Author Topic: Rapist wants visitation rights to child he fathered during the violent attack. (Read 859 times)

powderman · « **on:** September 25, 2012, 04:56:15 PM »

Rapist seeking visitation with child he fathered after attack on teen victim Published September 25, 2012
FoxNews.com

A Massachusetts man is seeking visitation rights to the child he fathered after raping a 14-year-old girl, setting the stage for a legal battle in the Bay State.
The teen mother was raped by the 20-year-old family friend three years ago and says she still suffers from severe anxiety and depression. She says she is terrified at the prospect of having any dealings with her tormentor, reports MyFoxBoston.com.

"All this family wants is to cut the cord. Get the rapist out of their lives."

- Wendy Murphy, attorney for family of rape victim
The victim and her family are fighting back, saying the toddler’s biological father is only showing interest in the family now that the child support bill is coming due FoxNews.com is not identifying any of the subjects to protect the rape victim’s identity.

"She got raped at 14. She decided to keep her baby. And now she has to hand her baby over for a visit with her rapist?" the victim’s mother told the station.

The man, who the victim knew from church and who was the boyfriend of her friend’s older sister, pleaded guilty to statutory rape in Norfolk Superior Court last year. Prosecutor sought a 3-to-5-year sentence, but the judge in the case gave the man 16 years’ probation with the condition he acknowledges that he is the father of the baby and submits to family court orders, reports MyFoxBoston.com.

The family has hired attorney Wendy Murphy, who believes the problem stems from the sentence imposed in the criminal case, reports MyFoxBoston.com. She said making the man submit to a family court order opened the door to the visitation request.

"The consequences of sentencing this man to probation for 16 years, which is really until the child becomes an adult, and making him declare paternity and pay child support, includes that this guy gets a legal father-child relationship out of the deal," Murphy told the station.
Murphy has filed a motion with the court, asking the judge to amend the sentencing and order the man to pay restitution instead of child support. This would force him to support the child but not give him visitation and other parental rights.

"All this family wants is to cut the cord. Get the rapist out of their lives. And if the judge wants to help them financially that's great. But let's call it restitution, not child support," Murphy told MyFoxBoston.com. "What kind of legal system commands a toddler into a relationship with the man who raped her mother?"
Click for more at MyFoxBoston.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/rapist-wants-visitiation-with-child-borne-by-teen-victim/?test=latestnews#ixzz27XaDPhIk

Shu · « **Reply #1 on:** September 26, 2012, 01:49:59 AM »

You would think this would happen in California first. Well guess what it didn't. Texas monitors kids with RFID tags and Massachusetts wants to give parental rights to rapists. I guess California even though we have the lamest govenor of all time is sounding a bit better these days.

A rapist getting parental rights? Paying restitution I understand but parental rights is completely over the top.

Sourdough · « **Reply #2 on:** September 26, 2012, 08:03:28 AM »

I agree, this guy should have no parental rights. 100 years ago if the girls father had of shot him everyone would have applauded, today the rapist is wanting rights? This is just wrong.

muznut 54 · « **Reply #3 on:** September 26, 2012, 08:09:49 AM »

If he raped my daughter my family wouldn't have to worry about any cord cutting.

Lon371 · « **Reply #4 on:** September 26, 2012, 08:30:49 AM »

I agree with everyone so far. Mostly muznut 54.

Lonny

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #5 on:** September 26, 2012, 08:34:52 AM »

When laws began to be written that shall we say sofen the peneltys for crime things like this happen. To mant laws now they get in the way of enforcing each.

AtlLaw · « **Reply #6 on:** September 26, 2012, 10:28:29 AM »

Quote from: powderman on September 25, 2012, 04:56:15 PM

The man, who the victim knew from church and who was the boyfriend of her friend’s older sister, pleaded guilty to statutory rape in Norfolk Superior Court last year.

I know I should not say anything... and while I can't form an informed opinion without the information available to the court, I can make an observation. The "statutory" part of this rape charge negates any aspect of violence in this incident so I'm not sure the term "attack" would be appropriate either. The sex act was apparently consentual. Unfortunately for the young man and also apparent, the female participant had not reached the age of consent in this particular jurisdiction.

powderman · « **Reply #7 on:** September 26, 2012, 11:58:14 AM »

Quote

The teen mother was raped by the 20-year-old family friend three years ago and says she still suffers from severe anxiety and depression. She says she is terrified at the prospect of having any dealings with her tormentor, reports MyFoxBoston.com.

ATLAW. Doesn't sound consensual to me.
SOURDOUGH. My feelings exactly. Thank a liberal. POWDERMAN.

m-g Willy · « **Reply #8 on:** September 26, 2012, 02:00:51 PM »

Quote from: powderman on September 26, 2012, 11:58:14 AM

Quote
The teen mother was raped by the 20-year-old family friend three years ago and says she still suffers from severe anxiety and depression. She says she is terrified at the prospect of having any dealings with her tormentor, reports MyFoxBoston.com.

ATLAW. Doesn't sound consensual to me.
SOURDOUGH. My feelings exactly. Thank a liberal. POWDERMAN.

I think that the "statutory" part just means that while she was ok with the sex, the state didn't think so.
I heard to many stories where an 18 year old with a 16 year old girlfriend ends up with a record for life because the parents didn't like him!
So like ATLAW says we don't know what was said in court.
But the word "jail bait" comes to mind.
Don't get me wrong, I don't condone rape.
But how many of us here could have been charged with "statutory " rape at some point in our lives?
I know when I was 18 my girlfriends ranged in age from 16 to 20 at the time.

Dee · « **Reply #9 on:** September 26, 2012, 04:03:42 PM »

I understand that many think 14 is young BUT! In the 50s it was not unusual for a 14 year old to get married. My dad was 21, and my mother 16 when they married. My mother turned 18 three days after I was born.
This whole thing seems much like Richard said. There is more than meets the eye, and the judge saw thru this. He order child support ect. If he pays child support, and is not dangerous to the child, he should get the father job opportunity also.
I personally have seen a lot of "momma drama queens", and this very well could be one.

powderman · « **Reply #10 on:** September 26, 2012, 04:11:37 PM »

Just seems strange that if she suffers from anxiety and depression that she felt ok with sex at the time. Like several of you said though statuatory might be the key word here. POWDERMAN.

Shu · « **Reply #11 on:** September 27, 2012, 01:15:01 AM »

The family in the article wants to cut ties with this guy. The girl has anxiety and depression. That really don't sound consentual to me. However I wasn't there and don't really know the whole story. I still wonder though, could it started out as a make out session and the girl said no but the guy kept at it? No means no.

Dee · « **Reply #12 on:** September 27, 2012, 01:45:35 AM »

Could it also mean, that the girl had an earned reputation of being promiscuous, and her anxiety and depression stems from not wanting to share parentage with the father? I have never heard, in all my years of a "rapist paying child support".
I have heard of a rapist paying damages to the family, or victim, but "child support"? I think he slept with a promiscuous little drama queen, and he is paying for his mistake, and hers.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #13 on:** September 27, 2012, 02:26:58 AM »

Thread title is a little disingenous, I think.

'rape' is a term which gets broadened beyond what is meant. I emphathize with the dimbulb senate candidate who talked about 'legitimate rape', because.... sometimes rape is really morning-after regret, or - as is case here? - age disparity of youngsters.

I agree with Dee!

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #14 on:** September 27, 2012, 03:23:31 AM »

Quote from: powderman on September 26, 2012, 04:11:37 PM

Just seems strange that if she suffers from anxiety and depression that she felt ok with sex at the time. Like several of you said though statuatory might be the key word here. POWDERMAN.

It might be when she was found out that was her defense . I doubt she was the first to use it. Like Dee said in my family a generation before me there were girls who married early one couple the man was 16 the girl 14. Only after the college system had brain washed parents into believing it was their duty to send kids to support the business of education was the age of marriage raised as to what was acceptable .

AtlLaw · « **Reply #15 on:** September 27, 2012, 06:59:38 AM »

Well, the legal history in this area here in Jawja is kinda interesting. Until the code revision of 1933, Georgia recognised the common law age of consent; that being 10 years of age.

At that time, with the legislative objectives of "protecting young girls from the unique physical and psychological damage resulting from sexual intercourse with males," the age of consent was raised to 14 years of age.

There it remained until it was raised again to the age of 16 something like 15 or 20 years ago. This time it was done mostly because of the lobbying of people who believed the age of consent had something to do with the rise in teenage pregnancies... Kinda like the crime rate is directly related to gun ownership sort of mentality...

Anyway, since 1933 until comparatively recently if a male had sex with a girl under 14, he committed child molestation. If the girl was 14 or over, all that person had to worry about was an irate daddy with a shotgun! That is unless someone were to enforce the laws against fornication or adultery in which case, I believe, most of the breeding age population of Georgia would be in jail!

Now as I said, the new law on statutory rape covers a male having consensual sex with any girl (not his wife) under the age of 16. The only problem is that the law says a girl under 16 cannot legally consent. Hence the statutory in statutory rape. To allow for youthful um, exuberance, the law does have a provision where: if the defendant is 18 or younger, and no more then 4 years older then the victim, and said victim is 14 or 15, the crime is a misdemeanor.

But, if the defendant is 19 or 20 it is a 1 to 20 felony, and if the defendant is 21 or older it is a 10 to 20 years felony.

An interesting aside, and I believe a bow to the common law age of consent, is the statute on rape. It includes carnal knowledge of a female under the age of 10 and the penalty is death or life imprisonment.

DISCLAIMER: The foregoing is strictly a contribution to a group discussion and not intended to be or should it be viewed as a learned treatise on the subject at hand. The reader is not to take this as, in any way, a concise statement of the law in Georgia or any other jurisdiction! Do so at your own peril!

Dee · « **Reply #16 on:** September 27, 2012, 08:19:09 AM »

Having intercourse with a girl under 17 yoa in Texas is called: Rape of a Child. In other words, if the boy is 17, and the girl is 16, the boy is a SEX OFFENDER. WOW! How weird is that?
Luckily for the young man in question pertaining to this thread, the JUDGE was actually coherent enough to most likely see thru the crap, and render a JUST verdict.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #17 on:** September 27, 2012, 08:35:43 AM »

Quote from: Dee on September 27, 2012, 08:19:09 AM

Having intercourse with a girl under 17 yoa in Texas is called: Rape of a Child. In other words, if the boy is 17, and the girl is 16, the boy is a SEX OFFENDER. WOW! How weird is that?
Luckily for the young man in question pertaining to this thread, the JUDGE was actually coherent enough to most likely see thru the crap, and render a JUST verdict.

Looky here, Yellowtail3 & Dee in agreement, again. Whaddyathinkathat?

goofyoldfart · « **Reply #18 on:** October 31, 2012, 06:31:03 AM »

I know this thread is a few weeks old, BUT I couldn't help it--the Devil made me do it. See, yellowtail3, God Does do miracles!!!!!

. God Bless to all and theirs.

Goofyoldfart.

Squib · « **Reply #19 on:** November 01, 2012, 07:10:13 AM »

it's my understanding that the older person must be a set number of years older than the other person to even be chargeable with any wrongdoing. here the "offender" must be 5yrs older for it to be a crime. also, the "offender" must actually lose the trial and get convicted. I don't know about how much older the person charged must be in every state but I doubt an 18yr old (? locality) would get in trouble for *behavior* with a 17yr old (? locality) ANYWHERE. also, in this state (mo) I researched the actual definitions and there is a difference between the many "types" of crime with a minor, so for someone to be charged as a child molester or statutory rapist- they had to earn it. for example the age here is 17, so for a guy to get charged for "statutory rape" of a 16yr old he'd have to be 21 going on 22 (probably providing alcohol to a minor too), 15-20, 14-19, 13-18 getting weirder.. 12-17, 11-16, 10- 15 not even sexually functional at ten and probably not eleven either. some states have 15 and 16 as the age of consent, so when someone is listed as a pervert LOOK UP WHY ONLINE and you'll probably find that it's not some bogus 1yr age gap. I used to think that way too, till I started looking up the files of the people in my 3-mile radius and the CRITERIA FOR CONVICTION.

Conan The Librarian · « **Reply #20 on:** November 01, 2012, 03:35:06 PM »

Hey, guess what. There are A LOT of fourteen year old girls doing it with twenty year old guys, and very often it is the girls who are seducing the guys. We call it rape, but there is a strong natural element to this, and it is hard to fight biology because biology usually wins. Im not saying that the laws and the stigma are wrongheaded. They are right. But there is reality too.

Swift One · « **Reply #21 on:** November 01, 2012, 04:10:50 PM »

We get these guys alot in my prison. The "raped" is still writting them. A lot of times, daddy's little angel isnt so angelic, but daddy has to protect her name buy ruining another's.

I have seen a large number of young women today that are under the age of 18 and look like they are 20. they have fake IDs and play it off as if they are older to get with an older man. Then daddy catches them and they scream rape so it's not their fault.

Squib · « **Reply #22 on:** November 01, 2012, 05:40:15 PM »

i'll make a concession for that one, if they misrepresent their age..

fake id's are a big deal now, if the male (generally) could get ahold of that, it would make him the victim of fraud. though I wonder why a lawyer wouldn't take that slam dunk victory to uphold his/her win/loss ratio...? I generally think of trailer trash going for habitual youngins though. jailbait generally isn't. if you want to claim that many women (young or old) can abuse the accusation of rape, yes I agree. however the age issue I generally do not buy, it has to be substantiated by written standards, then the time and circumstances have to be virtually proven- at least enough to convince the jury AND simultaneously meet technical jurisprudence, then the offender has to lose the trial. c'mon people, think about it.

Swift One · « **Reply #23 on:** November 02, 2012, 08:23:23 AM »

No doubt there are alot of straight up predators out there. Wasnt taking that out of the pic for a second. I was just interjecting a different twist that I have seen in my career.