of comprehension in future.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But unlike Abelseth, the court and Barnes didn't go on social media to weaponize the daughter in an ugly domestic drama.
Tom

They didn't have to - Both the court and Abelseth got what they wanted.

Who is "they"?

The court and Abelseth. Duh. Please try to read with a modicum of comprehension in future.

That'd be Barnes, Abelseth is the woman.

 

[laughing dog]

Apparently you don't read your own posts. You are not fooling anyone but yourself with such nonsense.

<consistancy edit>

Perhaps I am, but not about this.

I've never said

so lets believe the man 100% and disregard the girl's claims completely.

Never.
Not even close, if you've got the reading comprehension of a squirrel.
Tom

Perhaps, but it certainly exceeds your exhibited reading comprehension.
You are the one who consistently reports the "facts" without including the fact that Barnes committed statutory rape. Not me.

 

[TomC]

But unlike Abelseth, the court and Barnes didn't go on social media to weaponize the daughter in an ugly domestic drama.
Tom

They didn't have to - Both the court and Abelseth got what they wanted.

Who is "they"?

The court and Abelseth. Duh. Please try to read with a modicum of comprehension in future.

Abelseth got her way?

Sorry, I don't pay much attention to family drama in other places.

I thought that the reason for this thread is that Abelseth didn't get her way in family court, so took it to the court of the internet.

If she got her way, then why is think an issue?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

But unlike Abelseth, the court and Barnes didn't go on social media to weaponize the daughter in an ugly domestic drama.
Tom

They didn't have to - Both the court and Abelseth got what they wanted.

Who is "they"?

The court and Abelseth. Duh. Please try to read with a modicum of comprehension in future.

That'd be Barnes, Abelseth is the woman.

Thanks, I edited the post after TomC replied

 

[laughing dog]

But unlike Abelseth, the court and Barnes didn't go on social media to weaponize the daughter in an ugly domestic drama.
Tom

They didn't have to - Both the court and Abelseth got what they wanted.

Who is "they"?

The court and Abelseth. Duh. Please try to read with a modicum of comprehension in future.

Abelseth got her way?

Sorry, I don't pay much attention to family drama in other places.

I thought that the reason for this thread is that Abelseth didn't get her way in family court, so took it to the court of the internet.

If she got her way, then why is think an issue?
Tom

I meant Barnes.