[VRWCmember]

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.

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?

[imintrouble]

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

[contemplator]

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.