Legal quiz - can a rape victim be liable for child support?

[miko2d]

If an adult woman rapes an underage boy (possibly drugging a victim) or an adult man (say, a disabled invalid) and is convicted of assault or statutory rape, is she entitled to receive child support payments from him?

 miko

[ra]

None of the women who have raped me ever got pregnant.

[GRUNHERZ]

No but the man should have the right to abort the baby..

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by miko2d
If an adult woman rapes an underage boy (possibly drugging a victim) or an adult man (say, a disabled invalid) and is convicted of assault or statutory rape, is she entitled to receive child support payments?

 miko

Yes.

[miko2d]

Right you are, Hortlund.

In California, minor boys raped by adult women must pay child support to the criminals who raped them. "State law entitles the child to support from both parents, even though the boy is considered the victim of statutory rape," the district attorney's office says. One boy was drugged before the sex. Kansas courts have likewise held that "the issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for support of a minor child born of such activity." So much for not letting criminals profit from their crimes.

The elderly can also become targets of rape-for-profit. A disabled 85-year-old man, sexually assaulted by his housekeeper and awarded damages for the assault, was ordered to pay her child support, and his pension was garnished. The court denied him access to the child.

 miko

[JB73]

wtf is wrong with our country???

[AKIron]

While that may be the law in California I'm wondering if there are any actual cases of a minor rape victim unwillingly paying child support.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by JB73
wtf is wrong with our country???

liberals and their pc thinking

[miko2d]

JB73: wtf is wrong with our country???

 In nine words: This state switched from nomological type to teleological one. (greek nomos - rule, teleo - purpose).

 In English it means that USA used to be a state based on fixed rules and individuals were free to set and work towards their own goals withing those rules. The responcibility of the state was to enforce those rules, without regard who may benefit or suffer.

 This is called a rule of law. No matter how restrictive the rules are, the individuals are trully free - because they are free from arbitrary decisions of others (rulers).
 Rule of law is the necessary prerequisite for liberty, not democracy, as many believe.

 In a process that started in 1787 but came to fruition in 1930s the state switched from enforcing the rules to accomplishing goals/purposes that whatever the current ruler considers important.
 All decisions are arbitrary because they are based on perceived suitability for the purpose rather than conformity with the rules.

 The free state rule was: a person cannot be held accountable for an outcome that was not his responcibility.

 The paternalistic state purpose is: a person can be made accountable for something if it helps promote the social welfare (as perceived by the rulers), regardless if he is responcible for the problem.

 miko

[hblair]

lol whats the likelihood of a disabled person getting an erection and ejaculating against his will? or whats the likelihood of an underage boy being able to pay child support? NoOOoooOO!! please don't rape me! Hey quit doing that! Untie me!  It feels too good! (shattered man runs to police station half naked, shattered and violated)

[Animal]

^ LOL shattered

[miko2d]

AKIron: While that may be the law in California I'm wondering if there are any actual cases of a minor rape victim unwillingly paying child support.

 They would owe the back support all their adult lives. They can actually go to jail for owing child support. Their driver license may be revoked - making them unable to work. Even bankrupcy would not clear their obligations - same as with taxes.
 Their relatives may have their money confiscated as "deadbeat accomplices.":

West Virginia officials cleaned out the bank account of an 85-year-old grandmother whose son allegedly owed child support. The son paid in none of the $6,450 taken from the account, which comprised her life savings. She was also charged a $75 processing fee.

In Iowa, the government has confiscated the savings of 11-year-old Rylan Nitzschke. Rylan saved $220 from chores and shoveling snow, but that now belongs to Iowa. Why? Rylan’s father allegedly owes child support (to Rylan), and his father’s name was on the boy’s bank account.
 Since the state officials receive matching federal funds for each dollar they collect (and for each father they incarcerate) - helping to balance the budhet, Rylan will not see his money again.

According to the officials who enforce child support, a "child" is not a dependent minor but any recipient of their chivalry. "We've got some 40- to 45-year-old ‘kids’ running around who are owed child support," says Nick Young, enforcement director in Virginia. In Ohio, a 77-year-old great grandfather who had always paid on time was told he owed $45,000 in back child support and had his wages garnished, even though his youngest child was 46 years old.

In California, a 50-year-old divorce lawyer successfully sued his own parents for child support because, he said, depression rendered him unable to work.

 miko

[mietla]

Originally posted by miko2d
JB73: wtf is wrong with our country???

 In nine words: This state switched from nomological type to teleological one. (greek nomos - rule, teleo - purpose).

 In English it means that USA used to be a state based on fixed rules and individuals were free to set and work towards their own goals withing those rules. The responcibility of the state was to enforce those rules, without regard who may benefit or suffer.

 This is called a rule of law. No matter how restrictive the rules are, the individuals are trully free - because they are free from arbitrary decisions of others (rulers).
 Rule of law is the necessary prerequisite for liberty, not democracy, as many believe.

 In a process that started in 1787 but came to fruition in 1930s the state switched from enforcing the rules to accomplishing goals/purposes that whatever the current ruler considers important.
 All decisions are arbitrary because they are based on perceived suitability for the purpose rather than conformity with the rules.

 The free state rule was: a person cannot be held accountable for an outcome that was not his responcibility.

 The paternalistic state purpose is: a person can be made accountable for something if it helps promote the social welfare (as perceived by the rulers), regardless if he is responcible for the problem.

 miko

An exquisite summary.

Originally posted by miko2d

liberals and their pc thinking

Bingo. They are going to bury this country.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by miko2d
They would owe the back support all their adult lives. They can actually go to jail for owing child support. Their driver license may be revoked - making them unable to work. Even bankrupcy would not clear their obligations - same as with taxes.
 

Having never owed or payed child support I must admit ignorance here but doesn't a court have to award "child support"? It isn't automatic right? Know of any cases where it's actually happened?

[gofaster]

Originally posted by miko2d
West Virginia officials cleaned out the bank account of an 85-year-old grandmother whose son allegedly owed child support. The son paid in none of the $6,450 taken from the account, which comprised her life savings. She was also charged a $75 processing fee.

[/b][/i]

Umm. On what grounds?  If she was 85, then he'd be an adult (since she'd be post-menopausal if he was a minor) and would stand alone.

Originally posted by miko2d
In Iowa, the government has confiscated the savings of 11-year-old Rylan Nitzschke. Rylan saved $220 from chores and shoveling snow, but that now belongs to Iowa. Why? Rylan’s father allegedly owes child support (to Rylan), and his father’s name was on the boy’s bank account.
 Since the state officials receive matching federal funds for each dollar they collect (and for each father they incarcerate) - helping to balance the budhet, Rylan will not see his money again.

[/b][/i]
If it was true that the state seized the funds for back child support, then Rylan would indeed see his money again, since it was seized from his father for payment to his mother as child support payments, assuming his mother gave it to him.

Originally posted by miko2d

According to the officials who enforce child support, a "child" is not a dependent minor but any recipient of their chivalry. "We've got some 40- to 45-year-old ‘kids’ running around who are owed child support," says Nick Young, enforcement director in Virginia. In Ohio, a 77-year-old great grandfather who had always paid on time was told he owed $45,000 in back child support and had his wages garnished, even though his youngest child was 46 years old.

[/b][/i]  A child is not a dependent minor? No.  I don't think so.  Maybe an incapacitated adult deemed legally handicapped would qualify, but not an adult otherwise.

Originally posted by miko2d

In California, a 50-year-old divorce lawyer successfully sued his own parents for child support because, he said, depression rendered him unable to work.

 miko

You got a case reference for that decision?