Skip to comments.Court Rules Boy Must Pay Child Support to His Rapist
Posted on 08/18/2008 11:37:43 AM PDT by PercivalWalks
"I couldn't believe that our son has to pay child support to his abuser."
I've previously discussed cases where boys who have been statutorily raped by older women are forced to pay child support to their rapists. Here's a new one, from Ohio. From Boy's parents sue to get his baby from mom, 21 (Columbus Dispatch, 8/16/08):
LANCASTER, Ohio --- A Pickerington couple and their son are fighting for custody of a baby born to a Lancaster woman charged with having unlawful sex with the boy, who was 15 at the time of conception.Note also that the boy is allowed only seven hours a week of "visitation" with his son. He's really getting an early education on the joys of the family law system...
A paternity test shows that the teen is the father of the baby born April 7 to Jane C. Crane, who was 19 when she became pregnant. Now, a judge has ordered him to pay $50 a month in child support and set visitation at seven hours a week.
Crane, meanwhile, faces criminal charges. A Fairfield County grand jury indicted her last month on two counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, a fourth-degree felony. Conviction carries a maximum sentence of 18 months in prison and a requirement to register as a sex offender for 25 years.
Crane is living with the baby and her family in Lancaster.
The boy's parents say they can provide a better upbringing for the baby than Crane can. Her household includes her stepfather, David L. Jacobs, who was convicted of domestic violence last year for hitting, choking and pointing a gun at Crane's 17-year-old sister and was placed on two years' probation, court records show.
"We don't want to have our granddaughter abused by these people," the boy's father said. "We are trying to do the right thing.
"The child support was the icing on the cake. I couldn't believe that our son has to pay child support to his abuser."
Read the full article here.
[As an aside, I don't believe a 19-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old should be statutory rape. However, legally in this case it is statutory rape--just as it would be if it were a 35-year-old with a 15-year-old--so demanding that the victim pay child support should be out of the question.--GS]
Glenn Sacks, www.GlennSacks.com
[Note: If you or someone you love is faced with a divorce or needs help with child custody, child support, false accusations, Parental Alienation, or other family law or criminal law matters, ask Glenn for help by clicking here.]
Obama thinks children are a punishment. Some freepers agree. I think they’ll be along shortly, to explain.
Should we start inflitrating law schools to see what they are telling those students? Or just analyze the drinking water.
law schools are a dime a baker’s dozen.
We have more law school seats than students, the only limiter on lawyers is the bar exam and most of those ave 85% more or less pass rates.
Come on kid, pay the $50.00 a month to the girl you made a baby with.
You knew better and you knew the consequences.
You should have grabbed a condom from your school’s Nurse’s office.
Time to man-up and take responsibility.
No, no, no. According the Deadbeat Dads Society, child support is a punishment inflicted on men and boys, to punish them for being raped by women who will squander the child support on anything other than the offspring. And what would she do with all of $50 a month? It can’t cost that much to raise a kid. Blah, blah, blah.
Maybe we should have only one and just teach common sense the first two years.
Setting aside the circumstances surrounding the conception and the moral problems raised by them, the welfare of the baby should be the court’s ultimate concern and it appears that this was the approach of the judge. In that aspect, I dont really have a problem establishing the 17 year old’s obligation to assist in supporting and raising the baby. What I dont get is why the seven hour restriction in visitation? If you’re going to make the teenager fully responsible for his actions regardless of whether or not he was ‘coerced’ then he should get full visitation privileges without restrictions.
It says nothing about the girls family and the boys Mom seems a bit over bearing at this point. All the facts haven’t been told in this story.
Actually, I think they should both take responsibility for their own behavior. I don’t know when that started to be frowned upon in so-called conservative circles.
Children are not punishment. They are to be loved and taken care of. Hating your former spouse (or one-night-stand) is no reason to disown your own children.
There are a few octagenerians (men & women) still alive who will tell you they were married at 15 and stayed married.
As we became more “civilized” and our laws evolved to keep up with “new age” configurations i.e. life expectancy, labor laws, school attendance, age of consent etc., we should have considered that over the millenia - sexual maturity differed by race, ethnicity and traditional cultures...and almost every society had strict rules on male/female relationships - generally described as WEDDING VOWS OR MARRIAGE!!!!
Nevertheless, it will always be the parents’ responsibility to discourage sexual promiscuity in both young boys and young girls - IN OTHER WORDS - make sure your children understand the LAW and the consequences for breaking it.
So how does placing the child in a home the mother's step-father, a convicted domestic abuser, figure in with the welfare of the baby?
YEA! And that dirty bitch that dressed like a whore, went out dancing and got raped should have known better too.
Nothing about her family? Really? What about this little tidbit:
The boy's parents say they can provide a better upbringing for the baby than Crane can. Her household includes her stepfather, David L. Jacobs, who was convicted of domestic violence last year for hitting, choking and pointing a gun at Crane's 17-year-old sister and was placed on two years' probation, court records show.But the boy's mom seems a bit over-bearing, so it's probably better to have the baby living with a convicted abuser.
What the hell is this, An episode of Confused Judges?
My My where are all the lawyers who could create a Release of Responsibility for a poor raped boy child?
If these young studs could pack it along on their dates with older women - they could get the form signed before action took place - very efficient!
There has to be some advantages here for our legal community. ahem
I didn’t agree with that aspect of it either. The fact that the father is a minor likely tipped the decision in favor of the baby staying with the mother. BUT, The fact that the courts side in favor of the mother in the preponderance of cases is a sore point with me. It blows my mind that a mother could be a crack-ho living in filth with no visible means of support and she will still get custody of the children 99% of the time. That particular aspect of it IMO is feminism run amuck.
******Crane, meanwhile, faces criminal charges. A Fairfield County grand jury indicted her last month on two counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, a fourth-degree felony. Conviction carries a maximum sentence of 18 months in prison and a requirement to register as a sex offender for 25 years.*****
So the mother has not yet been brought up on charges? What happens to the child when she is in prison? If the daddy can pay child support - then he should be awarded custody.
Are you suggesting the boy was forced? I missed that part of the story.
There should be a law to stop this criminal from profiting from her crime. Oh wait, we already have such laws.
How can she profit off $50 a month toward child support? How much do you think it costs to take care of a baby?
Wait just a minute. We haven’t been given the opportunity to determine Guilt or Innocence yet.
Regardless of whether or not the tables were turned, both people involved in the conception would still be held responsible for raising the baby. Had it been reversed, the girl would have gotten custody of the baby and would still have been responsible for raising the child. Just because the boy is the victim in this case doesn’t mean he can dodge his responsibilities any more than the girl would have been able to had she been the victim.
The big difference if the tables had been turned would be that the girl would have had the option of choosing an abortion, the boy had no such option available to him.
Does not matter. She committed a crime and the law does not allow her to profit from it. Not one penny. When she decided to rape an innocent child she forfeited her rights in my opinion.
I’m going to guess she’s guilty. She just sounds like the pimply-faced guilty type.
But seriously, this poor child is being used as a football. The custodial mother lives in a violent household. The non-custodial father’s family takes their anger against the mother out on the baby, by trying to avoid paying a mere $50 a month toward supporting that child. The “icing on the cake” that pushed them to go for custody was the child support. Not any abuse or neglect, but child support. That’s the reason they give for wanting custody. And the scary thing is, they might actually be the poor baby’s best hope. How sad.
The money is for the benefit of the baby, not the mother. The baby did not forfeit any rights.
Would somebody please show me the part where it says she forced him? This accusation without proof is getting old.
The consensus seems to be that it doesn’t cost anything to raise a baby, and she’s getting rich going around getting pregnant and collecting $50 a month which she spends on herself. I don’t know how many times she’s done this, but it must be a lot, based on the claims that she’s making a profit at it.
Your children are GOD’s way of paying you back for the times you were bad to your parents!! /sarc
I hear ya. $50/mo. won’t cover the cost of diapers.
Well, I don’t know about this. Yes the boy was underage, but the girl was only four years older than he was. They were a couple of teenagers who did something stupid, not an adult taking advantage of a child. Calling her a rapist is a little extreme unless there was something that happened that the news story didn’t mention like threatening him or something like that.
If the teenage boy was the older one, I would say that it is still the girl’s responsibility to carry the baby to term, so now that the teenage girl is the older one, it seems only fair to expect the boy to help support the child.
We don’t want to have our granddaughter abused by these people,” the boy’s father said. “We are trying to do the right thing.
“The child support was the icing on the cake. I couldn’t believe that our son has to pay child support to his abuser.”
Note also that the boy is allowed only seven hours a week of “visitation” with his son.......................................................................................................OK I am confused, was the child a boy aor a girl.
In my family, we call it “Mother’s curse.” “When you grow up, I hope you have a kid just like you.” (Funny thing, she never said that when we were being good.)
Not necessarily. In this day and age, you're not the only one who's confused.
Statutory rape(rape of a person unable to give legal consent due to age) is still rape. Force is not an issue or necessary for conviction.
How old was the little boy who couldn’t decide for himself whether or not he wanted to have sex?
Under the age descibed in the statue she broke(statutory rape). I find it hard to believe you are this dense(no offense intended). I think you and others who don’t agree with these statutes need to petition your legislators for redress. Until such time though, all mmust abide by the laws as written.
I'd agree, except the law is an ass to have it both ways. Either he's a rape victim and owes no child support and is entitled to sue for damages (i.e., if the rapist had any assets, LOL), or he's an irresponsible dad who needs to man-up. But not both (I agree with the author that 15-19 should not be statutory rape).
And if we're so concerned about the child, we should note that it won't help the kid any to have his mother in the joint.
The truth is, he fathered a baby. As far as I can tell, he did that voluntarily. He could just as easily have done this with a younger girl. He’d still be the father, and still be responsible for child support. It doesn’t matter what the baby’s grandmother thinks of the baby’s mother, or what she tells the media. By all accounts, he wasn’t forced to father the baby.
If he wants to sever his parental responsibilities, there is a legal process for that. He can’t just refuse to pay court ordered child support, because his mother thinks his ex-girlfriend is unfit.
we need pics to determine whether she is a plain-Jane.
"Voluntarily" implies he had free will. Under the law of Ohio, 15-year-olds don't have free will, at least not when it comes to refusing 19-year-old sluts.
LOL ~ Talk about a double standard. She’s a slut because she had sex with him. He’s a saint because he had sex with her. LOL
Why is it that women want to apply a double standard on this issue. She made a decision to become a parent, she then decided that he would be a parent whether he wanted to or not. The ability to have a child should be made on ones ability to provide for the child before its born. If the fact of $50 in support makes him a deadbeat, does the fact she doesn’t have a similar amount of money without state support (especially when she gets locked-up) make her a deadbeat mother? Sex can be done without resulting in a live birth.
Nope but as most people have made clear, he is still responsible. Minor - pffft doesn’t matter. Raped - pfft her own damn fault.
Yes, the mother could have hired an abortionist to kill the evidence of her crime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.