Posted on 10/12/2017 11:34:34 AM PDT by Enlightened1
It’s a nightmare scenario for a 21-year-old mother – a court has granted joint custody to a man accused of raping her when she was 12.
The rape allegedly occurred in September 2008, according to a press release by the woman’s attorney, Rebecca Kiessling. Christopher Mirasolo was charged with raping the woman when he was 18 and she was 12, which is a first-degree felony in Michigan.
“The sentence ‘for a violation that is committed by an individual 17 years of age or older against an individual less than 13 years of age’ should have been a mandatory ‘imprisonment for life or any term of years, but not less than 25 years,’” Kiessling said in the release.
Instead, Mirasolo was granted a plea deal for attempted rape, a third-degree felony. The maximum sentence for that offense was five years in prison, according to the Michigan Department of Corrections, but Kiessling said he was sentenced to six-and-a-half months in jail before he was released. He then was charged with criminal sexual conduct again – against a victim between 13 and 15 years old – in March 2010 and pleaded no contest, according to the Michigan Department of Corrections.
(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...
The judge should probably find a safe place to hide.
Hopefully not too safe.
The father must be a democrat.
Proving you can have a law degree and still no common sense.
The rapist should never have custody and in fact should lose all custody of future progeny via a very rusty knife.
Judge said they didn’t know about the rape.
If the judge sincerely knew nothing of the rape, then he’s certainly not to blame. On the other hand, I could easily see an activist judge setting a precedent that would push rape victims toward the decision to abort.
“have committed acts of non-consensual sexual penetration” If they gave him a deal the three witnesses stories did not agree. What is the judges rating? I’ve herd that court clerks could enter documents in a legal file that obscured the particulars of a case.
So she had a 9 year gestation period?
The triggering event here was the woman’s application for public assistance. I know that when this happens most jurisdictions try hard to establish paternity to avoid having to pay. I was peripherally involved in such efforts many years ago. My guess is that the judge didn’t know about the circumstances of the child’s conception.
See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3594146/posts:
[Michigan Supreme Court spokesman John Nevin] says the judge put the order on hold Tuesday after learning of Mirasolo’s criminal past.
In Florida?
Because that is where she is now.
Why would Michigan be involved and why, if the jurisdiction was trying to get out of paying would they order her to move BACK to Michigan where they would have to pay?
The judge is a fool.
article says joint custody is granted automatically when people apply for assistance so it makes sense.
Except (as other articles have pointed out) the rape was in the file which the Judge was supposed to actually read before rendering a decision.
Then why is it taking formal action to reverse the judge’s order?
Sorry, this judge needs to be removed from the bench for being an idiot.
“I read yesterday that the Judge, who has since found out about the rape, has rescinded the joint custody order.”
So noted, thank you.
This article has more information. It sounds like the public assistance was in Michigan which is what triggered the paternity test and the later ruling. Obviously outrageous but more likely a bureaucratic foul-up rather than a deliberate attempt to bring her rapist back into her life.
Ok...let me get this straight. According to this plea agreement he committed attempted rape. This 'attempted' rape resulted in a pregnant victim who gave birth to a child to whom this 'attempted' rapist claims paternity, and now has custody rights? He claims paternity and the court agrees and gives him custody...but he only 'attempted' to rape the little girl.
It's a wonder we don't hear about judges getting shot in this country on a daily basis.
Thanks you for clearing that up! I rescind my comment in post 19.
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.