Posted on 08/17/2008 4:32:31 PM PDT by buccaneer81
Boy's parents sue to get his baby from mom, 21 Saturday, August 16, 2008 3:12 AM By Mary Beth Lane THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH LANCASTER, Ohio --- A Pickerington couple and their son are fighting for custody of a baby born to a Lancaster woman charged with having unlawful sex with the boy, who was 15 at the time of conception.
A paternity test shows that the teen is the father of the baby born April 7 to Jane C. Crane, who was 19 when she became pregnant. Now, a judge has ordered him to pay $50 a month in child support and set visitation at seven hours a week.
Crane, meanwhile, faces criminal charges. A Fairfield County grand jury indicted her last month on two counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, a fourth-degree felony. Conviction carries a maximum sentence of 18 months in prison and a requirement to register as a sex offender for 25 years.
Crane is living with the baby and her family in Lancaster.
The boy's parents say they can provide a better upbringing for the baby than Crane can. Her household includes her stepfather, David L. Jacobs, who was convicted of domestic violence last year for hitting, choking and pointing a gun at Crane's 17-year-old sister and was placed on two years' probation, court records show.
"We don't want to have our granddaughter abused by these people," the boy's father said. "We are trying to do the right thing.
"The child support was the icing on the cake. I couldn't believe that our son has to pay child support to his abuser."
The Dispatch does not identify victims of sexual abuse.
Crane is scheduled for a pretrial conference before Common Pleas Judge Richard E. Berens on Aug. 21. A hearing and a status conference in the custody dispute are scheduled for next month before Domestic Relations Judge Kathy S. Mowry.
Crane, now 21, is not a suitable custodial parent in part because she may have committed a felony by having sexual intercourse with a minor younger than 16, the boy's parents argue in court papers seeking custody.
Crane declined to comment. She is free on a $5,000 recognizance bond pending trial. Her attorney, Sandra Davis, did not return calls. Lawyer Jennifer Strunk, the court-appointed guardian ad litem representing the baby's interests, said through a spokesman that she could not comment.
That a 19-year-old woman had sex with a 15-year-old boy might seem like no big deal to some, but it is a serious charge, said Assistant Prosecutor Julia Dillon.
It makes no difference that it is an adult female charged with unlawful sexual conduct with a minor boy rather than the more common instance of an adult male charged with unlawful sexual conduct with a minor girl.
"It is an age and maturity issue, not a gender issue," Dillon said. "He's a young boy coming into his own, being taken advantage of by an adult."
There could yet be a plea agreement. "I have made what I consider to be a reasonable offer, but I have not received a response," she said.
The incident has had lasting affects on the boy, now 16, his mother said.
"He has nightmares, he is stressed out," she said. "He is a father, even though it was a crime for him to be a father. His life is changed forever."
Crane got to know the family while she worked at a local movie theater with the boy's older sister. When Crane said that her stepfather was abusive, his family allowed her to move in with them.
The boy's sister later bought her own home and Crane moved in with her. It was there last summer that Crane had sex with their son at least twice, his parents said.
mlane@dispatch.com
Nope. I figured you didn't get out much.
Hey, Dandelion? You have made some pretty tasteless personal attacks on this thread. How about knocking it off? Do you really want the mods brought in?
Let me remind you two the payment is 50 dollars a month.
Naw, just the way to preserve ones sanity....and bank account
You wrote:
“Why should I go to another thread when this one’s just fine?”
If you think this thread is fine, I’d love to see your example of one gone bad.
“I’m not beating Buc anymore than he’s been willing to dish out to others.”
I don’t think that’s what’s happening. You are attacking him. So far you’ve basically told him his wife cheated because he didn’t measure up, he should have no right to be in his child’s life, and so on. Now, I read through the posts and between you and Buc you CLEARLY started anything that could be called inappropriate when you said this in post #36: “If you want a say in how child support is spent...why aren’t you with the mother of your children?”
Your presumption there is, well, breathtaking. I think Buc has handled himself well here. Even if you disagree with his opinions, did you have to be presumptive?
“If he can’t handle the same....maybe he should reconsider his posts.”
Can’t handle the same? Again, you asked that rather presumptive question in post 36. I just scanned the posts before that and saw nothing that Buc said that warranted any comment of that nature. He did say he was speaking from experience, but at that point he had not told you why he was not with his wife. And when he did, you made the incredibly insensitive comment that you keep your spouse happy - as if Buc was responsible for his wife cheating on him.
I’m not looking for an argument with you, but where to you get off making such presumptive comments about someone you don’t know and who clearly had said little to nothing for you to go on? Weren’t you just shooting completely in the dark? Not only have you apparently concluded it’s all his fault, but you almost seem to find pleasure in the fact that Buc has suffered. Is that what a normal person would do? Is it normal to mock people over failed marriages when they were the spouse cheated on?
The boy is a minor,could not legally consent to sexual activity with an adult, and he's being punished. He should be paying NOTHING.
You wrote:
“Well...you have a point. He’s blaming women and socialists. All those evil people that are just out to get him. LOL”
You’re misrepresenting what he said. Buc pointed out that women routinely get custody and child support through the courts. That’s just a fact. And he’s also right that the left - socialists or whatever - are the ones who created that fact. The left created and made pervasive the idea that men are worse parents, automatically lean toward being abusive, are all wannabe rapists and molestors, etc. With all that in mind, and having actually read Buc’s comments, I don’t think he is doing what you’re saying he is at all.
You seem to think he is blaming people in a paranoid way. I think he is upset at the fact that women usually get what they demand in court no matter what the men say or do. And let’s face it, this is because of a feminist dominance in out political and legal structures. And feminism is an outgrowth of socialism. Buc is not blaming “All those evil people” in some paranoid way. He is looking at the situation and seeing the obvious: women usually get what they demand in court, and they get it because feminism is a dominant accepted philosophy in our legal system.
Years ago I might have thought like you do. I then read a book called The Myth of Male Power which was written by Warren Farrell a male member of the national directorate for the National Organization for Women. It was eye opening to say the least. And he was a feminist.
My heart goes out to you guys. It’s a dirty little secret that half the men who end up paying the piper vis a vis child support, alimony, and loss of assets were the innocent parties. No fault divorce is a travesty. Fault should be assigned, co-respondents should be named, and the party in the wrong should lose custody and gain nothing.
My heart goes out to you guys. It’s a dirty little secret that half the men who end up paying the piper vis a vis child support, alimony, and loss of assets were the innocent parties. No fault divorce is a travesty. Fault should be assigned, co-respondents should be named, and the party in the wrong should lose custody and gain nothing.
That's only because he's a fifteen year old with zero income, and the fifty bucks is merely a token minimum. Would the principle of the thing change for you if he finished college, got a good job, and had to pay a thousand bucks a month to her in ten years?
This lawsuit is not about the amount he has to pay, this is about the welfare of the child conceived in this situation. Since she let it be born, she then subjects her life to the reality that the courts are often honor bound to look out for the best interests of the child, now that it is deemed a person by the court system of this land.
2.Buc made several comments against women in this thread and like it or not, women are a part of this forum. Poor arguments combined with inane generalizations about groups of people probably won't bring you any peace. LOL
3.If Buc isn't able to handle the consequences of his poorly thought through opinions, then maybe someone could lend him a clue.
The best solution (based on the facts reported in the story) would seem to be granting custody to the boy’s parents, if they are found to be fit.
That little nugget of truth was imparted to me by a domestic court magistrate here in Franklin County, Ohio.
If you are referring to your inane comments as "the consequences," rest assured, I'm doing fine. But thanks for your concern.
Well in that case...it must be Gospel.
Wait! I thought that questioning their fitness was....prejudiced!
Someone outside her own household??? He’s the child’s FATHER, not some interfering busybody who confuses sex with her husband with a parent’s proper role
Based on the information in the article, you painted the boy's parents as being equally as bad as the girl's family, when there was nothing in the story to back up that assertion. On the contrary, it was clearly stated that the child is residing in a household with a convicted domestic abuser.
As a matter of due diligence, of course a court is going to review the fitness of any potential custodians of the child. That's what I was referring to.
I don't know about Tennessee law, but in California it is FORBBIDEN to even ask where even so much as one penny of the child support money is going.
The courts really really really don't want to be in the middle of that pissing match!
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.