Rape victim ordered to pay her abuser child support

[Toni]

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.

Except it wasn’t ‘only’ statutory rape. The mother claimed forcible rape which was credible, partly vulgarly when the resulting child claimed her ‘father’/mother’s rapist also sexually abused her, the daughter.

 

[Elixir]

That’s NOT the problem.

According to @Jimmy Higgins and many other posters here that is the problem.

Like I said Tom, your reading comprehension is abysmal.
The problem is not that anyone opposes the principle of non-custodial parents paying child support. Its that the little girl parent IS A RAPE VICTIM.
It is very dishonest of you to imply that others reject the notion of parental responsibility. That is tantamount to me implying that you condone forcible rape as a means of securing future income. (Which I am not doing BTW)

 

[Elixir]

According to @Jimmy Higgins and many other posters here that is the problem.

Bullshit. You are prevaricating to avoid acknowledging what you said.
Nobody said they opposed child support payments on principle.
ONLY YOU “don‘t see a problem with”a rapist profiting from forcible child rape at the expense of the rapist’s child victim.
Disgusting.

 

[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.

Except it wasn’t ‘only’ statutory rape.

I know and get that, but that is an allegation, no trial. I'm sticking to the stuff that is known and indisputable.

What bothers me the most in this case is the court itself. They overlooked what was known to be an utterly illegal act, presumably due to their bias against the mother (for probably whatever reason things even got to this point), not acting on the statutory rape, and then awarding custody to the father... who at that point was merely a sperm donator... making one wonder, what the fuck they were thinking about as this couldn't possibly be in the best interests of the child. Foster care or another relative would have made a lot more sense if the mother wasn't fit to have custody.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Which part of that are you objecting to?

Channeling Giuliani; facts aren’t facts?
I don’t understand the accusation or the denial. But can’t help noticing how very often this sort of thing “happens to“ you.

I'm pretty sure the reasons that this sort of thing happens to me is that I express nuanced opinions that don't fit the ideological bubble that dominates IIDB.
Tom

 

[bilby]

neither "I'm not reporting facts" nor "those are the facts" constitutes a nuanced opinion.

I missed that elephant in the room. It was probably hiding behind the gorilla.

Probably because @bilby is quote mining in a very dishonest way.

Oh well.
I've come to expect it here.
Tom

Seriously? Where's this alleged dishonesty?

That's a pretty serious accusation; Can you back it up, or are you just lashing out at someone who pointed out your failings, contrary to your wholly undeserved self-image as a devotee of logic and reason?

 

[Emily Lake]

that you 1) don't care that Abelseth was a minor

I never said that because I don't believe it.

You... don't believe that Abelseth was a minor? Am I reading that right? Because that's one of the few things that IS an actual for-realsies fact in this case.

2) you think the 30+ yo man was fine having sex with her

I never said that because I don't believe that.

Huh? You don't believe he had sex with her? Or you don't think he was over 30? Or you don't think it was fine? Can you at least try to be more specific?

3) you insist it was consensual even though Abelseth has called it rape-rape not just statutory rape

I never said that because I don't know, nor ever claimed to know.

What now? Are you saying "I never said those exact words in that exact order"? Because you've consistently presented it ways that imply it was consensual. Or are you saying that you are unware that Abelseth has claimed that she did NOT consent at all? In which case, maybe you should actually read the thread. What exactly are you saying you didn't say and don't know and never claimed to know?

4) you seem fine with the rapist (either staturory or rapey-rape) getting custody of the result of that rape (either staturory or rapey-rape), even though that daughter-via-rape also claims that Barnes raped her...

I never said that. I don't believe that. I keep saying "I don't know what the situation is concerning the Daughter.

What don't you believe? You don't believe that the daughter claimed that he raped her, and that a rape exam was performed and showed evidence of forcible penetration? Or are you merely stating that even though you're aware of the claim and the exam... you reserve the right to not believe the daughter's claim because you don't know for certain that she was raped?

5) Abelseth has to pay child support to her rapist who has now been credibly accused of raping his own daughter.

The non-costodial parent is being required to pay child support.
I don't see that as a problem.
Tom

The non-custodial parent is being required to pay child support to the man who raped her, for care of the daughter conceived by rape, and who the daughter also claimed has raped her.

Even if you don't have absolute 100% verified, signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters proof... doesn't the situation at least give you pause?

This is why you're getting push back, Tom. Because out of all of the elements of this story - including the FACT that Barnes committed statutory rape... You "don't see it as a problem".

 

[Emily Lake]

According to @Jimmy Higgins and many other posters here that is the problem.

Dude, Tom, come on buddy. You can't be serious. I like you, I think you're a cool dude, a real hoopy frood and all.

But you can't possibly have typed that with a straight face. Because you would have to be daft or so stoned you can't find the floor (or both) in order to think that the objection, the problem, is that the non-custodial parent has to pay child support.

Seriously, bro. Just no.

 

[laughing dog]

Did the family court assign custodianship to the most competent parent?
I don't know.
Tom

Then you really had no business opining about anything.

According to @Jimmy Higgins and many other posters here that is the problem.

Dude, Tom, come on buddy. You can't be serious. I like you, I think you're a cool dude, a real hoopy frood and all.

But you can't possibly have typed that with a straight face. Because you would have to be daft or so stoned you can't find the floor (or both) in order to think that the objection, the problem, is that the non-custodial parent has to pay child support.

Seriously, bro. Just no.

Apparently, life is like a box of chocolates but with some real stinking turds masquerading as candy.

 

[TomC]

Then you really had no business opining about anything.

According to @Jimmy Higgins , that's what the thread is about.
I quoted it.
Tom

 

[bilby]

life is like a box of chocolates

...it doesn't last as long if you're fat.

 

[laughing dog]

Then you really had no business opining about anything.

According to @Jimmy Higgins , that's what the thread is about.
I quoted it.
Tom

You admitted you did know what you were talking about. There is no need to reinforce your admission - everyone here agrees with you.

 

[TomC]

Then you really had no business opining about anything.

According to @Jimmy Higgins , that's what the thread is about.
I quoted it.
Tom

You admitted you did know what you were talking about. There is no need to reinforce your admission - everyone here agrees with you.

Yeah.
That's kinda that difference between me and most posters on this thread

I distinguish between what I have reasons to believe and what I just make up because it suits my ideology.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Then you really had no business opining about anything.

According to @Jimmy Higgins , that's what the thread is about.
I quoted it.
Tom

You admitted you did know what you were talking about. There is no need to reinforce your admission - everyone here agrees with you.

Yeah.
That's kinda that difference between me and most posters on this thread

I distinguish between what I have reasons to believe and what I just make up because it suits my ideology.
Tom

Your posting history in this thread does not support your belief.

 

[TomC]

Your posting history in this thread does not support your belief.

I'm sure you believe that.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Thanks @Jokodo
For bringing this all up again.

Thanks again.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I distinguish between what I have reasons to believe and what I just make up because it suits my ideology.

How many things have you made up because it suits your ideology in this thread?

 

[TomC]

I distinguish between what I have reasons to believe and what I just make up because it suits my ideology.

How many things have you made up because it suits your ideology in this thread?

What do you mean by "your ideology"?

Maybe you mean "Don't decide who is at fault or what the problem is until you've got ALL the information, not just claims that support your preconceived notions"?
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I distinguish between what I have reasons to believe and what I just make up because it suits my ideology.

How many things have you made up because it suits your ideology in this thread?

What do you mean by "your ideology"?

I was quoting you.

 

[Toni]

Then you really had no business opining about anything.

According to @Jimmy Higgins , that's what the thread is about.
I quoted it.
Tom

You admitted you did know what you were talking about. There is no need to reinforce your admission - everyone here agrees with you.

Yeah.
That's kinda that difference between me and most posters on this thread

I distinguish between what I have reasons to believe and what I just make up because it suits my ideology.
Tom

Lol