15yo boy raped repeatedly by 34yo woman ordered to pay child support
- Thread starter isuno1fan
- Start date
I'm in agreement, but legally it's rape because he can't consent. So the idea that you can deem someone as willing but still deny them the ability to consent seems like an oxymoron. I willingly can't consent to something seems to be a weird legal position.
Story is fake. Here is a story of a 15 year old who passed away in 2010 with the same picture I just found.
OnMilwaukee.com Living: Gov. Walker: Why protect the worst of the worst?
OnMilwaukee.com Living: Gov. Walker: Why protect the worst of the worst?
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Explains why the Lincoln Journal Star wasn't running with the story, since the kid was listed as a Lincoln resident.
For the record, it isn't statutory rape if they are under 16 unless you are 21 or older.
Iowa, like most states I believe, has a "4 year rule." So, technically, if a man turns 19 on Jan. 1st and a girl turns 15 on Jan. 1st and she gives consent, it is not statutory rape.
Iowa, like most states I believe, has a "4 year rule." So, technically, if a man turns 19 on Jan. 1st and a girl turns 15 on Jan. 1st and she gives consent, it is not statutory rape.
When your nickname is "the tripod", age is irrelevant.
I guess when you have a tail you can't be picky.
Precedents are overused in our legal system. Just because one jack *** or a series of them made a decision doesn't make it the right one.
If only there was a way to overrule these poor decisions or change the laws they were based on...
Something like this happened in my high school with a freshman boy and a senior girl. She didn't get into trouble and when the guy got old enough he paid child support and eventually got the kid a few days a week. I guess I don't really see why it any different according to the law when the gender situation is reversed.
At least in the law link case, the victim said the intercourse was consensual, thusly, he IS responsible for the paternity.
During an interview with a police officer, Nathaniel J. described the sexual intercourse as "a mutually agreeable act." The San Luis Obispo County prosecutor prosecuted Jones and obtained a conviction of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
The San Luis Obispo County District Attorney's office sought child support and welfare reimbursement from Nathaniel J. (Welf. & Inst. Code, ?? 11350, 11350.1, 11475.1.) Nathaniel J., by a guardian ad litem, admitted paternity but contended he was not required to pay child support because he was a victim of statutory rape. (Pen. Code, ? 261.5, subd. (d).) The trial court ruled that paternity was established and reserved an order of child support. Presumably when Nathaniel J. reaches majority or completes his schooling, the court will reassess his ability to provide support.
During an interview with a police officer, Nathaniel J. described the sexual intercourse as "a mutually agreeable act." The San Luis Obispo County prosecutor prosecuted Jones and obtained a conviction of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
The San Luis Obispo County District Attorney's office sought child support and welfare reimbursement from Nathaniel J. (Welf. & Inst. Code, ?? 11350, 11350.1, 11475.1.) Nathaniel J., by a guardian ad litem, admitted paternity but contended he was not required to pay child support because he was a victim of statutory rape. (Pen. Code, ? 261.5, subd. (d).) The trial court ruled that paternity was established and reserved an order of child support. Presumably when Nathaniel J. reaches majority or completes his schooling, the court will reassess his ability to provide support.
There certainly is a way, but it is very underused. Case law is what is being taught.
While trying to search around for information on the original case posted, i came across another disturbing case.
Basically, the wife of this guy was cheating on him and became pregnant with the other guys kid.
Once he found out like 2 years later, they divorced, and the court is forcing him to pay child support as "he was the only father the kid ever knew", even though blood work proves otherwise.
Basically, the wife of this guy was cheating on him and became pregnant with the other guys kid.
Once he found out like 2 years later, they divorced, and the court is forcing him to pay child support as "he was the only father the kid ever knew", even though blood work proves otherwise.
This is actually happening to my friend. Although not for child support, but he still has to pay the insurance for that child, which isn't his. The real father committed suicide. Awesome world we live in.
I suppose that depends on whether or not the guy still wants to have a relationship with that kid. If you immediately found out, I could see not wanting to have any relationship. But after years of believing you were the father, I'm not sure how you could just throw away that relationship. So it does help in that way. She can't not allow you to see them so long as you pay the child support.
