Rape victim ordered to pay her abuser child support

[TomC]

The mother must be in some bad shape to be restricted as such. The father must be in much worse shape to be restricted more than the mother.

The judge looking at even worse shape for himself and his job with his massive reversal? Went from full custody and support from the mother to zero custody.

I'd rather be homeless than stuck with a job like "family court judge".
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The mother must be in some bad shape to be restricted as such. The father must be in much worse shape to be restricted more than the mother.

The judge looking at even worse shape for himself and his job with his massive reversal? Went from full custody and support from the mother to zero custody.

I'd rather be homeless than stuck with a job like "family court judge".
Tom

While being a judge in a court-room where parents are likely to act more like the children the Judge is deciding custody for, I'm uncertain what that has to do with this case.

We are not privy to many details, but to go from demanding the mother pay child support and the father have complete custody to *NEWS REPORT* and then to father gets no custody or visits, that is very VERY odd. To the best of our knowledge, the only potential difference in information provided to the court post The Press informing the public about it, would have been the daughter's testimony.

But that could have been included before the News Report... but at that point, no one was watching when the Judge made a decision that they have done a complete 180 on after people started watching. Which heavily implies the Judge only did this because people started watching. Making one beg to wonder the basis for the original ruling.

 

[Toni]

From the link in the OP:

That custody was revoked in June, and the 15-year-old girl was placed in the custody of the guardians agreed upon by both parents. At the hearing before Cashe in mid-July, the girl’s attorney said the girl wanted to stay with her custodians until age 18 but still have a relationship with her mother.

I'm glad the judge listened to the daughter. At 16, she's old enough to weigh in on where she will live.

We don't know what caused the mother to lose custody in the first place but it sounds as though she had very bad legal advice earlier when her attorney failed to tell her that the man's parental rights could be terminated without a rape conviction.

Family court judges do see the absolute worst (terminating parental rights) and sometimes, the absolute best (adoption).

 

[TomC]

We are not privy to many details,

This is the only particularly important point in your post.

The details are crucial for any rational judgement, but there aren't many and the ones available aren't reliable.

What I hope for, going forward, is that Daughter's privacy is maintained, as best can be at this point. So she can get on with her life without becoming an internet meme.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

One detail we had from the jump is that it was statutory rape.

 

[TomC]

One detail we had from the jump is that it was statutory rape.

Another is that Abelseth managed to convince a bartender that she was 21. Old enough to buy.

Tom

 

[Gospel]

One detail we had from the jump is that it was statutory rape.

Another is that Abelseth managed to convince a bartender that she was 21. Old enough to buy.

Tom

The law doesn't care how they came to have sex, the law only cares about the age of both participants.

 

[TomC]

One detail we had from the jump is that it was statutory rape.

Another is that Abelseth managed to convince a bartender that she was 21. Old enough to buy.

Tom

The law doesn't care how they came to have sex, the law only cares about the age of both participants.

The law also says that women can't abort a child six weeks after their last period.

Is the law really your moral authority?

It certainly isn't mine.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

One detail we had from the jump is that it was statutory rape.

Another is that Abelseth managed to convince a bartender that she was 21. Old enough to buy.

Tom

The law doesn't care how they came to have sex, the law only cares about the age of both participants.

The law also says that women can't abort a child six weeks after their last period.

Is the law really your moral authority?

It certainly isn't mine.
Tom

The law: the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

I recognize that there is a law against a 30 year old having sex with a 16 year old back when she got pregnant and still in place today. Why that law wasn't enforced is still a mystery to me. You can argue about moral authority till your face turns blue elsewhere.

Also: I disagree with the six weeks after their last period law but if we are going make an equvilant argument to what I'm saying I'd be doing the same thing if said law wasn't enforced in a particular case. Which is wondering why.

 

[TomC]

Why that law wasn't enforced is still mystery to me.

You might want to ask yourself that.

Why didn't Abelseth consider their sexual activity a rape until it became known by the rest of the community?
Tom

 

[TomC]

The law: the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

Like "separate but equal"?
Tom

 

[Gospel]

The law: the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

Like "separate but equal"?
Tom

Their is no law against someone under the age of 16 having sex with someone 30 years old but there is a law against a 30 year old having sex with someone that is 16. How else do you need it said? It's like that for a reason (historically the young are the victims because of maturity blah blah) I don't care whether or not you agree with the law, I'm just wondering why especially in family court (whom had the age of the father, mother and child on record) did nothing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We are not privy to many details,

This is the only particularly important point in your post.

The only things we know are the rulings by the judge. He issued near 180 degree different rulings, one while the public was ignorant of the case and one with the public knowing about the case. That is a massive red flag against the basis of his original judgment.

 

[TomC]

I'm just wondering why especially in family court (whom had the age of the father, mother and child on record) did nothing.

Maybe because they knew more about those "details", that Jimmy Higgins brought up than you do.
Tom

 

[TomC]

The only things we know are the rulings by the judge.

That is not all we know.
Tom

 

[Toni]

One detail we had from the jump is that it was statutory rape.

Another is that Abelseth managed to convince a bartender that she was 21. Old enough to buy.

Tom

You definitely do not know that.

 

[Gospel]

I'm just wondering why especially in family court (whom had the age of the father, mother and child on record) did nothing.

Maybe because they knew more about those "details", that Jimmy Higgins brought up than you do.
Tom

Fa sho. And "they" reversed their decision based on "details". I'm just wondering why the initial take on the situation. You're parading around here like merely asking the question is outlandish.

 

[TomC]

One detail we had from the jump is that it was statutory rape.

Another is that Abelseth managed to convince a bartender that she was 21. Old enough to buy.

Tom

You definitely do not know that.

I don't know that Abelseth exists.

I'm just going by the story posted by OP.
Tom

 

[TomC]

I'm just wondering why the initial take on the situation.

I'm not one of the people claiming to know enough about what happened to pass judgement.

I'm in the opposite camp. I don't know enough about this particular family drama.

That's where the opposing camps are in this thread. The people convinced that they know enough to judge and those of us who don't think we know enough to judge.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

One detail we had from the jump is that it was statutory rape.

Another is that Abelseth managed to convince a bartender that she was 21. Old enough to buy.

Tom

You definitely do not know that.

I don't know that Abelseth exists.

I'm just going by the story posted by OP.
Tom

No, you are not. Because a bartender may simply serve someone without having to be convinced of anything. But here you are making judgments about what people knew while simultaneously admonishing others for passing judgment.