Why should male under-aged rape victims have to pay child support to their adult female rapists?
How do you feel about this?
CALIFORNIA: San Luis Obispo County v. Nathaniel J., ___ Cal. App. 4th ___, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843 (1996).
The policy of California's courts regarding defenses to child support may best be summed up as, "Be quiet and pay your child support." In addition to rejecting concealment of the child as a defense where the concealment ends during minority, California has also rejected as a defense to child support the fact that the father was a victim of statutory rape. Reasoning that the father and mother had consensual sex, the court saw no reason to excuse the father from the consequences of his actions. Statutory rape cannot be used as a financial shield. San Luis Obispo County v. Nathaniel
J., ___ Cal. App. 4th ___, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843 (1996).
"In Iowa, the government has confiscated the savings of an 11-year-old boy. Rylan Nitzschke saved $200 from chores and shoveling snow, but now his savings belongs to the state. Why? Rylan's father allegedly owes child support - for Rylan! - and the father's name was on the boy's bank account.
OK, so this is a fluke, and the state will return the boy's savings, right? Wrong. State officials have no intention of returning the money. And why should they? They receive federal funds for each dollar they collect. Returning Rylan's piggy bank is bad fiscal management.
Such expropriations are far from unusual. In West Virginia, child support officials cleaned out the bank account of an 85-year-old grandmother whose son allegedly owed child support. The son never paid into the account, which comprised her life savings. She was also charged $75 processing fee.
Children often pay child support to grown-ups. In California and Kansas, minor boys statutorily raped by adult women must pay child support to the criminals who raped him. In one case, the boy was drugged before sex. "
“ “The child support was the icing on the cake. I couldn’t believe that our son has to pay child support to his abuser.”
Note also that the boy is allowed only seven hours a week of “visitation” with his son. He’s really getting an early education on the joys of the family law system.
As an aside, I don’t believe a 19-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old should be statutory rape. However, legally in this case it is statutory rape–just as it would be if it were a 35-year-old with a 15-year-old–so demanding that the victim pay child support should be out of the question."
Talk about a definite need for reform? No?
Posted by Angel Dummott
"If they had consensual sex it's their fault. statutory rape victims are not rape victims. In fact, in most cases I believe that the so called "rapist" is more of a victim."
Uh what planet do you come from again?
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
That is really sick, and sadly, it's not the first time I've heard of it happening. Forcing a rape victim to pay his perp! She shouldn't be allowed to keep custody of the child! If the father (victim) doesn't want custody, the child should be put up for adoption. Either way, the mother (perp) should be rotting in jail.
- jakemcclakeLv 71 decade ago
Probably the mother should pay, if she has a job and can keep it while raising the child.
(Here is another good question) Who should pay if we do not want the male underage victim to pay and the mother is not working.
The mother may be in jail, or under house arrests,or may not be working (at least not for a while) and if so how can she pay?
Should Medicaid and the Social Service Programs pay.
This is what I think would happen if that law was changed. I guess in that case the taxpayers get hit again.
- JAMES HLv 41 decade ago
Seems to me that it completely undermines the idea of statutory rape. That is, the idea that a minor cannot consent to sex. Statutory rape law is there to shield minors from the consequences of having sex.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
There was a case in the news in July of a 19 year old Texas boy ordered to pay 11 years retroactive to a woman in Illinois. A 27 year old Michigan man had to pay 14 years retroactive to the woman who sat with him as a boy.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
Another victory for feminism was that establishing paternity is all that is required for getting child support. It does not matter whether the paternity in question was derived from a criminal act.
What is even weirder is where there is actually no consent given (underage or otherwise). A trial judgement was asked in a hypothetical scenario involving an estranged doctor couple. He had provided semen for in vitro (for whatever reason). But when divorced the ex-wife wanted to impregnate herself with his sperm. That is why the ruling was asked for. The answer, yes he would owe child support. It is all very weird.
- RembrandtLv 51 decade ago
Odd how feminists suddenly see 'Grey Areas' that call for 'Reasonable Judgements' by the courts when the perp of statuatory rape is female.
Of course, when it's the male thats the perp in a statuatory rape situation, feminists screech about rule of law & other crapola.
Edit--@ Harley--The topic of this question was statuatory rape. So of course when we flip the sex's to the male being the perp, you immediately start talking about non-consensual sex. Again, as predictable as watching Road-Runner outsmart Wile E Coyote.
So utterly predictable.
- LútaLv 61 decade ago
I think that's the pathetic. If the girl is only a few years older than the boy then I think maybe child support should be paid. Both kids are in the same dumb mental range. If any child support is paid, custody should be 50/50.
Now if the girl is old enough to understand the consequences of her actions and yet still dumb enough to ignore it.. then no. Child support should not be payed to her. I don't care if the boy wanted to do her. She's old enough to know better. I have no sympathy for her and she can pay for her own mistakes.
- HaleyLv 51 decade ago
You're talking about a lot of issues here, so I'll try and split it up a bit:
Bank account issues: If you share an account with someone who owes money, you can face financial issues because of it. What would prevent a deadbeat dad from opening an account and saying it was "for grandma" and stashing all his money there and skirting child support. I feel bad for the grandma, but blame the deadbeat dad, not the system on that one.
For statutory, that gets to be a really gray area because at the older age limits, it is often consensual. Because it is in the rape category we view things harshly, but should a 17 and 19 year old having a relationship be that shocking? If the male was the 17 year old, I certainly feel he should pay. I think this is where the judge really has to use common sense and just be plain reasonable, was it consensual, how aware was the man that a child could result from his actions, how old was the boy/man?
Rembrant - you have no idea what my background is or how I would feel if it was the other way around. Don't make yourself look like such an @ss. If it was the other way around the woman is now pregnant and has to make one of the toughest decisions of her life about whether or not to keep the child. This decision is even worse if it was non-consensual.
- professorcLv 71 decade ago
You throw in different scenarios in and expect an answer to the question.
I do not think women who commit statutory rape should be allowed to retain custody of those children. If the child goes to the father then she should pay support for the child. If the child is adopted both parties obligation to support would be stopped.
Put the other items that have nothing to do with statutory rape into another question perhaps?
- lost!Lv 41 decade ago
If they had consensual sex it's their fault. statutory rape victims are not rape victims. In fact, in most cases I believe that the so called "rapist" is more of a victim.