Female privilege

[AthenaAwakened]

What are you talking about? It's explicitly stated that he became a father at 14 right before it talks about how under 15 is statuatory rape. That's the entirety of the discussion.

If it turns out that it's not a case of stautatory rape, then of course all opinions made on the matter change. Right now, I'm proceeding on the assumption that this discussion about statuatory rape somehow involves statuatory rape.

I find it hard to believe any experienced moderator would make such an assumption. Especially when the reported ages make it possible he was 14 or 15 or 16 years of age.

I also find this part of the report fascinating:

He wants to be in his daughter's life and is willing to pay child support going forward. But he doesn't think it's right for the state to charge him for fees incurred when he was still a child himself or for the years he didn't know the girl existed.

So, he is willing to pay child support if he gets to part of his daughter's life. One could conclude he is not at all interested in the welfare of the child per se, but only in his interaction with the child.

Ok, that part, the bold part, isn't gonna fly and would set a precedent that would make child support case practically unwinnable, with the real loser being the children of AZ.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It sucks to be this guy, but it sucks even worse to be his child. Unless someone steps up, raises their hand and says, "This child is mine, until he is no longer a child," our former 14 year old father is on the hook.

I disagree. The only people who should be responsible for a child are the people who made a decision which resulted in it being born. The whole point of child support payments is saying to a father that he made this decision and he must therefore bear the consequences of that decision. According to the statuatory rape laws, however, this man never made that decision. It's not that the kid getting born was an unintentional result of his decision, it's that he was unable to legally make the decision in the first place.

Statuatory rape laws exist because younger people cannot realize the consequences of the decisions that they make to the same degree as adults. It's an inconsistent ruling to say both that the crime exists because of his inability to realize these consequences and, at the same time, hold him responsible for those consequences. The woman, as the only adult involved, is the only one who should be required to bear any of these consequences.

Yes, it does suck worse to be the kid than it does to be the man. That shouldn't, however, be anymore of his problem than it is your or mine. If it were the case that he needs to pay another cent in taxes every month to buy food for poor children the same as everyone else in his jurisdiction, then fine. Holding him financially liable for getting raped is not fine.

 

[KeepTalking]

The woman is not guilty of the crime of statutory rape, as she was never charged with the crime of statutory rape because the statutory rape was never reported. The male could have avoided this by reporting the crime. She cannot currently be charged with the crime because of the statute of limitations. The male could have avoided this by reporting the crime within the statute of limitations. No female privilege so far, just a case of the male not reporting a crime ostensibly perpetrated by a female.

When the male found out about the child, she was 6 years old. That may have actually have been within the statute of limitations. The male chose to ignore the situation, rather than report the crime. Still no apparent female privilege, just a case of the male not reporting a crime ostensibly perpetrated by a female.

When the male was presented with the female's contention that he had fathered her child, he had 90 days to contest it and have a paternity test done. The male chose to ignore the situation, rather than contest it. Still no apparent female privilege, just a case of the male ignoring the legal issue of paternity.

Two years later, the male is finally tracked down. The statute of limitations has expired, his window of opportunity to contest the paternity has expired, and now he has his wages garnished. This is the first time he is concerned enough to do anything about it. Obviously, this is now a case of female privilege.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Keep talking, you don't understand: the mother was a woman.

That's all the evidence needed.

 

[Bronzeage]

It sucks to be this guy, but it sucks even worse to be his child. Unless someone steps up, raises their hand and says, "This child is mine, until he is no longer a child," our former 14 year old father is on the hook.

I disagree. The only people who should be responsible for a child are the people who made a decision which resulted in it being born. The whole point of child support payments is saying to a father that he made this decision and he must therefore bear the consequences of that decision. According to the statuatory rape laws, however, this man never made that decision. It's not that the kid getting born was an unintentional result of his decision, it's that he was unable to legally make the decision in the first place.

Statuatory rape laws exist because younger people cannot realize the consequences of the decisions that they make to the same degree as adults. It's an inconsistent ruling to say both that the crime exists because of his inability to realize these consequences and, at the same time, hold him responsible for those consequences. The woman, as the only adult involved, is the only one who should be required to bear any of these consequences.

Yes, it does suck worse to be the kid than it does to be the man. That shouldn't, however, be anymore of his problem than it is your or mine. If it were the case that he needs to pay another cent in taxes every month to buy food for poor children the same as everyone else in his jurisdiction, then fine. Holding him financially liable for getting raped is not fine.

Statutory laws exist to protect younger people from the sexual advances of older people. They do not exist to make consequences go away forever. Just to sharpen the point a bit more, the one who bears the consequences is the child of the couple. This is why we have child support laws.

Pregnancy and childbirth are not a sentence handed down by a court for the crime of irresponsibility, but if the parents do not care for the child, then the child is the responsibility of you and me. That's the deal we got when we were born and it's too late to back out now.

 

[Frikki]

Funny, finally when Derec criticizes a rapist, it´s a woman.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Statutory laws exist to protect younger people from the sexual advances of older people. They do not exist to make consequences go away forever. Just to sharpen the point a bit more, the one who bears the consequences is the child of the couple. This is why we have child support laws.

Pregnancy and childbirth are not a sentence handed down by a court for the crime of irresponsibility, but if the parents do not care for the child, then the child is the responsibility of you and me. That's the deal we got when we were born and it's too late to back out now.

And I have no problem with him having the same responsibility towards the child as you or I do. The two of them were not, however, a couple. They were an adult woman who decided to have a child on her own and a rape victim. The law should not be placing the rape victim in the same category as deadbeat dads who won't voluntarily live up to their responsibilities. He should be considered someone who has no responsibilities to live up to in this situation since he took no actions for which he had a legal responsibility.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

From my personal stand point

Not talking the law

The author of the tragedy is the women. Just like if the roles were reversed and it was a grown man and a teenaged girl.

I don't think this young man should have to pay child support because I think he was too young at the time to make the decision to be a father. (and to tell the truth, I ain't too sure about him now)

Now I have read your posts on the law and I get that. And at no point do i believe the child should be placed in dire circumstance. sometimes the state just has to eat the costs of the actions of its citizens and this should be one of those times.

It's a shitty situation and heartbreaking to boot.

 

[KeepTalking]

To be honest, I sympathize with the guy to some degree, and at first blush I thought that Derec actually had a point. That was before I read the article. How was the State to know any of the background when making the decision to go after the guy for child support, when he made no effort whatsoever to correct the situation when he had the opportunity? It's too late now, the legal process has moved past the point of his contesting the child support. If this were two years ago when he was first confronted with the paternity suit, I would be entirely on his side.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How was the State to know any of the background when making the decision to go after the guy for child support ...

I assume you mean other than looking at the people involved and saying "OK, you're asking for six years of back child support from this 20 year old guy. Wait ... how old are you?".

 

[dystopian]

How exactly is the 14 year old "partially responsible" for the existence of the child? The entire concept of statuatory rape is that the younger person lacks the ability to consent and thus does not bear any responsibility for the act. The law cannot simultaneously say that he lacks the ability to consent to the action and is also responsible for the consequences of the action.

Derec seemed to be taking issue with the concept of child support on the whole, which is a sentiment I was responding to. I don't particularly disagree with what you're saying in this particular case, assuming said circumstances are accurate.

 

[Bronzeage]

Statutory laws exist to protect younger people from the sexual advances of older people. They do not exist to make consequences go away forever. Just to sharpen the point a bit more, the one who bears the consequences is the child of the couple. This is why we have child support laws.

Pregnancy and childbirth are not a sentence handed down by a court for the crime of irresponsibility, but if the parents do not care for the child, then the child is the responsibility of you and me. That's the deal we got when we were born and it's too late to back out now.

And I have no problem with him having the same responsibility towards the child as you or I do. The two of them were not, however, a couple. They were an adult woman who decided to have a child on her own and a rape victim. The law should not be placing the rape victim in the same category as deadbeat dads who won't voluntarily live up to their responsibilities. He should be considered someone who has no responsibilities to live up to in this situation since he took no actions for which he had a legal responsibility.

I like to push this issue to the edge. I paid my child support and didn't begrudge a penny of it. There is an attitude among a lot of men, including a lot who don't even have children, that child support is simply a way for a woman to inflict agony. That is bullshit, but it is the driving argument in most discussions where child support is an issue.

 

[repoman]

For standard child support cases, the only ones that I see as inflicting agony are when the man drops income drastically and the child support is not tapered accordingly.

Say the man is a popular musical performer or athlete or a high paid pharmaceutical salesman. Then his income drops from mid 6-figures+ to mid 5-figures. What happens in that case?

 

[Bronzeage]

For standard child support cases, the only ones that I see as inflicting agony are when the man drops income drastically and the child support is not tapered accordingly.

Say the man is a popular musical performer or athlete or a high paid pharmaceutical salesman. Then his income drops from mid 6-figures+ to mid 5-figures. What happens in that case?

He can go back to court and make his case to the judge. In any case, I recommend he keep a good relationship with the child's mother. That in itself is equal to the cost of a lawyer.

 

[Derec]

Derec seemed to be taking issue with the concept of child support on the whole, which is a sentiment I was responding to. I don't particularly disagree with what you're saying in this particular case, assuming said circumstances are accurate.

I do not have a problem with child support in principle, but it is in need of serious overhaul. The doctrine that if a man's sperm is used to conceive a child he is automatically liable for child support (unless a cheating woman's husband can be forced to pay child support instead) no matter how that sperm was obtained needs to be axed.
No man should be liable for child support if
- he is a victim of rape or statutory rape
- he is a sperm donor
- he is not either the biological father or has adopted the child.

After all we do not force women to pay child support in similar situations. Egg donors are not forced to pay child support. Women whose husbands cheat are not forced to pay for child support for any children that result from the adulterous affair. And certainly no girl who was 14 when she had sex with a 20 year old is going to see the 20 year old get custody and land her with a child support bill.

That's for starters. I also think, more controversially, any man should get a time frame to renounce all parental rights and obligations upon hearing of the pregnancy (or the child).

 

[Emily Lake]

It sucks to be this guy, but it sucks even worse to be his child. Unless someone steps up, raises their hand and says, "This child is mine, until he is no longer a child," our former 14 year old father is on the hook.

I disagree. The only people who should be responsible for a child are the people who made a decision which resulted in it being born. The whole point of child support payments is saying to a father that he made this decision and he must therefore bear the consequences of that decision. According to the statuatory rape laws, however, this man never made that decision. It's not that the kid getting born was an unintentional result of his decision, it's that he was unable to legally make the decision in the first place.

What is your opinion in cases where both of the parents are minors? When, for instance, both of them are 14 at the time of conception, what should be the outcome with respect to child support?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Derec seemed to be taking issue with the concept of child support on the whole, which is a sentiment I was responding to. I don't particularly disagree with what you're saying in this particular case, assuming said circumstances are accurate.

I do not have a problem with child support in principle, but it is in need of serious overhaul. The doctrine that if a man's sperm is used to conceive a child he is automatically liable for child support (unless a cheating woman's husband can be forced to pay child support instead) no matter how that sperm was obtained needs to be axed.
No man should be liable for child support if
- he is a victim of rape or statutory rape
- he is a sperm donor
- he is not either the biological father or has adopted the child.

After all we do not force women to pay child support in similar situations. Egg donors are not forced to pay child support. Women whose husbands cheat are not forced to pay for child support for any children that result from the adulterous affair. And certainly no girl who was 14 when she had sex with a 20 year old is going to see the 20 year old get custody and land her with a child support bill.

That's for starters. I also think, more controversially, any man should get a time frame to renounce all parental rights and obligations upon hearing of the pregnancy (or the child).

you do realize that an institutionalized welfare state offering goods and services not just to the poor but to everyone in society would go a long way toward reforming the child support system and quite possibly dismantling it all together.

 

[Bronzeage]

I disagree. The only people who should be responsible for a child are the people who made a decision which resulted in it being born. The whole point of child support payments is saying to a father that he made this decision and he must therefore bear the consequences of that decision. According to the statuatory rape laws, however, this man never made that decision. It's not that the kid getting born was an unintentional result of his decision, it's that he was unable to legally make the decision in the first place.

What is your opinion in cases where both of the parents are minors? When, for instance, both of them are 14 at the time of conception, what should be the outcome with respect to child support?

In the US, the parents of the girl are the custodial guardians of the the infant and thus responsible for the child's support. I don't think any court has ever ordered child support payments from the parents of an underage father.

 

[Emily Lake]

What is your opinion in cases where both of the parents are minors? When, for instance, both of them are 14 at the time of conception, what should be the outcome with respect to child support?

In the US, the parents of the girl are the custodial guardians of the the infant and thus responsible for the child's support. I don't think any court has ever ordered child support payments from the parents of an underage father.

I have it on very good authority that when the underage father comes of age he can be held responsible for child support. This has occurred in my family on more than one occasion. Several of my cousins can't keep their legs closed. Several others can't keep their pants on. None of them seem to understand the intricate and complex workings of condoms.

 

[Bronzeage]

....
That's for starters. I also think, more controversially, any man should get a time frame to renounce all parental rights and obligations upon hearing of the pregnancy (or the child).

This is truly reprehensible, but you could argue it's in the best interest of the child.