Mock

NO!!!

Are they serious? Why should the rapist have any rights at all?

No child should be forced to see their father or mother if it doesn't want to. If the kid wants to establish contact, imo it has the right to do so, though.

God wanted this child to be born.

God wants the rapist to pay for his crime.

This includes child support.

God wants the court to rule against the rapist.

I can see making him pay support. There you go pal. You can pay for your actions in money and in time spent in prison.

The rapist should not be allowed visitation with the child. Unless the child is old enough to make the decision himself/herself to see him, the court has no right to force the child and/or mother for vistation.

Ah, now I got a better picture, thanks for the link.
Forcing the victim of a rape to have further contact with the rapist feels incredibly coldhearted and unjust.

I can't understand why the guy isn't in jail, but I don't know enough about the case to pass judgment.
I have a "legal" question - in the text it is mentioned that the mother would prefer restitution over child support - is that even a real option? Surely, 18 yrs of child support would be a larger sum than a one-time restitution, right? Plus - at least over here, technically, child support is bound to be spent for the child, whereas restitution does not have any restrictions, is that true for the US? If that is the case, then the child's best interest would be to get child support, not a fixed one-time-payment, imo.

This problem would solve itself if they would just hang the bastard.

God if you want children of rape to be born, can you please also want the rapists to die?

Sincerely,

User

Absolutely NOT. Not only was she raped, she was only fourteen at the time of the rape. She should not have to be subjected to seeing him. When the child is old enough to make the decision to see the father, then let them. How does anyone know he wont rape the child?

I wish the article gave some insight into the relationship between the two (if any) before the girl became pregnant. Regardless, given her age, it was rape and the victim shouldn't have to deal with her rapist for life, imo.

I agree with Lucifer; let the child decide if he/she wants to know the father when old enough. Based on what little we know, if I were the victim/mother, I'd push for supervised visits only if the child does visit the father.

The rapist was 17 when the two met through a church youth group. The rape happened in the girl's home while mom was gone. Mom found out and called LE. He plead guilty and was sentenced to probation. I can't stand Wendy Murphy.

(10-30-2012, 04:52 PM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]The rapist was 17 at the time. The two knew each other through a church youth group. The rape happened in the girl's home while mom was gone. Mom found out and called LE. He plead guilty and was sentenced to probation. I can't stand Wendy Murphy.

Thanks for the background, Adub.

The article says he was 20 when he got her pregnant.

I messed it up a bit. 17 at the time that they met. I don't think she got pregnant the first time. I'm kind of on the rapist's side. I hate Wendy Murphy.

It was statutory rape, it's not like the guy jumped out of the bushes and brutally raped her. I'd have to know more to the story, who knows what kind a little slut she was. It doesn't justify a 20 year old having sex with a 14 year old, but it sounds like she was a willing participant which differs from forced rape.

I'm happy they met at church . . .

. . . but fucked at Mom's.