Rapist sues for visition of resulting baby

[Witsec1]

Get mad at me all you want to. I am telling you what the law is in the 50 states.

If so, these laws are based on the "child as property" model which you claim to detest.

[lizziesmom]

If so, these laws are based on the "child as property" model which you claim to detest.

Yes they are. Do you have a problem with me? If so, spit it out. As for the rest of you who have responded to my posts, it seems like many of you are angry at me for some reason. If you want to know my views on rape or on what in a perfect world should happen to innocent children why don't you just ask me? All I was trying to do in this thread was talk about the facts of the statutory rape story, and the existing laws on the subject.

[Witsec1]

Yes, i think you're saying quite stupid things here. Maybe take a break and come back and read what you've posted with fresh eyes. You're claiming that you hate the "child as property" model, yet you're saying to me that I should just get over to my objections to it. Does not compute.

This definition from dictionary.com might be helpful:

rape

verb (used with object)

6.

to force to have sexual intercourse.

[formergothardite]

Isn't it that statutary rape is still considered forced rape because the child is not old enough to consent?

[lizziesmom]

Yes, i think you're saying quite stupid things here. Maybe take a break and come back and read what you've posted with fresh eyes. You're claiming that you hate the "child as property" model, yet you're saying to me that I should just get over to my objections to it. Does not compute.

This definition from dictionary.com might be helpful:

rape

verb (used with object)

6.

to force to have sexual intercourse.

I will take a break. I am getting nowhere with you. I no where said you should get over your objections to it. I don't disagree with that definition of rape. However that is not the definition of statutory rape. I also don't disagree with much of your statements about rapists, force and kids. I am merely pointing out and am going to quit, that is not existing law that the judge will be forced to apply.

[lizziesmom]

Isn't it that statutary rape is still considered forced rape because the child is not old enough to consent?

I can't communicate well enough apparently so I am merely going to attach a link to "A Guide to Statutory Rape -- Summary of Current Laws" and those of you who choose to read it can decide for yourselves what it means. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/sr/statelaws/summary.shtml

[Witsec1]

Isn't it that statutary rape is still considered forced rape because the child is not old enough to consent?

When the victim is underage or has some kind of incapacitating mental illness or developmental disability, coercion is presumed.

[Witsec7]

Isn't it that statutary rape is still considered forced rape because the child is not old enough to consent?

That has always been my understanding. But we are talking legal gradients for the purpose of sentencing a criminal. I think the situation that started this thread really doesn't need to include those variations. Simply put the woman was raped, she was the victim, she bore a child as a result of that crime and now the criminal wants visitation.

[Witsec1]

I will take a break. I am getting nowhere with you. I no where said you should get over your objections to it. I don't disagree with that definition of rape. However that is not the definition of statutory rape. I also don't disagree with much of your statements about rapists, force and kids. I am merely pointing out and am going to quit, that is not existing law that the judge will be forced to apply.

Here's the thing, you led with "there are two sides, to this story, maybe the 14 year old was romantically involved with the 20 year old". Which implies, maybe it wasn't "really" rape. Then you go into how much you hate that courts view children as property. I'm trying and failing to see how forcing visitation with a sex offender - which is what he is - is in the best interests of the child. How could it be?

[Witsec1]

It's a common misconception that visitation and child support are related things. They are not. Every state's laws are different but one thing that they all seem to have in common is the legal precedent that parents have multiple rights when it comes to their children, regardless of how they are conceived. There are cases where children of murderers (father kills mothers, for example) are required to have visitation with the father.

The quote refers to statutory rape. The term "statutory rape" generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty. The fact that this is a Fox News story makes me wonder about the accuracy of what is being reported. Perhaps the father and mother were involved romantically and she consented to sex and now is crying rape. Perhaps he did rape her. All I am saying, is that this sounds like the lawyer is playing to the media and there is probably a whole more to the story.

Either way, she kept the baby. She's stuck with the daddy. At the end of the day, parents who can support their children should do so. That is probably why the judge wants the man to acknowledge paternity and contribute to the child's expenses rather than possibly burdening the state.

If the man can support the child, he will be ordered to do so. He may get visitation rights either way.

You know, I think reading comprehension is your real problem here. The original post indicated that the father had been convicted of statutory rape. So it's not a case of "crying rape" which is a telling phrase, IMO. Part of the sentence was that he submit to family court order to pay child support. He is now petitioning for visitation rights. The idea that there is some other "side" to this story in which the convicted sex offender has the best interests of his child at heart by further harassing his victim in this manner, is, in my opinion, ludicrous.

And that is the problem I am having with you.

[samurai_sarah]

I am sorry if I confused you. I have been undergoing chemotherapy treatment for six years now and I don't often communicate as clearly to others as I think I am.

Sorry to hear that. Uhm, but I still don't get what you meant with your spousal rape statement.

[lizziesmom]

Here's the thing, you led with "there are two sides, to this story, maybe the 14 year old was romantically involved with the 20 year old". Which implies, maybe it wasn't "really" rape. Then you go into how much you hate that courts view children as property. I'm trying and failing to see how forcing visitation with a sex offender - which is what he is - is in the best interests of the child. How could it be?

First of all you have distilled multiple posts into four sentences. Secondly, I will try one last time to respond to each of the new statements here and then I'm done because I don't see that we're getting anywhere.

Statutory rape states that because of a person's age they cannot legally consent to sex. In Massachussetts that age is anyone under 16. There are 13, 14, 15 old girls in this country having consensual sex with boys their own age and even older. I don't condone it or agree that it is right or proper but it happens and I think to assume that all of these girls are the same emotionally, intellectually and individually when it comes to sex simply because of their age is a slap to individuality and is awfully close to the same paternalism that views all boys as bad with nothing on their mind but sex and girls should be kept chaste until Dad finds the right guy for them. If you feel that no one, boy or girl can consent to sex until they are a certain age, than it has to follow that everyone under that age who engages in sex is being raped if they are girls and are rapists if they are boys.

So, she was 14, and she had sex either because she was too young to appreciate what she was doing or he forced her to submit. If at 14 she is too young to consent to sex, anyone, at any age who has sex with her is a statutory rapist because the law presumes the age factor negates consent. Seems a bit broad to me. As for force, yes if he forced her to have sex with him by in any way, shape, or form insisting on intercourse when she is telling him stop, or giving him multiple signals to stop he has committed rape, statutory, or legitimate, or forcible, or whatever you want to label it.

The courts do view children as property --- of their parents. In this case, the facts are that this 20 year old convicted of statutory rape under Mass law, is the father of the baby in question. I don't know anything about him other than what was written in the original link. That is what the court will have to find out in determining what is in the best interest of the child. However, the law presumes that it is in the best interest of every child to have the maximum involvement of both parents. That means there has to be some damn compelling evidence to take a parent out of a child's life. Concluding that a 20 year old is a sex offender on the basis of one news story might just be premature. It might not. That's why there are trials.

[OkToBeTakei]

I understand what she is saying.

She is trying to recount what the law is. She is doing it without emotion and is not trying to mix that up with her own personal opinion. As she said...If you want to know her own personal views on it then ask her. But that was not what she was doing here.

Seems that way to me ..could be wrong.

I think it can look quite quite a cold or uninvolved way of discussing. But it is far from unusual in many, many professions. Mine included.

Incidentally I read the 'two sides to every story' to mean the media story. Not the act.

A question though. In my country if the sex was non-consensual he would have been tried for rape. Statutory rape is consensual sex with the law dictating sex with a minor being illegal. I ask this as purely a legal question not a 'What is the definition of consent regarding age maturity?.'

Would this be the case?

Inserting my opinion though..it is a tragic situation.

[Deleted03]

Rape is coerced sex. When there is an age differential or developmental disability in question, coercion is presumed.

But, it's hard to see how giving the rapist visitation rights jibes with "best interests of the child". It fits better with the "child as property" model IMO.

Exactly how to balance being truthful and protecting the child, that is a complicated issue for the people who care about the child to negotiate, I agree. I don't see how forcing visitation rights on the unwilling mother of a child who is too young to really understand the situation can possibly serve the best interest of the child.

I don't think the rape situation is that complicated. He was 20, he had to know it was illegal and had to be the adult and not have sex whether she seemed ok with it or not.

Now I do think that the child once it is of age has a right to know his/her father (as per UN conventions). But it's not at 3 yo that it will express that need. I think that most judges listen to children when they are 8 and older. And then the only fair way would be to ensure that the mother does not have to have contact, as it would not be a question of parenting the child, but rather to visit him or her briefly.

I think it would be a misrepresentation to say it is not complicated.

[Witsec1]

First of all you have distilled multiple posts into four sentences. Secondly, I will try one last time to respond to each of the new statements here and then I'm done because I don't see that we're getting anywhere.

Statutory rape states that because of a person's age they cannot legally consent to sex. In Massachussetts that age is anyone under 16. There are 13, 14, 15 old girls in this country having consensual sex with boys their own age and even older. I don't condone it or agree that it is right or proper but it happens and I think to assume that all of these girls are the same emotionally, intellectually and individually when it comes to sex simply because of their age is a slap to individuality and is awfully close to the same paternalism that views all boys as bad with nothing on their mind but sex and girls should be kept chaste until Dad finds the right guy for them. If you feel that no one, boy or girl can consent to sex until they are a certain age, than it has to follow that everyone under that age who engages in sex is being raped if they are girls and are rapists if they are boys.

So, she was 14, and she had sex either because she was too young to appreciate what she was doing or he forced her to submit. If at 14 she is too young to consent to sex, anyone, at any age who has sex with her is a statutory rapist because the law presumes the age factor negates consent. Seems a bit broad to me. As for force, yes if he forced her to have sex with him by in any way, shape, or form insisting on intercourse when she is telling him stop, or giving him multiple signals to stop he has committed rape, statutory, or legitimate, or forcible, or whatever you want to label it.

The courts do view children as property --- of their parents. In this case, the facts are that this 20 year old convicted of statutory rape under Mass law, is the father of the baby in question. I don't know anything about him other than what was written in the original link. That is what the court will have to find out in determining what is in the best interest of the child. However, the law presumes that it is in the best interest of every child to have the maximum involvement of both parents. That means there has to be some damn compelling evidence to take a parent out of a child's life. Concluding that a 20 year old is a sex offender on the basis of one news story might just be premature. It might not. That's why there are trials.

headdesk.

I am concluding that he is a sex offender based on the fact that he was convicted of statutory rape. As to the bolded part, statutory rape laws are based on age differential, not just the age of the victim. There has to be a certain number of years difference in age, it would be really unusual if the MA law was exceptional in this regard.

I think the fact that the father is a convicted rapist is enough to assume, absent further evidence, that his involvement in this child's life would not be in the best interests of the child. You don't. I think your attitude is part of the problem.

[Witsec1]

Maybe those with actual legal knowledge can chime in: if someone is legally an adult and convicted of statutory rape, are they required to register as a sex offender? Or does it vary?

[notablesquid]

Maybe those with actual legal knowledge can chime in: if someone is legally an adult and convicted of statutory rape, are they required to register as a sex offender? Or does it vary?

My knowledge is as a citizen only, not as one with training in the legal field. In my state, people convicted of statutory rape do have to report as sex offenders. There are levels of offenders, based on the crime that got them on the list in the first place. Level 1 is the 'lowest' and that is the classification that includes statutory rape in my community. I am also aware of occasional instances of young offenders getting off the registry if they were able to prove their offense was sex with an underage girlfriend (stuff like he was 19, she was 17 and the woman testified that she was a willing participant.)

[Witsec1]

My knowledge is as a citizen only, not as one with training in the legal field. In my state, people convicted of statutory rape do have to report as sex offenders. There are levels of offenders, based on the crime that got them on the list in the first place. Level 1 is the 'lowest' and that is the classification that includes statutory rape in my community. I am also aware of occasional instances of young offenders getting off the registry if they were able to prove their offense was sex with an underage girlfriend (stuff like he was 19, she was 17 and the woman testified that she was a willing participant.)

But how did they get on the registry if their only crime was statutory rape? You said statutory rape is Level 1 and not required to register. Or are you saying, there are different levels of statutory rape and not all mean the perp is required to register?

I was under the impression that most states had "Romeo and Juliet" laws where if there is only a few years' difference it's not a crime at all. I'm pretty much on board with those laws and exemptions. But in this case, the perp was 20 and victim was 14, that's out of the Romeo and Juliet range.

ETA: Whether or not the perp in this case was required to register or not, he committed a sexual offense and was convicted, so he is a sexual offender. He may or may not be a registered sex offender.

[OkToBeTakei]

But how did they get on the registry if their only crime was statutory rape? You said statutory rape is Level 1 and not required to register. Or are you saying, there are different levels of statutory rape and not all mean the perp is required to register?

I was under the impression that most states had "Romeo and Juliet" laws where if there is only a few years' difference it's not a crime at all. I'm pretty much on board with those laws and exemptions. But in this case, the perp was 20 and victim was 14, that's out of the Romeo and Juliet range.

It also is not out of the realm of 'mistake to age' if that exists in US law.

The law here seems to attribute a great deal in age difference as in 'Romeo and Juliet' as you said. It is difficult to make assumptions based on just one news story though. Would be interesting if the original case was available.

[YPestis]

I'm confused by the idea of statutory rape in the story. The girl seems to make clear the sex was not consensual...shouldn't that just be rape and not merely a case of statutory rape (i.e age difference the reason for the crime and not forcible penetration)?

I always thought statutory rape was consensual sex between a minor and someone 3+ years older. Plus, I thought it's a lesser degree of rape where the victim has clearly said 'no'. Am I wrong on that? If that's the case, then I can see shades of gray in cases stemming from statutory rape. For example, if a 15yo and a 19yo got together, the 19yo could be tried for statutory rape, correct? Even if the sex is consensual and the two are more or less developmentally equal, the 19yo would be a sex offender. However, the statutory rape is not applied to a rape where a person had penetration sex after the victim clearly said 'no'. My understanding is we have several gradients of legally recognized rape and that statutory rape conviction differs in severity from other types.

However, the OP's story confused me because the judge labelled it statutory rape even though the girl was saying she was traumatized by the sex. If the victim felt she was forced---and the rape conviction did not stem purely from her age---shouldn't the guy get a bigger sentence than statutory rape conviction and a 16yr probation? Or was this a legal thing where the perp pled to a lesser degree?

I guess I'm iffy on this spot because it's FoxNews reporting plus all we hear is from is one side. Family custody issues are rarely clear cut and I can't help but wonder if there's more to the story than what's presented. I guess this has more to do with my view on Fox News than on the actual case.

[notablesquid]

But how did they get on the registry if their only crime was statutory rape? You said statutory rape is Level 1 and not required to register. Or are you saying, there are different levels of statutory rape and not all mean the perp is required to register?

I was under the impression that most states had "Romeo and Juliet" laws where if there is only a few years' difference it's not a crime at all. I'm pretty much on board with those laws and exemptions. But in this case, the perp was 20 and victim was 14, that's out of the Romeo and Juliet range.

ETA: Whether or not the perp in this case was required to register or not, he committed a sexual offense and was convicted, so he is a sexual offender. He may or may not be a registered sex offender.

Sorry to be confusing. All offenders register, but they are also labeled 1, 2, or 3. Some level 1 offenders have gotten off the registry via the courts when they have proven it was consensual, like the Romeo & Juliet reference. I have looked up offenders registered in my zip code and can see what level of offender they each are - most are 1. (I live in an urban, dense environment so it's not surprising that there are many in my area.)

I agree that the story in this thread does not seem like what I have thought of as statutory rape and I hope this young woman and her child are safe and protected from her abuser as much as is humanly possible.

[amydamy]

First of all you have distilled multiple posts into four sentences. Secondly, I will try one last time to respond to each of the new statements here and then I'm done because I don't see that we're getting anywhere.

Statutory rape states that because of a person's age they cannot legally consent to sex. In Massachussetts that age is anyone under 16. There are 13, 14, 15 old girls in this country having consensual sex with boys their own age and even older. I don't condone it or agree that it is right or proper but it happens and I think to assume that all of these girls are the same emotionally, intellectually and individually when it comes to sex simply because of their age is a slap to individuality and is awfully close to the same paternalism that views all boys as bad with nothing on their mind but sex and girls should be kept chaste until Dad finds the right guy for them. If you feel that no one, boy or girl can consent to sex until they are a certain age, than it has to follow that everyone under that age who engages in sex is being raped if they are girls and are rapists if they are boys.

So, she was 14, and she had sex either because she was too young to appreciate what she was doing or he forced her to submit. If at 14 she is too young to consent to sex, anyone, at any age who has sex with her is a statutory rapist because the law presumes the age factor negates consent. Seems a bit broad to me. As for force, yes if he forced her to have sex with him by in any way, shape, or form insisting on intercourse when she is telling him stop, or giving him multiple signals to stop he has committed rape, statutory, or legitimate, or forcible, or whatever you want to label it.

The courts do view children as property --- of their parents. In this case, the facts are that this 20 year old convicted of statutory rape under Mass law, is the father of the baby in question. I don't know anything about him other than what was written in the original link. That is what the court will have to find out in determining what is in the best interest of the child. However, the law presumes that it is in the best interest of every child to have the maximum involvement of both parents. That means there has to be some damn compelling evidence to take a parent out of a child's life. Concluding that a 20 year old is a sex offender on the basis of one news story might just be premature. It might not. That's why there are trials.

There are a lot of states where statutory rapes is not defined by having sex with someone under the age of consent, I know in NJ where I grew up they factor in the age difference between partners. So a 20 and a 14 year old is statutory rape but a 16 year old and an 18 year old isn't and two 14 year olds isn't And Statutory rape laws don't just apply to women, it applies to minors of both genders.

I find it very troubling you are trying to assign some kind of blame to the 14 year old who was raped in this situation.

[amydamy]

I'm confused by the idea of statutory rape in the story. The girl seems to make clear the sex was not consensual...shouldn't that just be rape and not merely a case of statutory rape (i.e age difference the reason for the crime and not forcible penetration)?

I always thought statutory rape was consensual sex between a minor and someone 3+ years older. Plus, I thought it's a lesser degree of rape where the victim has clearly said 'no'. Am I wrong on that? If that's the case, then I can see shades of gray in cases stemming from statutory rape. For example, if a 15yo and a 19yo got together, the 19yo could be tried for statutory rape, correct? Even if the sex is consensual and the two are more or less developmentally equal, the 19yo would be a sex offender. However, the statutory rape is not applied to a rape where a person had penetration sex after the victim clearly said 'no'. My understanding is we have several gradients of legally recognized rape and that statutory rape conviction differs in severity from other types.

However, the OP's story confused me because the judge labelled it statutory rape even though the girl was saying she was traumatized by the sex. If the victim felt she was forced---and the rape conviction did not stem purely from her age---shouldn't the guy get a bigger sentence than statutory rape conviction and a 16yr probation? Or was this a legal thing where the perp pled to a lesser degree?

I guess I'm iffy on this spot because it's FoxNews reporting plus all we hear is from is one side. Family custody issues are rarely clear cut and I can't help but wonder if there's more to the story than what's presented. I guess this has more to do with my view on Fox News than on the actual case.

I think it might be since that is an easier conviction, There is irrefutable proof ,the baby, that he committed statutory rape. However for a sexual assault/rape charge they have to prove lack of consent. I don't mean legally speaking but they have to convince a jury she wasn't "asking for it" or "crying rape". The stat rape charge is a hole in one and the rape charge isn't.

[lizziesmom]

I think the fact that the father is a convicted rapist is enough to assume, absent further evidence, that his involvement in this child's life would not be in the best interests of the child. You don't. I think your attitude is part of the problem.

Once again you are putting words in my mouth. I never, ever, said that. Sorry that my attitude has offended you. Carry on.

[Witsec1]

I'm going by the words you have typed. If you meant something else, then it wasn't communicated by what you typed.

You seem to think that we should be looking for some other side to the story in which a convicted rapist would make a great dad, and every child needs a dad, amirite?

In what way did you see this story as exemplifying the "child as property" model, which you condemned?

Then you went on to imply that "rape is forced sex" is some kind of non-standard definition. I'm not the only one who was confused by your statements.