Rapist sues for visition of resulting baby

[Kitty]

16 years is a long freaking time for "just" statutory rape. The justice system in the US is appalling as far as convictions and sentencing for rape go. Or, there's details that we're just not hearing.

In a lot of abusive relationships, the victim will go along with sex just to keep the abuser content. This might have been the case in which a 14 year old girl might willingly have sex with a 20 year old man but still be traumatized afterward. So there might not be an 'actual' sexual assault/rape conviction, but still a statutory rape conviction with a really long probation sentence. Seriously, 16 years? I'm no expert on MA law but that's really steep.

Either way, any 20 year old man who has sex with a 14 year old girl regardless of whether or not she was 100% willing and consenting will not make a good parent nor is visitation with him in the child's best interests. Rapists and abusers do not make good parents. Ever.

[emmiedahl]

The only way for the man to be convicted of non-statutory rape is if the girl can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he forced her. Often statutory rape is charged instead because it is much easier to prove merely that the sex happened. So she may have been forced and unable to prove it, or she may have not told anyone until all evidence was destroyed (except the baby). If force was suspected, that would explain the long, long sentence. Statutory rape typically gets a small punishment for a sex crime because force is not assumed.

In Massachusetts, a father can stop the mother from giving the baby up for adoption to the parent(s) of her choosing by filing a claim with social services. So it is not as simple as "she chose to keep the baby, now she can suck it up..." She may have had reservations about giving her infant to her rapist, understandably.

I found this:

General Laws c. 210, § 4A allows a person who thinks he may be the father of a child born outside of marriage to file a claim

with the Department of Social Services (DSS) stating that he is willing to accept parental responsibility if the mother

does not want to or is unable to parent the child.

[valsa]

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.

Actually, taking the ages out of the equation for a second, he doesn't need to insist on intercourse when she's saying "no" or giving him multiple signals to stop for it to be rape. It's rape if she doesn't say "yes". Anything other than that puts the burden on the rape victim to perform a certain way to legitimize her own rape. She doesn't have to say "no", she just has to not say "yes".

[Witsec1]

The only way for the man to be convicted of non-statutory rape is if the girl can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he forced her. Often statutory rape is charged instead because it is much easier to prove merely that the sex happened. So she may have been forced and unable to prove it, or she may have not told anyone until all evidence was destroyed (except the baby). If force was suspected, that would explain the long, long sentence. Statutory rape typically gets a small punishment for a sex crime because force is not assumed.

In Massachusetts, a father can stop the mother from giving the baby up for adoption to the parent(s) of her choosing by filing a claim with social services. So it is not as simple as "she chose to keep the baby, now she can suck it up..." She may have had reservations about giving her infant to her rapist, understandably.

I found this:

General Laws c. 210, § 4A allows a person who thinks he may be the father of a child born outside of marriage to file a claim

with the Department of Social Services (DSS) stating that he is willing to accept parental responsibility if the mother

does not want to or is unable to parent the child.

Right, just so I'm not accused of putting words in people's mouths, here's what lizziesmom said: "

"Either way, she kept the baby. She's stuck with the daddy. "

I think that's a horrible sentiment. Am I being to horribly harsh to be shocked at some of the things Lizziesmom is saying here?

Statutory rape fits into the definition of rape as forced sex because coercion is presumed when one partner cannot legally give consent. And rape as forced sex is not "my" definition of rape.

The term "statutory rape" is used in some legal jurisdictions to refer to sexual activities in which one person is below the age required to legally consent to the behavior.[1] Although it usually refers to adults engaging in sex with minors under the age of consent,[1] it is a generic term, and very few jurisdictions use the actual term "statutory rape" in the language of statutes.[2] Different jurisdictions use many different statutory terms for the crime, such as "sexual assault", "rape of a child", "corruption of a minor", "carnal knowledge of a minor", "unlawful carnal knowledge", or simply "carnal knowledge". In statutory rape, overt force or threat need not be present. The laws presume coercion, because a minor or mentally challenged adult is legally incapable of giving consent to the act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

[TXDuck]

The only way for the man to be convicted of non-statutory rape is if the girl can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he forced her. Often statutory rape is charged instead because it is much easier to prove merely that the sex happened. So she may have been forced and unable to prove it, or she may have not told anyone until all evidence was destroyed (except the baby).

Minor quibble, beyond a reasonable doubt. If the standard were "beyond a shadow of a doubt", very few people would be convicted of anything. However, I agree with everything else you wrote.

[Witsec1]

Actually, taking the ages out of the equation for a second, he doesn't need to insist on intercourse when she's saying "no" or giving him multiple signals to stop for it to be rape. It's rape if she doesn't say "yes". Anything other than that puts the burden on the rape victim to perform a certain way to legitimize her own rape. She doesn't have to say "no", she just has to not say "yes".

Thank you thank you thank you.

[shedemei]

I think she's talking about the legal issues surrounding the story, NOT giving personal opinions, and that's what people are missing. Similarly, she commented that the story may not be exactly as the media described it. Given the generally shitty quality of most of news reporting these days I wouldn't be surprised.

[valsa]

I think she's talking about the legal issues surrounding the story, NOT giving personal opinions

No, she's actually talking about legal issues (which I'm not even sure she's correct about, especially considering the wide range of laws this country has on issues like rape and child visitation) sprinkled with personal opinion.

[Witsec1]

I think she's talking about the legal issues surrounding the story, NOT giving personal opinions, and that's what people are missing. Similarly, she commented that the story may not be exactly as the media described it. Given the generally shitty quality of most of news reporting these days I wouldn't be surprised.

No, she's both talking about legal issues, and mistakenly asserting that statutory rape does not meet the definition of forced sex that I gave. Forced sex = nonconsensual sex, therefore force is presumed if victim cannot give consent. Obviously if violence is used that is a more severe crime. But if violence or physical force is not used, it's still forced sex = rape.

The father is a convicted sex offender, I'm not "assuming" anything.

Also, she wasn't dispassionately stating the facts, she gave an opinion that it is wrong for family courts to treat children as property instead of valuing the child's best interest above all.

I think the father suing for visitation because he has to pay child support, is an example of "child as property" mentality. The impression I got was that Lizziesmom thinks the mother fighting the father's visitation request, and the attorney publicizing the case, is an example of the "child as property" mentality.

[meda]

I think part of the confusion here is that states have different ages of consent and sometimes tiered stautory rape laws. For example, in my state of NY, there are several degrees of statutory rape, depending on the age difference:

Under 17 years of age: New York law states that a person less than 17 years of age is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse or other sexual contact. These laws are typically known as statutory rape laws.

If the victim is under 13, and the defendant is at least 18, this constitutes a 1st degree sexual offense. 1st degree crimes are considered the most serious ones and carry the longest penalties.

If the victim is under 15 and the perpetrator is at least 18, this constitutes a 2nd degree sexual offense. However, if the defendant is less than 4 years older than the victim, this may constitute an affirmative defense. Affirmative defenses are those in which the defendant introduces evidence which negates criminal liability.

According to my headship the criminal defense lawyer, it is possible, in fact probable given the age difference between the two, to be convicted in NY "only" of statutory rape and be placed on the sex offender registry. The headship also speculated that in this case there may have also been a forcable rape charge in addition to the stautory charge (one can be charged for both), and the DA was unable to get a conviction for forcible rape and the jury convicted the man (or a plea deal was accepted) of the lesser included charge of statutory rape.

Now in NY, being on the sex offender registry automatically (depending on the level offender one is registered as) would prohibit contact with the child. At most supervised visitation would be allowed. A lack of access is different than a severing of parental rights, since one is criminal matter and the other is a family court matter. Because the guy was not placed on the registry, a judge is arguably more likely to grant visitation and not sever the rapists parental rights, because there is less of a factual record to justify that decision.

In the headship's opinion, the DA and judge should have anticipated this issue and issued an order of protection for mother and child to run concurrently with the 16 year probation, imposed a stronger sentence, and/or required restitution. They left a mess for the family court to clean up.*

*he also asks that I inform you that his opinion is based on the laws of NYS and do not constitute legal advice.

[Deleted03]

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.

For me, the idea of statutory rape is exactly this: She may have given consent then, but it was not informed consent because she was too young to understand the extent and consequences of her consent, and thus has some trauma out of it. Hence, you establish statutory rape laws to ensure that minors are protected and not taken advantage of by adults who should go with other adults.

[Boltingmadonna]

she consented to sex and now is crying rape. Perhaps he did rape her.

Using that definition, spousal rape happens. If there is a divorce, DaddyO is going to have contact with the child and no one is going to call him a sex offender.

What the ever living fuck. I find it highly disturbing that someone who claims to have worked in family court is so clueless about consent. A child CANNOT consent to sex. Therefore, there is no such thing as consensual sex with a child. And using the term "crying rape" is typical of a victim-blamer. If a man has sex with a 14 year old, then SHE WAS RAPED. If a man forces his wife to have sex when she doesn't want it, then SHE WAS RAPED. And hell yes, I'm going to call him a sex offender. So will the court, if he is tried and convicted. And it is NOT in any child's best interests to be forced to spend time with a man who raped the child's mother. Being forced to witness abuse and stand by while your mother is being abused IS abuse. There's no such thing as a man who hurts the mother but doesn't hurt the children, because hurting their mother cannot help but hurt them too. How in the world is a rapist going to bring children up with a healthy respect for the opposite sex, or healthy ideas about relationships? I realize that in this sorry world children often are forced to associate with violent bio-dads, but there's no way in hell it's in their best interests.

[luckystone]

Oh gosh. I do think there is a difference between statutory rape and non-statutory rape. In one consent is given but legally vitiated, and in the other one it is not given. Does this make me a horrible person? Btw, like the other poster I am also a lawyer.

If he had been 15 then depending on where they live, the law probably would have said it was all right.

So I'm really not sure how I feel about this. It is a pretty large age gap, so it's designed to prevent just exploitation and creepiness. And I suspect people sometimes take plea deals where statutory becomes a lesser charge even though it really shouldn't be.

[meda]

Also, about statutory vs other type of rape:

Anyone under the age of consent lacks the capacity to consent. You don't need to prove a lack of consent or force, you only need to prove that the victim was under the age of consent and a sex act as defined by law occurred. A lack of consent is assumed if the victim is underage, again because the victim is presumed by law to lack capacity to consent.

Other types of rape require that a lack of consent or force be proven. That element of the crime must be present to convict someone of rape if the victim is of legal age and otherwise has the capacity to consent or not to sex. That element is not present in a statutory rape charge, because inability to consent is presumed.

ETA: cross posted with luckystone, you said it more simply.

[Witsec1]

Oh gosh. I do think there is a difference between statutory rape and non-statutory rape. In one consent is given but legally vitiated, and in the other one it is not given. Does this make me a horrible person? Btw, like the other poster I am also a lawyer.

If he had been 15 then depending on where they live, the law probably would have said it was all right.

So I'm really not sure how I feel about this. It is a pretty large age gap, so it's designed to prevent just exploitation and creepiness. And I suspect people sometimes take plea deals where statutory becomes a lesser charge even though it really shouldn't be.

I'm not saying that statutory rape should have the same penalty as a violent sexual assault. I'm saying that just because it's "only" statutory rape, that doesn't mean there's somehow "another side to the story" in which it automatically benefits the child to have this guy in his or her life, just because he's the genetic father.

[Witsec7]

For me, the idea of statutory rape is exactly this: She may have given consent then, but it was not informed consent because she was too young to understand the extent and consequences of her consent, and thus has some trauma out of it. Hence, you establish statutory rape laws to ensure that minors are protected and not taken advantage of by adults who should go with other adults.

The minor cannot give consent, it's really that simple.

Adults can legally consent to sexual contact with other adults. They can also withdraw that consent at any point.

[shesinsane]

I got the story from Fox News, they tend to get things wrong, but I felt it should be shared because rapist child custody isn't an issue forced birthers address when they say rape victims shouldn't be allowed to choose abortions.

Thank you all for going 4 pages without pointing out how I spelled "visitation" wrong in the thread title. I'm a grate speller, really. ;)

[Boltingmadonna]

I felt it should be shared because rapist child custody isn't an issue forced birthers address when they say rape victims shouldn't be allowed to choose abortions.

Good point. Like all other potentially dire results of eliminating choice for women, the forced birthers prefer to just ignore it all. Instead, they urge us to wait until those bunnies and unicorns start raining from the sky.

Re the consent discussion: Meh, I keep forgetting that not everyone here is a feminist just because they like to snark on fundies. I recommend this essay on consent, from Twisty at I Blame the Patriarchy. She's pretty good at snarking her own self.

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/patriarchy-blaming-the-twisty-way/consent-or-the-legalization-of-womens-humanity/

[ShesCrafty]

Perhaps the father and mother were involved romantically and she consented to sex and now is crying rape.

I have not read the article nor gotten past the first page of this thread, and I'm not going to, as the rape threads can be triggers for me and my guess after reading your post is that this is going to be a fighting thread. I am just going repeat something I'm sure many of my fellow FJers have already told you. A 14 year old cannot consent to sex with an adult in any state of the US that I am aware of. The age of consent is between 16-18 in all states. There is no "crying rape". It was rape.

Now that I have gotten the rational portion of my commentary out of the way, onto the unrational portion. The fact that you would even think to use the phrase "crying rape" makes me think only one thing: FUCK YOU.

[meda]

Good point. Like all other potentially dire results of eliminating choice for women, the forced birthers prefer to just ignore it all. Instead, they urge us to wait until those bunnies and unicorns start raining from the sky.

Re the consent discussion: Meh, I keep forgetting that not everyone here is a feminist just because they like to snark on fundies. I recommend this essay on consent, from Twisty at I Blame the Patriarchy. She's pretty good at snarking her own self.

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/patriarchy-blaming-the-twisty-way/consent-or-the-legalization-of-womens-humanity/

So we should abandon large chunks of the Constitution when it comes to how people accused of crimes are prosecuted? Awesome idea, because lack of due process has worked so well to protect women's rights in the past.

And just FYI, it is possible to explain the required statutory elements of a crime in a dispassionate way without enabling the patriarchy. My legal training is not incompatable with my feminism.

[tropaka]

From the way they characterize the girl's feelings it sounds to me like he forced sex on her but plead to the lesser charge of statutory rape provided he agree to pay child support etc.

Support does not equal visitation. If a father turns out to be a dud or dangerous after a separation or divorce, a court can order him to have no contact but will still enforce child support.

[Witsec1]

I got the story from Fox News, they tend to get things wrong, but I felt it should be shared because rapist child custody isn't an issue forced birthers address when they say rape victims shouldn't be allowed to choose abortions.

Thank you all for going 4 pages without pointing out how I spelled "visitation" wrong in the thread title. I'm a grate speller, really. ;)

LOL, I did not even notice your offering to Tpyos, goddess of typographical errors.

BTW, there's one more nit I have to pick with lizziesmom.

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.

The bolded statements do not follow each other if you take the issue of consent for underage boys as seriously as for underage girls. If the boy is also below the age of consent then it shouldn't be a crime.

[Boltingmadonna]

Meda: In the link I provided, Twisty was using satire and sarcasm to make a point. That point being that as the law currently works in practice, rape is the only crime in which the victim is considered guilty unless she can prove otherwise. You're a lawyer--have you never heard of the notion of a rape victim being put on trial? Although there are now statutory protections that are supposed to prevent that, defense attorneys often find subtle ways of doing it anyway--because it works.

As far as your explanation of the current state of the law, I have no problem with it and have not criticized your post. There's no fight here unless you want to start one.

lizziesmom is a different matter. ShesCrafty speaks for me on that one.

[meda]

Meda: In the link I provided, Twisty was using satire and sarcasm to make a point. That point being that as the law currently works in practice, rape is the only crime in which the victim is considered guilty unless she can prove otherwise. You're a lawyer--have you never heard of the notion of a rape victim being put on trial? Although there are now statutory protections that are supposed to prevent that, defense attorneys often find subtle ways of doing it anyway--because it works.

As far as your explanation of the current state of the law, I have no problem with it and have not criticized your post. There's no fight here unless you want to start one.

lizziesmom is a different matter. ShesCrafty speaks for me on that one.

Not trying to start a fight, I was responding to what seemed like a blanket statement regarding how the people who discussed consent were not feminists. I do respectfully disagree with the statement about rape being the only crime in which the victim needs to prove innocence. I agree that successful rape prosecutions are far too rare, and I agree that women can be revictimized by the process, but all crimes have elements that must be proven before an individual can be convicted of a crime.

Take assault for example: In some states, it is defined as physical contact without the consent of the person being touched. Just touching a person is not a crime. To make it a crime, the prosecutor needs to prove that the victim did not consent to be touched.

How is that different than the consent standard with rape? If rape is defined as an unconsentual sex act, the same elements must be proven. A sex act is not in itself a crime. The element necessary to make it a crime is that a person capable of consent did not consent to the sex act.

What makes it so difficult to convict, and so grueling for the victim are rules of evidence that allow past behavior of the victim into evidence, and the larger patriarchal beliefs about appropriate behavior for women. I have certainly heard prosecutors discuss whether they have a sympathetic victim, because that contributes to their ability to get a conviction. Rape victims are not the only ones with that problem, although the stakes are higher than for the unsympathetic assault victim.

[Boltingmadonna]

I'd be cautious in making "blanket statements" about any description of FJites. We're too diverse a group for that. ; ) However, anyone who implies that a pregnant 14 year old wasn't really raped, or that spousal rape is something to be pooh-poohed is, in my never humble opinion, not a feminist. As far as I know, you didn't say those things, so it doesn't apply to you.

information from a professional is always interesting, and your example of assault is interesting too, but I'm not sure it's an exact match to rape. For one thing, almost nobody believes that a person would consent to be assaulted. So, needing to prove you didn't consent to assault only applies to the mildest cases, where a person was touched in an unwelcome way that wasn't obvious. But many people, including lizziesmom, seem willing to believe that a woman consented to sex even when she claims harm. How many times have you heard the defense that "she wanted rough sex" to show that a woman consented even if she can show harm? I thought Twisty's post made a good point that no matter what you do as a woman, it can be turned against you. There's also the feeling some people have that forced sex isn't a harm in itself. If you don't get beaten up as well as raped, well then, it was just "surprise sex" and you should get over it. And, to get back to the original point, a woman who has been raped and decides to keep the child has definitely NOT consented to a lifetime of co-parenting with her rapist, and if the law doesn't reflect that, it should.