I need proof: A boy being raped by a woman and then having to pay child support

Rebadow · #1 26th-December-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by istoute

I have never heard of a man being raped by a woman and then having to pay child support for the spawn. Do you have any articles to back this up? I would really love to read them.

Here ya go:

Absurdistan in America by Stephen Baskerville

Quote:

In California, minor boys raped by adult women must pay child support to the criminals who raped them. "State law entitles the child to support from both parents, even though the boy is considered the victim of statutory rape," the district attorney's office says. One boy was drugged before the sex. Kansas courts have likewise held that "the issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for support of a minor child born of such activity."

However, this article covers lots of issues and is not specific enough, but Baskerville probably refers to the following case
CALIFORNIA: San Luis Obispo County v. Nathaniel J., ___ Cal. App. 4th ___, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843 (1996)

Quote:

The policy of California's courts regarding defenses to child support may best be summed up as, "Be quiet and pay your child support." In addition to rejecting concealment of the child as a defense where the concealment ends during minority, California has also rejected as a defense to child support the fact that the father was a victim of statutory rape.

Here's another case:

IN THE MATTER OF THE PATERNITY OF K.B. from 2004

Quote:

¶1 Plaintiff/Appellant Justin Stringer and Defendant/Appellee Larena Baker are the biological parents of K.B., a minor child, born on or about December 20, 1988. Because Stringer was a fifteen-year-old minor and Baker a nineteen-year-old adult at the time K.B. was conceived, Stringer technically was the victim of an uncharged act of criminal sexual conduct, despite the consensual nature of the parties' relationship. Holding the legal status of the father at the time of conception to be immaterial to an adjudication of child support, the trial court denied Stringer's petition to relinquish parental rights and granted Baker's counterclaim for current and past-due child support. We affirm.

¶2 On appeal, Stringer does not deny he consented to have sex with Baker. He disputes neither the trial court's adjudication of his paternity nor its computation of the amount of current and past-due child support. Rather, Stringer takes issue solely with the trial court's finding he is liable for child support, given that, as a matter of criminal law, he was too young to consent to have sex with Baker when K.B. was conceived.

...

¶5 By having sexual intercourse with a fifteen-year-old when she was nineteen, Baker's actions arguably constituted rape under Oklahoma criminal law. See 21 O.S. Supp. 1984 §§1111, 1112. Had Stringer pursued a rape charge against her, Baker would not have been permitted to assert his willing participation as a defense because Stringer was below the age of consent when the sexual misconduct occurred and his acquiescence was thus involuntary as a matter of law. 21 O.S. Supp. 1984 §§1111, 1112. Stringer argues Baker should not be permitted to profit from her criminal acts through an award of child support. Thus, the question before us is whether the victim of an unadjudicated statutory rape can be required to support a child conceived of that criminal union, where the purported victim was a willing participant in the sexual misconduct.

...

¶7 While this is a question of first impression in Oklahoma, courts from other states confronting similar facts have uniformly concluded legal consent under criminal law is irrelevant in a civil action for support of the child born of a minor father and an adult mother. For example, in Hermesmann v. Seyer, 252 Kan. 646, 847 P.2d 1273 (1993), the Kansas Supreme Court held the state could require a thirteen-year-old father to pay support to the child born of his relationship with his seventeen-year-old babysitter. The Court stated:

This State's interest in requiring minor parents to support their children overrides the State's competing interest in protecting juveniles from improvident acts, even when such acts may include criminal activity on the part of the other parent. Considering the three persons directly involved, [the mother, the father, and the child,] the interests of [the child] are superior, as a matter of public policy, to those of either or both of her parents. This minor child, the only truly innocent party, is entitled to support from both her parents, regardless of their ages.

More at the link above.

Another one from 2004:

Underage father on hook for child support

Quote:

"A man who claims he was seduced and exploited in his early teens by an older, married woman must pay child support to the state for the illegitimate son he gave her" according to the Michigan Court of Appeals. The relationship between the two was not revealed until after the statute of limitations for statutory rape had passed, but in any event the appeals court held that the lack of legal (or even actual) consent is irrelevant to the issue of child support.

...and another one:
THE FOLLIES OF CHILD SUPPORT: DEAD-BEAT OR DEAD-BROKE? By Carey Roberts

Quote:

March 14, 2004

Persons who are looking for an example of how good intentions can turn into a nightmare should consider the case of Alexander Shire. When Alexander was 14, he was plied with liquor and raped by Laura Evelyn, then 21 years of age. Evelyn became pregnant and bore a child. That was back in 1984.

When the child support commissars in Michigan recently found out about the case, they demanded that Shire pay child support.

You may wonder how this can be, since the offspring is now full-grown and no longer in need of "child" support. But draconian child support laws make no provision for that. Shire would be required to pay for all back payments, plus interest.

And the final/best example:

IT'S TEN O'CLOCK: DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR SPERM ARE? by Laura Wish Morgan, Executive Editor, Divorce Litigation

Quote:

II. "YES, YOU WERE UNDERAGE. NOW PAY YOUR CHILD SUPPORT."

What if, however, the man is legally incapable of "intending" to have sexual intercourse because he is underage? Is he still liable for child support? Again, the answer is yes.

In every case that has addressed the issue, the court has held that a man who was underage at the time of the conception of the child, and was therefore a victim of statutory rape, is nonetheless liable for child support. Typical of the reasoning in these cases is San Luis Obispo County v. Nathaniel J., 50 Cal. App. 4th 842, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843 (1996). In that case, the court stated:

One who is injured as a result of a criminal act in which he willingly participated is not a typical crime victim. It does not necessarily follow that he is a victim of sexual abuse.

The law should not except Nathaniel J. from this responsibility because he is not an innocent victim of Jones's criminal acts. After discussing the matter, he and Jones had sexual intercourse approximately five times over a two week period.

50 Cal. App. 4th at 845, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 844. Similarly, in State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer, 252 Kan. 646, 847 P.2d 1273, 1279 (1993), the court concluded:

This State's interest in requiring minor parents to support their children overrieds the State's competing interest in protecting juveniles from improvident acts, even when such acts may include criminal activity on the part of the other parent.... This minor child, the only truly innocent party, is entitled to support from both her parents regardless of their ages.

Accord Schierenbeck v. Minor, 367 P.2d 333 (Colo. 1961); Department of Revenue ex rel. Bennett v. Miller, 688 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); In re Paternity of J.S., 193 Ill. App. 3d 563, 550 N.E.2d 257 (1990); Rush v. Hatfield, 929 S.W.2d 200 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996); Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 387 Mass. 678, 442 N.E.2d 1155 (1982); Jevning v. Chicos, 499 N.W.2d 515 (Minn. 1993); Mercer County v. Alf M., 155 Misc. 2d 703, 589 N.Y.S.2d 288 (Fam. Ct. 1992); In re Paternity of J.L.H., 149 Wis. 2d 349, 441 N.W.2d 273 (1989). Cf. Division of Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Esther M. v. Mary L., No. 94-33812 (1994.DE.19031), (mother of children did not have to pay child support for children conceived as a result of the rape/incest of her brother; intercourse was involuntary and nonconsensual).

The message from these cases is equally clear: If a man intends to have sexual intercourse with a woman and a baby results, the man is liable for child support. The sexual intercourse in these cases is "factually voluntary" and thus intentional, even if it is nonconsensual in the criminal sense.

This last one (from the Executive Editor, Divorce Litigation), along with the IN THE MATTER OF THE PATERNITY OF K.B. case transcription from the Oklahoma State Court Network (the second example) are hardcore proof of this absurdity and validate nicely all the other articles, if you deem them to be too vague or not specific enough (i.e. not reliable enough).

Janus · #2 26th-December-2006

Wow. So in that one case you cited, even though the minor was drugged and raped he still had to pay child support! WTF! That is one of the most assinine things I've ever heard of. Surely his family could get a lawyer and get it overturned in the name of justice? It's a blatant miscarriage of justice, utterly BLATANT.

Rebadow · #3 26th-December-2006

Quote:

minor was drugged and raped

It doesn't matter all that much that he was "drugged". He was a MINOR and SHE WAS NOT - period. And the law is clear about relations between minors and adults. However, when the child support gets involved (and as long as it is males that are liable), then we witness all sorts of legal acrobatics, as you can see in the cases above. I don't buy this criminal/civil law division crap (in these cases, because it's absurd - and with the genders reversed it doesn't fly!). As I cite in one example, that when the genders were reversed, the mother did not have to pay child support because the act was not consensual (so, all of a sudden, what criminal law says, is relevant). Why then are boys liable for C$, if minors cannot consent to having sexual intercourse under a specified age??? Get it, even if he said YES, he cannot really consent - THAT IS THE LAW!!!

Quote:

Esther M. v. Mary L., No. 94-33812 (1994.DE.19031), (mother of children did not have to pay child support for children conceived as a result of the rape/incest of her brother; intercourse was involuntary and nonconsensual).

So what you see here is gender double standard at it's finest. When females are involved, it's common sense, but when the one liable has a penis, then it's all about being draconian and making no compromises.

Timocrat · #4 26th-December-2006

Dear Istoute,
Little Glutton has made a great effort to answered your endless proof, proof, proof to convince you (I've read this from your other comments on other issues). Will you give up your endless clinging to moderate ways (as if all answers are grey), or come to see that you are being duped in your endless efforts to seem nice to those who careless about being nice to you and men in general.

If you fail to acknowledge this effort by Little Glutton, or worse continue to fight the same old ground as if he has not proved anything to you, I will come to regard you as a permanant fence-sitter, or something worse. It is time to stop distrusting other men on this sight and start distrusting the moderates that you seem to feel rise above the nastiness that is going on. There have always been moderates that have rationalized doing nothing as evil was going on. Todays radicals will be tomorrows moderates, and todays moderates will be tomorrows appeasers.

Has Little Glutton proved anything to you? A single point or something much more? Can you trust a radical? Or are only fox moderates to be believed because they own a TV staition and look good on the tube?

Rebadow · #5 26th-December-2006

Let it be noted, that I did not mind compiling this post - and providing some proof that was requested. As a matter of fact, I planned to do this for quite some time, because I think it's good that the evidence is clear and listed at one place. Isotute's request was therefore only the trigger, so to speak.

Also, I don't mind people being skeptical (as long as I deem them to be honest in their requests), and I'm glad to provide them with evidence, if I can (and have the time). I don't expect people to just blindly believe everything that is written here.

Regards.

FFFF · #6 26th-December-2006

The whole concept of child support is completley arse about tit..

Crusoe · #7 29th-December-2006

Here's another example:

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/ar...d=2006_4131294

Quote:

Ex-aide to keep daughter fathered by 13-year-old student / Dad, now 17, wins visitation rights but must pay child support

Quote:

"I know the judge agonized over it, but how does a registered sex offender get custody?" said Butch Bradt, Gallardo's attorney. "If she (Duran) were a man, he would not get custody."

Rebadow · #8 29th-December-2006

Excellent, Crusoe! Thanks for adding this case here. And yes, this

Quote:

"I know the judge agonized over it, but how does a registered sex offender get custody?" said Butch Bradt, Gallardo's attorney. "If she (Duran) were a man, he would not get custody."

is a great point, that we have not yet mentioned here!

istoute · #9 30th-December-2006

Thaks, Little Glutton (LG), for coming to my aid.

Timocrat, I am a skeptic, not of the men's movement and the injustices levied against men, but in general. I try my best to adhere to scientific principles, which I consider to be the best stadard for the search of truth ever created by Men. And I will say this: I do not agree with the majority of the members of this forum.
I will not say which issues specifically because I see no point in starting a huge argument between members. However, to ensure that there is no confusion about my intentions, I will say this: this site is an excellent place to find evidence to back claims and support arguments! Forums such as these empower all MRAs in our fight against radical feminism (for that is what feminism has become).
You say I am a moderate. I am. I have tried convincing others using various methods over the course of my life. I find that being a moderate, building a reputation as a rational, impartial being, adds credebility. You might believe that people such as me do nothing but you are wrong. Every chance I get I let others know about my disdain for feminism and what in has done to America. I do this in overt ways through arguments and debate; I do this in subtle ways. For example, when I say, "feminism", you can taste the acid in my voice. This is quite a shock for anyone who knows me. For those who do not know me, I can easily knock them back by saying, "You don't know me well enough to make any judgments about my character." From here I can invite them to engage in discussion of the topic. Then I can crush them if the engage, or prove them to be impractical if they refuse.
There is nothing wrong in the way I chose to support the Men's Movement, Timocrat. I do not have the time nor resources to wag an all-out war against feminism. There are no organizations that I know of in my area which I could join. If I were to act, I would be acting on my own and fall easily; or be ignored. I behave in a fashion that is befitting of my skills, personality, and demeanor, Timocrat.
LG said, "I don't expect people to just blindly believe everything that is written here." I agree. Doing so makes us no better than those people who automatically swallow all the false and misleading statistics created by feminists. I don't know about you, but I will not become one of those people, in fact or in kind.

Cowhead418 · #10 30th-December-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by istoute

Thaks, Little Glutton (LG), for coming to