Court Rules Boy Must Pay Child Support to His Rapist
August 17th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families"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.
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."
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...
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]
"));
19 queries. 0.357 seconds.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:16 am
This story is an excellent example of what the Family Courts are all about.
No intention to actually mediate or resolve the actual issues affecting the human beings in this tragic case.
Just adversarial lawyer politricks, billable hours, extort money from a fifteen year old (more likely the money will come from his parents), no real concern for the welfare of the baby.
Why is this insane system allowed to continue harvesting people in distress?
Why is there not a national commission to investigate the efficacy of the Family Court system?
August 17th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Once again another story that doesn't surprise me one bit!
Its all about the money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
August 17th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Unbelievable.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:49 am
I like how they give the baby to the sex offendor who comes from an abusive home instead of giving it to the father.
Give em to the family that points guns at each other, just dont give the baby to his father for the love of god!!!
She's facing 18 months prison minimum and she STILL gets custody.
this is just sad.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
A nation can't last much longer when it allows this kind of lunacy. People you are watching the deconstruction of a once great nation. After all is said and done you'll know why it all came crashing down. And we can thank feminists and chivalrous idiots.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
stephen says
"A nation can't last much longer when it allows this kind of lunacy."
MCA says, forced matriarchies make men/boys disposeable to be used as cannon fodder.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Best interests for the child involve placing it in a demonstrably abusive home, sweet!
August 17th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
"Why is this insane system allowed to continue harvesting people in distress?
Why is there not a national commission to investigate the efficacy of the Family Court system?"
Because politicians write the laws, almost all politicians are attorneys, and therefore they would have to go up against their own people. And we all know how spineless politicians really are. Thus, it's easy for them to dish out platitudes about 'justice,' acting in the best interests of 'the children,' etc., to the masses all the while created more new business for themselves and their cronies.
In summary: follow the money.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
This would not happen if women's statutory rape of boys was taken seriously. I guess they think if the victim isn't being penetrated, there is no emotional consequence.
August 17th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
In cases where the abuse is vaild I share everyone's revolution at the notion a sexual abuser can profit for her crime. However, the girl is 19 and the boy is 15. If we were talking about a boy that was 19 being brought up on stat. rape charges for sex with his 15 year old GF everyone here would say that it was absurd.
August 17th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Mark Says "15. If we were talking about a boy that was 19 being brought up on stat. rape charges for sex with his 15 year old GF everyone here would say that it was absurd."
I agree--I don't believe a 19-year-old with a 15-year-old should be statutory rape. However, legally in this case it IS statutory rape, so demanding that the victim pay child support should be out of the question.--GS
August 17th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
I bet the girl gets ZERO jail time in part because she's a "single mother". (And God forbid if they did jail her, then they'd have to give the baby to dad and he could claim child support - and "that must not happen").
See how nicely family court's and criminal court's anti-male bias work together?
August 17th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
What needs to happen is citizens needs to get off their duffs and inform our government that we've had enough. The Constitution is in place for a reason, and according to its context must be adhered to by government. They need to understand their authority is only provided to them by the constitution and the limits of their authority extends to the boundaries of that authority. Decisions made outside that authority must be viewed as having no authority although its presented as if it does.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Okay so let me get this straight. A 19 yr old girl rapes a 15 yr old boy. She gets pregnant, gets custody, gets awarded child support and is not being charged with rape? Add that to the standard gender sentencing discount she will more than likely get and we can safely say that she got away with it. Nice...
August 17th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
"Its all about the money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Apparently so.
Apparently the boy's parents weren't interested in their grandchild or custody until their kid had to pay child support..
Doc
August 17th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Richard Says:
August 17th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Easy NEVER vote for a major political party.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Mark Says "15. If we were talking about a boy that was 19 being brought up on stat. rape charges for sex with his 15 year old GF everyone here would say that it was absurd."
Glenn Sacks Says:
I agree--I don't believe a 19-year-old with a 15-year-old should be statutory rape. However, legally in this case it IS statutory rape, so demanding that the victim pay child support should be out of the question.--GS
Why SHOULDN'T it automatically be ruled statutory rape when there's a 4-year difference AND at least one of the two is under 18?
I think it's safe to say that the average pediatrician or psychologist will tell you that even just dating, under those circumstances, is at best something that the parents of the young ones should be discouraging. At worst.....you end up with situations like this.
BTW, maybe the laws have changed, but not even 20 years ago, being raped was not a legal excuse to stop the rapist's "visitation rights." (Yes, that was with regard to female rape victims.)
August 17th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Very likely they didn't consider it as a possibility until confronted with it. Surely the default thinking for most folk would be that no moral system would ever allow a rapist to subsequently extort money - for decades - from their victim.
Now that you have had your little attempt at diversion why don't you justify the extortion of money from rape victims to benefit their rapist? Is it just another business opportunity for moi?
Can you provide said justification Doc?
How about you jeana? Georgia Girl? Lurking feminists?
Courts/judges making these decisions are prone to citing "best interest of the child" in making these decisions and yet those same courts readily and routinely give custody of that same child to a child sex offender.
These cases serve as possibly the finest demonstration of the disparity in treatment of the genders with regard to all aspects of sex and reproduction.
I still maintain that a boy in this situation should have the right to compel an abortion.
Disagree. Too often our adult perspective sees four years as nothing. To a fifteen year old four years is an immense gap.
I don't believe they have changed.
What must be considered, however, is that those female victims have choices not afforded male victims. The female victim can abort in which case "visitation rights" are moot. Indeed one of the primary arguments justifying the legitimisation of abortion in Roe v Wade related to rape victims.
For what it's worth I don't believe any rapist should be free at all, let alone free to "visit".
August 17th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
You are right. It is all about the money! The attorneys make the law and they try the offenses. When there is prosecutorial misconduct or judicial misconduct (as in Boone County, MO), no attorney has the balls to stand up against the prosecutor or the judge. Even public defenders abandon their clients in the court room rather that PO the judge or the prosecutor because "I will have to face him again next week. The system is broken. We have lost our rights to justice. We need legislation that will make prosecutorial misconduct punishable by disbarment. We need state attorneys who will go after prosecutors and judges who are corrupt.
In Boone Co, a man goes to bed with his wife one afternoon while his daughter and her young teenaged friend go to a movie. They get a ride home from the movie and walk into the bedroom without knocking. The little friend goes home and tells her mom that she saw these people making love in their own bedroom. The mother reports them to the police who arrest them and charge them with performance... The man gets 7 years and his wife gets probation. Go figure.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
re: Boone et al. When legislators starting making it "illegal" for prosecutors to consider whether there was intent to commit a crime, Justice was written out of the legal process. Thus parents can be arrested for being in their own home because a non-family member accidentally saw them.
Re: the 19 and 15 year old. The boy thought he was in heaven and consented. But with all the sex ed in schools, he knew about condoms and was probably even shown by a teacher how to put one on a banana.
When my son was 10 years old, a 15 year old girl struck up a conversation with him while he was climbing a tree in a park. She was shorter than my son and did not believe him when he told her he was only ten. She still gave him her phone number even after his grand mother told the girl he was 10.
Now at age 12, 5' 9" tall and Hollywood looks (from his mom, not me), he is surrounded by girls at school one and two grades ahead. Thankfully he is still a 12 year old being 12 not trying to be 18. So I don't worry too much about it yet.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:25 am
This is plain daft. All these famly court judges must be administered a course in basic logic and common sense.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:05 am
Damn, I was hoping in his time away Doc had been reading some books on logic, but alas no…
“Apparently the boy's parents weren't interested in their grandchild or custody until their kid had to pay child support..”
Yes, im sure raising the kid will be a lot cheaper than 50 dollars a month. They want to replace a financial burden of $50 a month with a burden of at least $200 a month- what cheap bastards they are.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Mark says " If we were talking about a boy that was 19 being brought up on stat. rape charges for sex with his 15 year old GF everyone here would say that it was absurd."
True. But I don't know how many of us would be arguing that the 19yo boy should get custody, and the 15yo girl should be forced to pay child support. I certainly wouldn't.
It seems that the only reason the girl is facing charges is that she got pregnant, so the evidence is pretty compelling when the DNA shows the father is underage. Had she been more careful about contraception, she would probably not have anything to worry about.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:51 am
I also find it disappointing that they talk about "Maximum sentence" without giving mention to "minimum sentence." It skews exactly what it is that happens within the court system. If they were honest, they'd say, "A maximum of 18 months incarceration, with a minimum of 10 months probation and/or counseling , half of which will be commutable for 'good behavior.' There will also be a mandatory 25 years registration as a sex offender."
August 18th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Doc says " "Its all about the money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Apparently so.
Apparently the boy's parents weren't interested in their grandchild or custody until their kid had to pay child support.."
So for the sake of avoiding a measly $50 a month, they are prepared to incur all the expenses associated with having full-time care and custody of the child, not to mention legal costs associated with contesting custody.
The point is not that they are trying to save money. It is that they resent having to pay support to someone who was legally in the wrong. And who can blame them?
August 18th, 2008 at 8:18 am
I understand the folks who are upset about the fact that this girl broke the law and it appears the boy is being punished for it... but I don't think this is a good case to put up on a pedestal. IMO it's crazy to prosecute a 19 year old (boy or girl) for having sex with a 15 year old - in all likelyhood they were both going to the same school... and they're both still just kids.
I'd argue against a young man having his life ruined because he turned 19 then dared to have sex with his underage girlfriend (to a limit... we're not talking about 19 with a 12 year old... this boy was in high school). I think the same is true of a 19 year old woman having sex with a 15 year old boy... they're just kids being stupid, there was no criminal activity.
The child support is a seperate issue IMO, and while I think that forcing child support on someone who has no rights with regards to the child is wrong, it shouldn't IMO be confounded with the statutory rape issue.
The bottom line for me is that I would no more crucify a young girl for this than I would a young man, not even to make a valid point about the stupidity of our current family court system.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:31 am
If this can be perpetrated on a male victim, why can't a female victim who gives birth to a rapists child be forced to give the rapist visitation?
August 18th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Dave,
I agree with you that the law should treat cases like this differently when there is not a huge age gap. But normally a female would be a lot less likely to be prosecuted in these situations.
In all likelihood, the only reason she is facing prosecution is that because she got pregnant the evidence is overwhelming. Had she been more careful, she would probably not have to worry about prosecution.
It's called "tempting fate".
August 18th, 2008 at 9:44 am
It seems to me she doesn't have to worry about anything, she gets the child, she only is going to get 18 max probation, she gets the child support money, which will only increase in time. And we all know that the 18 months will be reduced. What does she really have to worry about? 25 years labeled as a sex offender? Come on!
August 18th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Doc you crack me up - you're just looking to get your 30% cut, you know it, I know it and everyone else here knows it. So desperate are you for your cut that you CONDONE rape just as long as you get your money
and I guess all the feminists who are attacking Amy in the other ttread will stand up for Jane C - she is a "single mother" and by definistion a heroine. She can do no wrong and its the BOYS fault in their minds - he should have worn a condom while he was being raped - i guess next time a woman's is raped she should stop the attach and say wait a minute I need to take my pill......
August 18th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Reminds me too much of other ones especially Letourno.
tweesdad
"I bet the girl gets ZERO jail time in part because she's a "single mother". (And God forbid if they did jail her, then they'd have to give the baby to dad and he could claim child support - and "that must not happen"). "
No as with L being convicted and in jail is not enough reason for the child to be given to Dad. Her being a Mother will be used to lighten the sentence, but she probably will get some jail, though minimum security, hospital/childcare wing of the jail.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
This kind of reminds me of a burglar suing the store for there being ice on the floor and him slipping and falling when he was robbing it. Talk about your chutzpah. I have to wonder, though: who demanded the child support? The mother, or her family (I'd be leaning toward the family from the descriptions).
August 18th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Actually all the mom has to do is apply for government assistance and they go after dad period. No questions asked.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Oddly, by being punished at such a young age for having had contact with the opposite sex, and by his punishment being only $50 per month (so far), this fellow might have received a blessing in disguise: he now knows to avoid reproducing in America ever again, period. And, he sees clearly what U.S. government has turned women into: economic traps to be avoided.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:08 am
AnonymousPamphleteer - "by his punishment being only $50 per month (so far), this fellow might have received a blessing in disguise"
AP,
While I can agree with the sentiment you are trying to express, the idea that this might somehow be a blessing is just too short sighted.
I'm quite certain that you are aware that monthly support obligation can and will be adjusted upwardly as this boy grows up and enters the work force. This unfortunate lad will be saddled with a crushing burden from the very beginning of his adult life. This is a highly unjust way for him to be taught such a lesson.
August 19th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
This is the "wrong" case to hold up? Ok, how about we hold up the case of the 13 year old boy in Arkansas?
August 19th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
slwerner....at least he'll only be in his early 30's (at most) when he's done paying....he can then save for retirement like ...well, people who don't have to pay 30% of their Gross can do.
Gee, wonder why N. Americans are saving at historically low levels....
August 26th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Rapists and pedophiles routinely target their own children for sexual exploitation and abuse. Why are female statutory rapists (pedophiles by definition) considered to be fit parents?
Male rapists and pedophiles are recognized as high risk "dangerous offenders" and generally incarcerated for long terms. Male rapists and pedophiles automatically lose custody of their own children. They are prevented from having association with children if released from prison.
Rapists and pedophiles present risk. They do not make good role models for children. What has happened to the best interests of the child?