Child Support Just, Court Says

Detroit Free Press ^ | February 21, 2004 | Dawson Bell

[ShadowDancer]

A man who had sex with a married woman when he was 14 owes child support for their now teenage son, even though under state law, the sex act was likely a crime, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in a decision released Friday.

[Wolfie]

Let that be a lesson, boys.

[The Red Zone]

If, as this seems to imply, the woman somehow forced him to have the sex (how, at gunpoint?) then he ought to be able to turn around and sue her for the cost of the child support.

[whereasandsoforth]

Up until her divorce this child was supported...by a duped man. Is he to be reimbursed? Once again, the rascally woman gets a free ride at the expense of the innocent. At the least, she should have to wear a scarlet A on her blouse.

[Mike4Freedom]

the woman somehow forced him to have the sex (how, at gunpoint?)

It is called statutory rape and there are plenty of males in prison for sex with underage girls. This woman committed that crime with this young boy then, defrauded her husband for years that the child was his and now looks for support from the victim of her own crime and will apparently get it. Wow, the law really is an ass.

If you think that a 14 year old can give consent, then get to fighting against statutory rape in all cases and get those 18 year old rapists out of prison.

[The Red Zone]

The appeals court rejected that claim and said the payments are not for the mother, but to support the needs of the child, which is justified as an "important public policy."

Not important enough, however, to require the mother show that a like amount was spent upon the child. She can spend it all on herself -- mink coats, diamond rings, Cadillacs -- and maintain the kid only one inch above the squalor that would bring the DFS upon her head, and it's A-OK with the law. Can you say 'hypocrisy' boys and girls.

[The Red Zone]

So then, he ought to be able to sue her.

[billorites]

"And what did my little darling learn in school today?"

[abclily]

And these women who leave husbands for new lovers should get NO child support. Not one cent. If they take the kids away from the fathers, they should support the kids themselves.

[BlazingArizona]

t is called statutory rape and there are plenty of males in prison for sex with underage girls. This woman committed that crime with this young boy then, defrauded her husband for years that the child was his and now looks for support from the victim of her own crime and will apparently get it. Wow, the law really is an ass.

But now look at the case from the husband's point of view. Would it be just to have him support a child who isn't his - particularly since discovery of the illicit relationship was what had just broken up the marriage?

[SC Swamp Fox]

The case was precipitated in 2000, according to the panel's decision, when the mother divorced and a blood test determined that her ex-husband was not the child's father.

I am glad that the court is not forcing the husband to pay child support for a child that is not his.

The father, who was 14 at the time his son was conceived,

I am disturbed that the court has decided to force support payments from someone that was technically raped. Imagine if the genders were reversed. Would someone force a girl to pay for the support of a child that she had at 14, fathered by a married adult?

The "father" should counter-sue for damages that include the cost of the support payments, physcological damages, public humiliation...that "hummer" she once promised him...

[Kadric]

I'm a little bit more interested in the father that has to pay support to a 21 year old daughter he never knew about.

[I still care]

Should a woman who had a child with a 14 year old have custody of that child at all?

I have an acquaitance who at 40 had sex with a 14 year old ("consensual" sex, not rape) and he is doing 125 years.

[El Gran Salseron]

"("consensual" sex, not rape)"

Legally and lawfully a 14-year-old cannot "consent" to anything at all, let alone sex. The law is based upon the idea that a child of that age is too naive to consent to much of anything.....just as an infant cannot "consent" to anything. So regardless of whether this 14-year-old "consented" or not, in the view of the law she did not "consent."

Which part of that is it that you do not understand?

[Mike4Freedom]

But now look at the case from the husband's point of view. Would it be just to have him support a child who isn't his -

Clearly not. The women did all the wrong and the child is an innocent non-conspirator. Her husband is not responsible for the child's support though apparently he did support her for years. The father was a legally incompetent child at the time of conception and a crime victim to boot. He should not be liable. Unfortunately for the child, she is left to depend on her criminal mother for support, or so it should be if justice is to triumph.

It is not always neat, but you can't have someone benefiting from their crime. The legal principle is well established in other contexts such as inheritance.

[SC Swamp Fox]

Legally and lawfully a 14-year-old cannot "consent" to anything at all, let alone sex.

I think that's understood, but there is a difference between unlawful sex with a minor and the forced sexual assault of a minor.

Both are crimes but there is a difference to most people and in the eyes of the law of most states.

[SC Swamp Fox]

The court ruled that "the purpose of child support is to provide for the needs of the child; it is awarded without regard to the fault of either of the parents."

What's really infuriating is that a judge, and now this appeals court, have ruled that the child's inability to consent is irrelevant. He is the "father", he must pay child support.

I wonder if these morons would have ruled the same way if the child were a little younger or if the "sperm donation" had been under the threat of violence?

[Mike4Freedom]

Both are crimes but there is a difference to most people and in the eyes of the law of most states.

Maybe there is a difference to most people, but not to the law. In fact, in criminal trials for statutory rape, the defendant is not permitted to present evidence that he was defrauded on the matter of age. The liability is absolute. That, IMHO, is a violation of the basic concept of criminal law, "mens rhea". You should never be punished for a crime committed without an evil intent.

Imagine that a girl shows you an altered drivers license that convinces you that she was of age. Most states would not let you tell the jury about that fact.

[SC Swamp Fox]

Are you sure? (I'm no lawyer.) Are the charges and penalties the same for someone who has sex with a 15 year old that misrepresents herself (statutory rape) as it is for a guy that jumps out of the bushes in the park and forces himself on a 15 year old girl?

I am going to do some checking, I am pretty sure that SC differentiates the crime and it's penalties based on the level of coercion or force involved, and, if not forced, by the age of the victim. Below a certain age, the threat of force is assumed.

[Mike4Freedom]

Are you sure?

I can't guarantee it is the same in every state. Certainly the age of consent varies all over the lot. For sure, in my state of Kansas, the age of consent is 14 and fraud by the 'child' is not a defense. The liability is absolute or, like the legal guys say-strict liability. It happened so you are toast, no excuses.