Posted on 09/02/2014 10:08:47 PM PDT by chessplayer
The courts are biased against men, but sometimes men do get custody.
I’m thinking she should be in jail.
She will probably run for president.
Almost never. A mother would have to have a heroin needle stuck in her arm, a Nazi uniform, a criminal record 4 feet long and terminal cancer, and she’d still get custody. I take it you’ve never been through a divorce with children involved.
“Are you 12 years old?”
Up yours.
“She needs to be in jail, he should be left alone.”
So neither of them support the child. Wonderful. Then guess who pays for it’s support? YOU DO!!!
You didn't. But what do you think happens to kids when the state gets involved and takes custody?
And since neither parent told anyone about the statutory rape until 7 years later, do you still want the daughter "mandatorily adopted" = "Foster care"????
Parents just need to teach botgh their boys and girls to say no. This couple should be used as a warning to both boys and girls.
It was hard as hell getting on the waiting list to adopt in the 1950’s when my parents signed up and that was when it was a great stigma being an unwed mother. With girls routinely keeping their babies now, the line must be miles longer. So rather than adoption, foster care or being raised by the putative father, you prefer that the child stay with a child molesting rapist and that that is in the “best interests of the child” as the court and social workers would say?
i Chessplayer was being sarcastic...
Oh yes I have.
Everyone told us “not to get Judge X. She hates men.”
So the first lawyer I went to said, “I made some calls and found out where your case is. There are two judges in this court that handle divorce cases. Judge X gets 75% of the cases. But you didn’t get Judge X, you got Judge Y”
I said, “Yes!!!”
And he said “No, that’s bad. The other one is worse!!!”
My judge had been divorced 5 times and was in a state of emotional warfare with all men.
So I hired a woman attorney who claimed to be friends with the judge and I settled in mediation for as much time with the kids as I thought I could get. I got officially about 27% of the time, but when you include school time and sleep, I get about 37% of their free time, and she works her butt off for the extra time she stole. While my time is mostly unencumbered. And I pay a hefty child support.
It’s not fair, but it’s not as unfair as I first thought.
And Whoopie says....
My Lord, seriously?! What part of “cannot consent” don’t you get? That state says that a 14 year old is a child and that children cannot make such a decision. Therefore, the adult in this case raped that child. Open and shut. I don’t care if he enjoyed it. If we based it on that, the paedophiles would just say “well, she seemed to like it” or “he didn’t scream, so I figured it was okay and I bought him a toy later” or some such. Is that the world you want?
This is the correct solution. The child should be adopted by someone other than the bio parents. He’s not ready, and she is a manipulator, quick to use the child as a pawn in the courtroom. Maybe some of his relatives would like to help raise her, assuming the ‘mother’ has not slandered and demonized the young man in his child’s eyes. He needs a lawyer specifically for single or divorced fathers. We have quite a few here in Northern California.
Guess what? If at any time your ex-spouse decides not to allow you visitation anymore, or moves out of state or claims you’re abusive and quits giving you any custody it’ll take you years before you can get the court to decide in your favor (if they do), perhaps not until it’s a moot point because now the child(ren) are grown. And if you think I’m being fanciful, I’m sure there’ll be 10 or 20 FReepers along in a few minutes to testify to what I’m telling you. Your “arrangement” with your ex is only good until she decides that it’s “not fair” or “not in the best interests of the child” or whatever wild hair she gets up her rear-end. I hope she doesn’t pull that on you, but I warn you that it could happen at any time.
What part of “biological father” do you not get?
He’s a father of a daughter. That’s his DNA running through her. He may not have asked for it. He may not have been old enough to consent to it. But the daughter is a fact.
As I said before there are no eloquent solutions. I’m fine withing giving the father custody in this case. I’m fine with prosecuting the mother. But the child must be cared for and it is his child.
If I were in congress right now, there’d be a bill stipulating that no male child who is raped could ever be pursued for child support. It is beyond disgusting. I don’t have a word for it.
I would rework the entire child support laws if y’all ever made me emperor.
First there should be a presumption of equal time. You might have to put some conditions on that to make it work, such as both parents must remain in the same school district. But time should be split equally, and that would stop a lot of the dirty tactics used in divorce.
There should be a limit to how much it costs to raise a kid. It shouldn’t be an ever increasing amount based on the parent’s income. The Robin Williams scenario where he owes Millions should never occur. There is no economic justification for that. That’s slavery.
The courts and/or process should be more accessible than they are and they should be quicker about making adjustments based on actual income.
At the same time, I kind of think the child support costs should start low and go up as the child gets older. Either that or a portion of the child support from the early years should be saved for the later years and for college education.
If child support law is designed to force irresponsible fathers to accept the consequences of having procreated, to provide material welfare to their offspring, and statutory rape law is designed to protect minors from the consequences of their actions for which we accept they cannot know at such young ages, then which law should take precedence? It cannot be known if the boy realized he could father a child, it cannot be known if the woman—in a role of authority—consulted him on the consequences of his actions, either way, as a minor he was unable to consent. How could the law possibly find him an irresponsible father if at the time of conception he was legally recognized as being incapable of ascertaining his responsibility for such consequences? (note, I’m not saying minors should be granted an automatic pass for their actions, just that there are special considerations.)
Every father here should read my post #53 and take it seriously. I’m not a lawyer, but I seen it done, time and time again. The idea that there is a “patriarchy” in this country makes me laugh and cry at the same time. I worked for state government for many years and I’ve only met one heterosexual female social worker and she was on her way to the other side.
Child support laws do not concern themselves with whether a father is responsible or non-responsible. They concern themselves with the welfare of the child. Or at least in theory they are supposed to.
The boy is financially responsible for his offspring by the very nature that it is his offspring. Just as a 14 year old girl who was raped, is financially responsible for her child.
It matters only that he is the biological father, and as such he bears the financial responsibility and should enjoy the rights that a father should have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.