Former soldier seeks custody of child born to 14-year-old

[salex]

Former soldier seeks custody of child born to 14-year-old

Jun. 18, 2013 - 11:17AM |

COLUMBIA, MO. — A central Missouri couple is concerned that a former soldier will be granted visitation or custody of the child he conceived with their 14-year-old daughter.

Pulaski County Associate Circuit Judge John Clayton is scheduled to hold a hearing Tuesday in the guardianship and adoption case filed by a Pulaski County couple regarding their grandson.

The Columbia Daily Tribune reports the couple is seeking to terminate the parental rights of the father.

A military court in 2012 found him not guilty of aggravated sexual assault, statutory rape and committing an indecent act with the couple’s daughter. She became pregnant in 2010.

The father is seeking to gain custody or visitation and to change the boy’s name. He says he wants his parental rights recognized.

So many questions. Where is the mom? How was he not found guilty of statutory rape? WTF?

More info here http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/loc ... f6eda.html

[Jana814]

I was wondering the same thing!!

[tropaka]

Maybe he was found not guilty because of his age? He might be found not guilty in Ontario as our laws are similar for those close® in age:

'Canadian law says that the age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years old. (previously it was 14) This law protects young people from sexual exploitation*.

By law, adults (18 or older) cannot have sexual relations with people under 16.

There are exceptions for people are in close age. Those exceptions make sure the law does not label consensual sexual activities between young people as criminal offences. It is not a criminal offence if:

a young person aged 14-15 consents to sexual activity with someone less than 5 years older

a young person aged 12 or 13 consents to sexual activity with someone less than 2 years older

These exceptions only apply if the older person is not in a position of authority or trust and there is no exploitation.'

[salex]

Maybe he was found not guilty because of his age? He might be found not guilty in Ontario as our laws are similar for those close® in age:

'Canadian law says that the age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years old. (previously it was 14) This law protects young people from sexual exploitation*.

By law, adults (18 or older) cannot have sexual relations with people under 16.

There are exceptions for people are in close age. Those exceptions make sure the law does not label consensual sexual activities between young people as criminal offences. It is not a criminal offence if:

a young person aged 14-15 consents to sexual activity with someone less than 5 years older

a young person aged 12 or 13 consents to sexual activity with someone less than 2 years older

These exceptions only apply if the older person is not in a position of authority or trust and there is no exploitation.'

He was 19 at the time. She was 14. The ad lietum appointed to the child apparently asked her "why didn't you scream" as her first question to the now 17 year old mother. Ummmm, statutory rape doesn't require screaming for it to be rape.

[rward]

He was 19 at the time. She was 14. The ad lietum appointed to the child apparently asked her "why didn't you scream" as her first question to the now 17 year old mother. Ummmm, statutory rape doesn't require screaming for it to be rape.

My brain did this :mouse-shock: . How the fuck do you get to be a guardian ad litum without know that "statutory" means BY LAW?

[tropaka]

I realize their ages, and under Missouri law there seems to be a gap which is why they went to a military court....but it doesn't state what the military laws/ages are re statutory rape/consent....that wasn't made clear. If they are stricter than I don't understand this at all either.

[Mela99]

It sounds like the grandparents are trying to adopt the child.

I assume he was found not guilty because it sounds like they didn't consider it 'rape', ie, the "why didn''t you scream?" question.

Poor girl, though.

[nolongerIFBx]

How weird is it to find out what is happening in my own town on Free Jinger. . .

[Ruby Slippers]

So this doesn't fall into the category of "legitimate rape," then?

[NotALoserLikeYou]

1) I am so sick of the military excusing rapists.

2) google says the age of consent there is 17, however if the older person is between the ages of 18-21 then the age of consent is 14.

So basically he is not guilty of it :/

[redcurls]

It doesn't sound like the age difference between attacker and survivor is the major issue here. This was a violent attack. What a nightmare for this lady. How on earth was the attacker acquitted when proof exists, the child himself? This pisses me off. Any judge who would consider giving him custody is an idiot.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

The judge dismissed the petition on technical grounds. The guy will refile. He is seeking custody and child support. The case goes back in September.

the other article I just read said it was not a violent attack but statutory. Because of the law the parents tried to get a real punishment in military court but he was acquitted.

[tropaka]

He was charged with aggravated sexual assault in addition to statutory rape, so he was accused of an attack as opposed to simply statutory rape.

[bea]

He's seeking CHILD SUPPORT? From a 17 year old girl?

Guy's got brass balls, that's for sure.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

No, it's the fact that she was under 16 that automatically qualifies for aggravated assault.

[Just Not Good]

If the guardian ad litem actually asked that- that GAL should never represent another child. A GAL represents the best interests of a child. THAT question is NOT in ANY child's best interests.

[Mama Mia]

If the only issue was the age difference, and it was legal under the laws of that state, and consensual - then why shouldn't he be allowed to see his child ? What is the mothers opinion - or are her parents speaking on her behalf because she's still a minor ? Seems very strange all the way around.

If it was rape, that's different, obviously.

[redcurls]

When you listen to Pyper tell her own story, her language indicates a violent attack. She says 'he hurt me, he humiliated me" and then mentioned how she kept her rape a secret for months because she "didn't wanna tell anybody" what had happened to her. She also talks about how people have asked her why she didn't scream, and Pyper says she was too afraid. If she was having consensual sex with an older guy, she wouldn't have been afraid or needed to scream. It's pretty clear that she was violently attacked.

Edit to fix quote

[2xx1xy1JD]

It sounds like they were trying to go for the statutory rape charge because it would be easier to prove (ie. no need to prove force), but the state law had a close-in-age exception that did not make sex between a 14 yr old and 19 yr old illegal, so they went the military tribunal route instead.

Would it be possible to file criminal charges in regular court for rape if it was forced?

I've been involved in several cases where there was a custody claim by a father, even though there was sex between a teen and an adult, or allegations of rape, or violence by the father toward the mother. Where I live (Ontario, Canada), domestic violence is a factor to be considered in custody/access cases, but it doesn't automatically rule out the possibility of custody or access if it would otherwise be in the best interests of a child. [FWIW, this is something that I would think about if I was ever advising a newly pregnant rape victim or victim of violence.]

* This post is not intended to be legal advice.

[tropaka]

Thing is, he was found not guilty, so there's nothing to argue against custody for, officially.

[Patsy]

Thing is, he was found not guilty, so there's nothing to argue against custody for, officially.

I don't know. You can sue for damages for things that wouldn't get through the criminal courts. Someone who knows the local law will be able to confirm/deny, but I'd imagine that evidence in a custody case wouldn't have to be up to the standard that it'd necessarily get someone convicted.

[rward]

It doesn't sound like the age difference between attacker and survivor is the major issue here. This was a violent attack. What a nightmare for this lady. How on earth was the attacker acquitted when proof exists, the child himself? This pisses me off. Any judge who would consider giving him custody is an idiot.

It's not at all uncommon.

My SIL was 14, her boyfriend 16, when she gave birth. He immediately spent the next 6 months in adult prison for a violent assault. He was out for 2 weeks, committed an even more violent assault and spent the next 2 years in prison. He admitted to abusing my SIL. He abused other girlfriends and it was on his record.

He sued for custody in order to get welfare payments and when my SIL brought all this up, the Judge said it could not be brought up because none of the assaults were on children.

He probably would have gotten at least 50% custody if he hadn't robbed a liquor store at knifepoint right before the decision was rendered.

[debrand]

These kinds of cases will make it less likely that victims decide to press charges. What if you are pregnant and the rapist wants custody or visitation rights? If for some reason, the charges are dropped or he is found innocent,he might have the legal right to custody

[tropaka]

These kinds of cases will make it less likely that victims decide to press charges. What if you are pregnant and the rapist wants custody or visitation rights? If for some reason, the charges are dropped or he is found innocent,he might have the legal right to custody

Isn't that the way it's supposed to work? We are all operating on the assumption that this man is guilty when he was found innocent. (Devil's ad here - I don't have a lot of faith in a military court when it comes to charging a soldier with rape).

I think it's quite the opposite really - knowing that if you do not charge a rapist that he might be entitled to custody should be an encouragement to charge.

[Patsy]

Isn't that the way it's supposed to work? We are all operating on the assumption that this man is guilty when he was found innocent. (Devil's ad here - I don't have a lot of faith in a military court when it comes to charging a soldier with rape).

I think it's quite the opposite really - knowing that if you do not charge a rapist that he might be entitled to custody should be an encouragement to charge.

Wow. All the horrors of dealing with police (you've seen testified in this very thread) and the legal system, and you think victims should face leaving their child with the monster who attacked them out they aren't okay to go through that hell? What about if he's acquitted, which is INCREDIBLY common? I bet my arse they'd say "that means he's innocent, so he should see the baby" or "she's a malicious harpy who made up rape charges, OF COURSE we should give him rights and disbelieve any resultant claims she may make in the future".