Statutory Rape Victim Ordered to pay child support

[GummyBearz]

"SAN FRANCISCO — He was a 15-year-old kid with all the usual teenage sexual passions.

She was his neighbor--a 34-year-old mom, later convicted of statutory rape for engaging him in a romantic tryst that resulted in her getting pregnant....

The matter did not become a court case until after their daughter was born on Jan. 20, 1995, and Jones began receiving welfare on the daughter's behalf. Under federal guidelines, counties must make an effort to determine the identity of the father of any child on welfare and collect child support from him to offset the welfare payments.

That's exactly what San Luis Obispo County did.

As soon as county officials realized the baby's father was a minor, they filed statutory-rape charges against Jones, which resulted in a conviction but no jail time. Almost simultaneously, they sought to have the young father registered as being responsible for child support."

No words other than derp come to mind

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-12-22/features/9612220045_1_pay-child-support-child-support-behalf

[Socal31]

1. Imagine the outrage if the roles were reversed...

And that is how you should feel now.

A crime victim being victimized all over again...?

[Igel]

5. A father who has to support his kid.

Try this: 18 year old guy knocks up a 15-year-old girl. Her passions got the better of her.

The difference isn't all that great, but few would argue that the child should be punished out of sympathy for something that the kid did. The girl's certainly going to have to pay for the guy's actions, one way or another.

If she decides to keep it, then the parents are going to pay because of her decision. She's old enough to decide to keep or abort, but not old enough to decide to engage in sex? And we hold boys to a mixed higher and lower standard: No, they shouldn't know any better, but they get no say and can't be held accountable?

Ultimately it goes back to what's best for the child--not the father, but the offspring. "Hi, honey. Yes, we really can't afford what you want, but that's because your father was only 15 when you were conceived. Yeah, he's 29 now, but he can't be held responsible or accountable for what he did. He was only 15. Yeah, I know that your boyfriend's 15, so just remember--he's not going to be held responsible for anything he does."

Some ideologies are so simple until faced with some of the more awkward outcomes.

[Socal31]

8. Making a rape victim write a check every month is bad practice.

And this won't stand, believe it.

[Omaha Steve]

2. He should not have to pay because of the circumstances

Thanks for posting.

OS

[Yupster]

4. The excuse in these cases is always

"It's in the best interests of the child."

Woman has affair. Has kid with lover. Gets divorced to live with lover.

Husband ordered to pay child support to the real biological mother and father who cheated on him.

Court's logic. Not concerned with the circumstances of the marriage or divorce. It's in the best interest of the children.

Really unfair system.

[WolverineDG]

7. Husband either didn't show up for court

or request paternity testing.

Any lawyer representing men in divorces with children is committing malpractice for not request paternity testing before the final orders are entered.

[Yupster]

11. Paternity test may not even matter

If you have acted like a father and the kids consider you the father, the court can rule you the father and responsible for child support regardless of DNA.

On the other hand if you never acted as father, but are the biological dad, the court can order you to pay child support.

Also, states have time limits for you to challenge paternity. If you haven't challenged within two years or whatever the deadline is, you are the father regardless of DNA.

The laws are still mostly written for the time before DNA testing. The father is assumed to be the father and therefore responsible.

There was a case in Big Spring Texas that made Sixty Minutes years ago. A guy had three kids with his wife. He caught her cheating and filed for divorce. She moved in with her lover. Turns out they had been cheating for most of the marriage. She told him the kids aren't even his. He had DNA tests and it turned out one kid was his and the other two were the lovers.

They got joint custody with her getting primary custodianship. He had to pay child support for the three kids, even the two that weren't his. So he was sending a check to the real biological father to take care of his kids who were living with the biological father the majority of the time.

Also, the judge ordered the guy not to tell the two kids that he was not their biological dad. When he did tell them he was arrested and jailed.

The explanation was that the judge was acting in the best interests of the children.

[missingthebigdog]

3. You do realize that this article is 20 YEARS old?

The child may very well have a child by now. . . .

[Chellee]

9. Thank you. nt

[WolverineDG]

6. One case is criminal, the other civil & different laws & standards apply

Federal law (passed in the Clinton administration) now requires the non-custodial parent to pay child support if the custodial parent applies for & receives benefits.

In this particular case, should the law be revisited to prohibit ordering statutory rape victims to pay child support?

In this case, the child is now an adult. Did the victim have or want any kind of relationship with the child? If so, should he be required to pay child support? Should rapists raising their children born of rape be allowed to get public benefits? Should rapists be allowed custody of their children born of rape? Should their rights automatically be terminated? If so, what about the parental rights of the victim? Do they get automatically terminated too? Do they get to choose if they want to be a parent or not? Do we want those kids growing up knowing they were the product of rape?

[Liberal_in_LA]

10. That seems so wrong