Rapist sues for visition of resulting baby

[SpeakNow]

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.

QFT

[Three and Done]

I do NOT trust FauxNews, and yet they have even stated that the victim was traumatized by the male in question.

My question is this - why the hell are we debating statuatory rape vs. "real" rape? The victim in question was a friend of the rapist's younger sister, per the article. If the information is correct, she had NO relationship with her rapist other than exisiting within his circle of acquaintances.

Sounds to me like "legitimate" rape (I want to vomit just typing that...). :evil:

[SpeakNow]

I don't get the whole "crying rape" nonsense. Why the hell would anyone pretend to be raped? What does that get you? Legal fees? Time in court? Dirty looks from certain conservatives?

[smores]

FloraPoste, I applaud you for trying. This thread makes me want to scream "WHAT THE FUCK" at anyone who thinks children can consent to sex and that just because it's from Faux News, the child must be lying. WTF.

[2xx1xy1JD]

It's not automatic that the father wouldn't get visitation unless he is actually sitting in jail, or has a condition that he is not allowed to be around any child as a result of his charges.

IME in Ontario, Canada, the courts will pay attention to safety risks and put in measures to prevent direct contact between the mother and father if warranted (eg. by using a third party to transfer the child). In situations where there is a certain about potential risk to a child, supervision may be required for the entire access visit. However, cutting off all access entirely is considered an extreme measure. I've seen it done in cases of extreme risk (eg. father already convicted of manslaughter in the death of another child), in cases where the child themselves would scream at the sight of the parent and in cases where the parent couldn't even manage to follow the rules of supervised access. Outside of those ultra-extreme cases, though, some sort of access is generally granted. There is no specific exception saying "not in cases where dad is a rapist". I've had cases where mom was 14 and dad was more than twice her age (under the old law in Canada, when that was legal), and dad got custody because he was the more capable parent. I've had cases where there clear evidence that mom had been abused, but dad got custody because he had his shit together and mom was on drugs. I've had cases where dad was clearly abusive, but he gets supervised access. I've had cases where mentally disabled mom claims that dad raped her and she wants to put the baby up for adoption, but he objects and ends up blocking the adoption until the baby is a toddler. I've had cases of clear spousal rape (forced marriage at 15 in Iran), but the court didn't cut off access until dad tried to insist on "virginity testing" for his daughters.

I'm not saying that rapist applying for access rights isn't gross. I'm saying that in many jurisdictions, it's a very real possibility, and someone pregnant from rape may need to consider getting some good local legal advice so that they know all of their options and can make an informed decision.

[Maggie Mae]

I know it's cliche, but rape is rape is rape. There is no "legitimate" rape. Statutory rape is Rape. If someone is unable to consent, it is rape. There is NO difference. Why would someone "cry rape" ?

[Pretzel]

I'm a little unsure. I wonder how you'd go from "not able to consent" to "able to consent" in one day once you turn 18(16)? Isn't it highly depending on the individual when a person (either male or female) is finally able to consent to sexual activities? :?

[OkToBeTakei]

//ca.news.yahoo.com/video/us-22424932/rapist-wants-visitation-rights-teen-mom-fights-back-30698637.html

Still the same news channel I believe that others said can be less than above board (are any of them in reality?)

34 states have not addressed this issue. 7 have and it looks like this girl's lawyer is trying to make Massachusetts the 8th.

[valsa]

I'm a little unsure. I wonder how you'd go from "not able to consent" to "able to consent" in one day once you turn 18(16)? Isn't it highly depending on the individual when a person (either male or female) is finally able to consent to sexual activities? :?

The law doesn't have the ability to determine, on a case-by-case basis, the maturity of minors who have sex, so there are blanket laws based on age. To me, saying "I wonder how you'd go from "not able to consent" to "able to consent" in one day once you turn 18" is no different from saying "I wonder how you'd go from "not able to drink" to "able to drink" in one day once you turn 21" or I wonder how you'd go from "not able to vote" to "able to vote" in one day once you turn 18".

Are there mature 17 year olds who could probably give better informed consent to having sex with a 23 year old than some 18 year olds? Yes. Are there mature 17 year old who know more about the political process and candidates' values, and who could make a more informed voting choice than many 18 year olds? Also yes (as an aside, I'm not sure I believe any 14 year old is mature enough to give informed consent to have sex with a 20 year old, so I'm not talking about this case specifically)

Laws that have to make a blanket statement about the legality of things like minors having sex with adults have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and I think most do try to give a reasonable age where they estimate that the majority of children under that age wouldn't not be able to give informed consent. Does that inconvenience a few mature kids that age? Sure. However, if an adult decides to have sex with someone under that age of consent, they’re the ones who’ve got to suck it up and deal with the consequences.

[Gil]

Consent is sort of a moot point, I think because the victim has stated that she was threatened and coerced.

[valsa]

Consent is sort of a moot point, I think because the victim has stated that she was threatened and coerced.

Oh, I'm sure she was okay with it at the time and just wants to get back at the poor "rapist" because he wants to do what's best for his baby now and have visitation. She's just crying rape because she doesn't understand that a child needs a father.

...

...

I threw up a little in my mouth while typing that

[Deleted03]

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.

Isn't that a blanket statement? I have a feminist friend (yes feminist, she works in a feminist group and is feminist) who started being sexually active at 14 with an older man (like over 20). She always told me she consented and never expressed any feeling of being raped. Now she could be hiding it. But IMO statutory rape is not a blanket statement that says there is no way any 14 yo can consent. It says it's not ok for an adult to have sex with a minor because her/his maturity and emotional state is still uncertain and you can't guarantee that 1- s/he is not taken advantage of and 2- s/he has made an informed decision. And this is particularly obvious when there are laws or agreed principles that a small age gap is ok.

I think that legal matters aside some 14 yo are able to consent, but for the sake of protecting all 14 yo, statutory rape IS necessary and a good social value.

[Pretzel]

The law doesn't have the ability to determine, on a case-by-case basis, the maturity of minors who have sex, so there are blanket laws based on age. To me, saying "I wonder how you'd go from "not able to consent" to "able to consent" in one day once you turn 18" is no different from saying "I wonder how you'd go from "not able to drink" to "able to drink" in one day once you turn 21" or I wonder how you'd go from "not able to vote" to "able to vote" in one day once you turn 18".

Are there mature 17 year olds who could probably give better informed consent to having sex with a 23 year old than some 18 year olds? Yes. Are there mature 17 year old who know more about the political process and candidates' values, and who could make a more informed voting choice than many 18 year olds? Also yes (as an aside, I'm not sure I believe any 14 year old is mature enough to give informed consent to have sex with a 20 year old, so I'm not talking about this case specifically)

Laws that have to make a blanket statement about the legality of things like minors having sex with adults have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and I think most do try to give a reasonable age where they estimate that the majority of children under that age wouldn't not be able to give informed consent. Does that inconvenience a few mature kids that age? Sure. However, if an adult decides to have sex with someone under that age of consent, they’re the ones who’ve got to suck it up and deal with the consequences.

Thanks for putting stuff in words, that I couldn't wrap my head around all day. I really mean it, thanks. I just wondered where the individuality was in that kind of circumstances, but you're right, a line has to be drawn somewhere and lawmakers cannot have a regard for every single individual. ITA.

[Rosa]

Sophie, there's a difference between assessing your own experience, and saying what someone else's is.

[tankgirl]

I know it's cliche, but rape is rape is rape. There is no "legitimate" rape. Statutory rape is Rape. If someone is unable to consent, it is rape. There is NO difference. Why would someone "cry rape" ?

Ok I might get my ass handed to me, but I disagree with all Statutory rape, emotionly being the same as rape. By law they can be seen as similar, but they are not always seen as the same even there. First though I have to look them up (sorry on my Nook), but I don't think California had any clause for those close in age, just took one over 18 and one not to get busted, usually by a ticked off parent.

I will admit I don't see consensual satutory rape as always terrible, even if illegal. Several of my friends dated out of our age groups, none of us regret it, or feel we were used. I dated a man over 9 years older then myself in high school, which was the biggest age difference in our group, most dated around 4-5 years older, both guys and girls. The guy I dated thought I was older, until he asked me, honestly I thought he was a bit younger until that conversation, where I was honest, but we chose to continue seeing each other. He didn't rape me in my mind and we actually got back together for a short bit while I was over the age of consent, but he could have gone to jail if he had been reported, pre-me turning 18. Some younger people might not have the same experiences we had, but my experience did not show the same reactions or emotions in people who were forcibly raped vs. dating some one who was older then them. Sadly at least two women I know could claim both.

On this case though, something seems off, but it could be the reporting. If she feels the sex had not been consensual for any reason, his ass should be kept far away from her. That is something that should keep him for getting visitation.

[debrand]

Consent is sort of a moot point, I think because the victim has stated that she was threatened and coerced.

That is how I read the article. It sounds as if the young woman did not give consent. Perhaps the court felt that it would be easier to get a conviction for statutory rape.

Pro-lifers live in a fantasy bubble in which all children are born into loving families or are given up to good parents. This is not always true. The fact that Fox News is reporting this is ironic considering their stance on abortion. This story makes abortion look like the best alternative for young rape victims.

[Deleted03]

Sophie, there's a difference between assessing your own experience, and saying what someone else's is.

right which is exactly what I said. I never defended that she was not consenting, obviously if she was consenting she was not able to make that decision per law and per her experience of experiencing fear and trauma now.

I am merely pointing out that it does not mean that no 14 yo can be mature enough (per her own life experiences) to actually know what she is doing, but that the law has to protect those 14 yo that actually are not mature enough. I was talking about blanket statements rather than that woman's case. I think it was clear since I referred to a bolded statement.

[2xx1xy1JD]

From the sounds of it, the conviction was for statutory rape, but the girl is saying that she was forced and there was never anything resembling consent. I would agree that statutory rape would have been an easier conviction, because you really just need to prove the ages and that sex took place.

Here's why it matters:

At this point, the rapist is just applying for visitation. The court would be hearing about the details of the act during the family court case.

If we want to talk about blocking rapists from ever being able to APPLY for custody, we can only deal with actual convictions. I'm not sure that statutory rape should be an automatic bar to someone ever making a claim for custody or access. Yes, it is illegal. Can we say, though, that a 20 yr old that has sex with a 15 yr old, where the 15 yr old had no complaints about what happened, should forever lose parenting rights, in all cases? What if the parties subsequently married and raised the children together? What if the mother disappeared or became a meth addict? What if the alternative was bouncing around foster care?

Also, what would you think of cases like this from Canada prior to 2008, when it was legal for a 14 yr old to consent to sex with someone of any age? Does the fact that it was legal at the time make a difference?

[lovefromgirl]

At this point, the rapist is just applying for visitation. The court would be hearing about the details of the act during the family court case.

If we want to talk about blocking rapists from ever being able to APPLY for custody, we can only deal with actual convictions. I'm not sure that statutory rape should be an automatic bar to someone ever making a claim for custody or access. Yes, it is illegal. Can we say, though, that a 20 yr old that has sex with a 15 yr old, where the 15 yr old had no complaints about what happened, should forever lose parenting rights, in all cases? What if the parties subsequently married and raised the children together? What if the mother disappeared or became a meth addict? What if the alternative was bouncing around foster care?

Not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, but here's tuppence: If the statutory rape conviction is the blanket covering the possibility that nobody under 18 can consent, then the subsequent management of the case needs to reflect that there may be exceptions. Thus, if your happy 15-year-old decides to raise her child with her 20-year-old partner, that's a matter for family court to examine more closely. With that on the record, it would be acceptable, if she then pissed off and became an addict/went to jail/etc. for the father to raise the children. I would probably insist, as a judge, that a thorough psych profile be done of the father before he gets the children. Hell, I'd insist on that before any would-be parent from a statutory rape case gets visitation and/or custody. Whatever else has happened, the children involved must not be relinquished to a person who might rape them. Foster care is preferable to that hell, though I'd prefer a family member as a foster parent to a stranger if that were possible and safe.

Also, what would you think of cases like this from Canada prior to 2008, when it was legal for a 14 yr old to consent to sex with someone of any age? Does the fact that it was legal at the time make a difference?

I think 14 is pushing it in terms of consent. 16 makes more sense to me, in that by 16 a child is more likely to have reached sexual maturity and have had some form of education about hir body and matters of informed consent. Structural changes in the brain allow for better judgment calls -- paraphrasing this from my semester on adolescent development. By that point, some countries permit an adolescent to leave school and seek a trade. I know in the US, we're able to take certain jobs for certain hours.

So, in short, no. I don't believe it makes a difference. 14 is still 14. I'd probably consider why the law was changed in the first place. Someone obviously thought 14 was too young and pushed for that change. I'd love to see the reasoning behind the change.