Posted on 10/13/2017 1:15:40 PM PDT by TBP
A judge has awarded a convicted rapist parenting time and joint legal custody of a child he conceived with a girl he raped when she was 12. He was also later convicted of another sexual assault on a child, according to media reports.
The man, Christopher Mirasolo, 27, was awarded joint legal custody of an 8-year-old boy, nine years after he was convicted of raping the child's mother, after a DNA test established paternity of the child, said the victim's attorney. The Detroit News reported on the case that has another hearing scheduled for Oct. 25.
(Excerpt) Read more at kutv.com ...
Because they wanted to ding him for the child support.
This is what you get in a failed city ruled by Democrats for decades.
I agree, but can’t you make the man pay without giving him visitation.
This guy should never be brought into contact with the mom or the minor child.
If the child as a adult wants to meet him, let the child do it then.
The rapist should be in prison. That being said, he never sought any contact with the child. Apparently it’s the law but the judge sure is getting it.
Well, the judge says he “didn’t know.” Now he’s reviewing his decision. BTW, the rapist himself didn’t ask for any sort of custody.
“This is shameful”
Shameful that you post old news without bothering to find out updates ....
And, BTW, this has been thoroughly discussed here ALONG with the updated stories.
And nobody inn Hollywood knew about Weinstein.
This is at least the third time this story has been posted here.
Men are routinely made to pay with nobody around to enforce their right to see their child. In Texas, its a Felony to interfere with custody but good luck finding a cop or state attorney willing to enforce.
Okay. I had thought he was trying to shove it in the mother’s face, because he was being required to make child support payments.
I’m glad to hear he’s not actively pursuing this.
As for the judge, if the parameters are required, then it’s not really his fault either.
I can’t believe this hasn’t happened before, and that there are no protections for the mother and daughter.
And yes, he belongs in prison. I haven’t read to particulars of the case though. If this is open and shut, a simply case of rape, then he should be in prison for sure.
I am so leery these days of women who make things up. I don’t mean to downplay legitimate claims of rape.
She was 13. He was 18. Held against her will.
Apparently the judge didn’t have the facts.
Judge halts order.
I went through some of that myself.
I get kind of a kick about women who complain about the fathers not wanting to be in their child’s life. I suspect more men want to be involved than don’t, and more men are discouraged from remaining in contact, than aren’t.
Every visitation day, my kids had something else planned. Not just something simple to ignore, but something like Disneyland with friends, or whatever else could be thought of.
Then even if you prevail, there you are with a kid who thinks they just got cheated out of Disneyland with their friends.
You can’t win.
I’m not sure what the rules are.
If the law says a man paying child support must be given access, the judge has no leeway.
If I were a judge, I’d be in contact with the leadership of my state legislature to get that fixed.
A thirteen year old rape victim should not be forced into contact with, or relinquish control of her child to the rapist. I would continue to object as long as the child was a minor, and then would only agree if the child wanted it.
By that time the child should know the man wasn’t worth knowing.
Then again, sometimes men do change. I have very strong feelings about this topic.
Rape victims should get every consideration possible.
It may take them years to get over it, if ever. Then to be forced into contact with the guy...
No.
Thank you for the link.
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.