Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on September 24, 2003, 01:04:36 PM
-
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
-
None of the women who have raped me ever got pregnant.
-
No but the man should have the right to abort the baby.. :D
-
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.
-
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
-
wtf is wrong with our country???
-
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.
-
Originally posted by JB73
wtf is wrong with our country???
liberals and their pc thinking
-
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
-
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):lol
-
^ LOL shattered
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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 from him?
miko
How can a man ejaculate if he isn't "into it" at some point?
-
The URL is http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4780934/20588813.html
Boy ends up paying own child support
By BILL REITER
Register Staff Writer
02/26/2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rylan Nitzschke might be the only 11-year-old in Iowa to pay his own child support.
The Department of Human Services earlier this month went after the wages of Keith Nitzschke, Rylan's father, to recover more than $2,000 in unpaid support. The state also took money from two bank accounts in Nitzschke's name.
But one of the accounts was his son's, holding $220 the Lehigh boy built up by shoveling snow and doing chores in Okoboji, where he sees his dad alternate weekends. The state took half. And only half, not the full amount as what was alluded in the earlier story.
A state official said parents are warned that bank accounts can be tapped when payments are late.
"We do not do any of these sanctions if the obligator makes his child-support payments," said human services spokesman Roger Munns. "We have no interest in a child's savings."
Rylan had hoped to buy a PlayStation 2 video console.
"He was a little shocked," his father said.
When Rylan found out some of his money was gone, he asked his dad who took it. Nitzschke explained that he was behind on child-support payments and that the state had taken the money.
"It's like a child-support thing," Rylan said. "The account was under my name and my dad's name. I heard they thought it was part of my dad's money and they ended up taking it. It sucked."
Nitzschke wasn't happy, either. He said he understands why the agency took the money. He got behind and he's more than willing to pay what owes, he said, but he wants his son's money left alone.
Kim Whitmer, Rylan's mother, declined to comment.
"It really doesn't involve me," she said. Whitmer referred questions to state officials. Yeah, there's a good role model for mothers. Her son's money is gone and she has no comment...
Munns also declined to comment on specifics of the case, citing privacy rules. The savings account lists both Rylan and Keith Nitzschke. Nitzschke owed $2,078.70 in support, documents show.
Nitzschke contacted his state representative, Democrat Greg Stevens. An appeal was turned down by the human services agency. Nitzschke said he's filed a second appeal in district court.
Stevens said he knows of one other case in which a child's money was taken to satisfy unpaid support. In that case, the money was later returned. Munns said he'd heard of similar incidents.
"It's a lot of money to a kid, but it's not much money to us," Stevens said. "I'm sure what they're looking at is, people have probably tried to hide money in their account. In both these cases it's obviously not the case."
Munns said parents can avoid the problem by keeping their children's accounts under the custodial parent's name. He said the agency has the best interest of the child at heart.
Rylan, meanwhile, is waiting for his money.
"I don't think I'm going to get it back," he said.
-
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.
That sound more maternalistic to me. Either way, it's liberals trying to save us from ourselves.
-
mietla: Originally posted by miko2d: liberals and their pc thinking
Bingo. They are going to bury this country.
I did not say that. From where I stand, there is a difference between democrat-socialists and republican-socialists but one would need a microscope to see it.
gofaster: How can a man ejaculate if he isn't "into it" at some point?
Apparently some men can.
Secondly, an underage boy is legally not capable of giving consent, even when no druging is involved. An adult having sex with underage person is a rape.
gofaster: You got a case reference for that decision?
Sorry, no. I've got it from a source I trust, namely Stephen Baskerville, PhD, who teaches political science at Howard University.
It was a radio commentary http://ftp://mp3.fcfnewsondemand.org/baskerville-child-SB-07Mar03.mp3, so obviously no bibliography attached. I've sent him an e-mail anyway.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
I did not say that. From where I stand, there is a difference between democrat-socialists and republican-socialists but one would need a microscope to see it.
Yes, you did not. I was quoting you and then tried to quote Eagler. I did copy/paste, but forgot to edit the name.
Appologies for attributing this quote to you.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
[
gofaster: You got a case reference for that decision?
Sorry, no. I've got it from a source I trust, namely Stephen Baskerville, PhD, who teaches political science at Howard University.
It was a radio commentary http://ftp://mp3.fcfnewsondemand.org/baskerville-child-SB-07Mar03.mp3, so obviously no bibliography attached. I've sent him an e-mail anyway.
miko
Yeah, I saw the transcript of his radio commentary on the web. Can't remember the URL, but I found it while looking for the Iowa boy story. Might have been the MensNewsDaily site.
Also, there really is a Nick Young who handles Virginia child support matters for the state.
-
The purpose of child support is to ensure that the Child has a somewhat reasonable childhood, money-wise.
In Sweden, if the father cant be found or if he is unable to pay child support, the government steps in and pays the child support.
In the US I have no idea how the system works, but it should have a similar mechanism.
Child support is for the benefit of the child not the mother. Given that the child cannot influence events taken place before its birth, it would be odd to punish the child for the actions of the mother.
I dont know about the US, but in Sweden a mother who had been found guilty of rape or sexual abuse vs a minor kid would probably lose custody over the kid anyway, so this question seems very irrelevant. However the basical principle is there. Child support is for the benefit of the child, not the mother. And irregardless of the mothers action, the child has the right to a reasonable childhood.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The purpose of child support is to ensure that the Child has a somewhat reasonable childhood, money-wise.
In Sweden, if the father cant be found or if he is unable to pay child support, the government steps in and pays the child support.
In the US I have no idea how the system works, but it should have a similar mechanism.
us give free money?!? are you nutz? (oops we already pay for crack potatos and junk... why not add another pay out)
my dad was a "deadbeat dad" according to the letter of the law. he didnt pay any child support for 2 years that he was un-employed. my mother recieved Zero money during that time. 20 years later he got a subponea and freaked out. he called us up pissed as heck only to find out the state had been going through old records and found him. they wanted $7,800 (None of which my mother or i would see.. it was late penalities and fines is all).
i have a good relationship with my father and hold no ill will towards him BTW. it actually po'd me that the state would do that. (also BTW Wisconsin has some of the absolute toughest deadbeat dad laws in the nation, alot of states adopted theirs from us.)
but back to hortlund.. you are a judge right?
anyway the way it works in sweden sounds like it would help the mothers... but almost sounds like socialism (equally distribiting monies to all)
the welfare system in this country (USA) is the system in place to supposedly take care of situations like a father killed in a car crash and mother can't work. problem is so many take advantage of it and abuse it that its out of control. welfare reform was a huge topic here in Wisconsin a few years back.. our governer Tommy Thompson developed the plans. then GW stole him from us lol.
im kinda of rambling here but just to sum up. no we dont have a replacement for child support if dad cant be found. the search him out as long as it takes.
-
When the government wants money, especially money they feel is rightfully theirs, they are going to take it no matter who they take it from. :)
-
this is a thread calling lock in:D
-
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 from him?
miko
No, becasuse she isn't going to get custody as an inmate/registered sex offender.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
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.
Heres whats sad....In some cases a man and a woman seporate Even if they get back together the state will collect child support....and the kids will never see a dime it goes to the state to pay for the collection and state assistance funds. There was an AWSOME article on this son SOME magazine a few months back...could have been maxim could have been time cant remember.
In some cases the woman will go on state assistance, if that happens the state will collect child support from the father only to repay the state assistance she recieved. THE CHILD NEVER RECIEVES A DIME.
There was aslo a story of a man that was held hostage in Iraq for three months (he worked for an oil company Pre gulf war I) AT HIS WELCOME HOME PARTY sherrifs came to collect three months of back child support or throw him in JAIL.
Another story of a man that went to prison for 10 years....was later aquitted and the day he got out was handed a bill for $14,000 or somthing like that.
http://www.cryforchildren.org/cfdocs/51cs.cfm (http://www.cryforchildren.org/cfdocs/51cs.cfm)
The above link is some good reading on the story...if your a man it will get your blood boiling
just my 2 cents...my wife better never leave me
-
Originally posted by JB73
wtf is wrong with our country???
LOL I agree
-
Hortlund: The purpose of child support is to ensure that the Child has a somewhat reasonable childhood, money-wise.
Sure. If society mandates that a child must get certain level of income, the people responcible for bringing a child into the world must pay for it.
If that is not possibe, the society in general must pay for it as the one mandating the income standard.
Unfortunately US and states legal systems often dump that burden on whoever they can grab.
Like if you marry or live with a woman who has children and then divorce her - you are held liable for their support for ex-step-children.
If you put you name on a birth certificate and then find out you are not the father - being a victim of a deceit by a mother or a mistake or a marital infidelity - you have no legal recourse and must pay.
There is no set level of support, so a woman can ask for review as often as she wants while a man cannot do that.
All those policies are incredibly destructive to the marriage.
Montezuma: No, becasuse she isn't going to get custody as an inmate/registered sex offender.
Are you saying that anyone who is a registered sex offender has his/her children automatically taken form them? Even those born after the offence?
Anyway, the victim of the rape is still held responcible for child support, even if the mother does not see any of it.
miko
-
Originally posted by gofaster
How can a man ejaculate if he isn't "into it" at some point?
I understand a man in a coma or brain dead can be "coaxed" in this event. Ever had a wet dream? this is an unconchess event, at least from a physical standpoint. It is pretty much a physical event how do you think ugly chicks get knocked up?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
liberals and their pc thinking
So the rape is the childs fault?
sheesh! :rolleyes:
-
midnight Target: So the rape is the childs fault?
No. But neither it is the victim's fault.
Liberals cannot un-rape the victim or un-conceive a child and would not spend their money to support him/her as charity - but it makes them feel better having coercive state use threat of violence to push responcibility for the whole mess onto some hapless person.
miko
-
Liberals?... where does that come from (in 25 words or less please)
-
Originally posted by ra
None of the women who have raped me ever got pregnant.
MiniD and funked can't get pregnant.
-
midnight Target: Liberals?... where does that come from (in 25 words or less please)
Socialists, collectivists, whatever. Those who believe that individuals have responcibilities (besides non-aggression) other than the ones incured through contracts or voluntary actions.
23.
miko
-
Now I get it.
Liberals are the ones who penalized me for being caucasian when some 40 black persons, who scored way lower than me in civil service testing, were hired ahead of me.
I think I would prefer living in a Nomocracy.