♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Oct 29, 2012 11:49:51 GMT
www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/29/case-rapist-seeking-visitation-child-fathered-during-assault-reaches-high-court/ QUOTE: Case of rapist seeking visitation of child he fathered during assault reaches high courtOctober 29, 2012 The case of a Massachusetts man seeking visitation rights to the child he fathered after raping a 14-year-old girl has landed in front of the state’s highest court, MyFoxBoston.com reports. The girl was 14 when she was impregnated by then-20-year-old Jamie Melendez, who pleaded guilty last year to four counts of statutory rape of a child. The teen victim is arguing that she should not have to face potentially years of family court battles with the man who violated her, according to My Fox Boston. According to the site, the youth's attorney, Wendy Murphy, argued before Supreme Judicial Court Justice Margot Botsford that the lower court judge, Superior Court Judge Thomas McGuire, essentially forced her client into a relationship with her rapist by sentencing Melendez into Probate and Family Court. Melendez has asked a family court judge for visitation rights. Murphy wants the sentence revised so that Melendez must pay restitution instead of child support so her client can avoid what could be years of family court hearings about various child support and visitation matters. The next step is up to Justice Botsford. She could issue her own ruling, or refer the case to the full SJC. A hearing to decide if the rapist gets visitation rights is set for Nov. 6 in family court, so it's expected Botsford will make a decision before then.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2012 12:25:12 GMT
Poor mother.
But as always it is the child's interest that must come first. Does a child benefit by seeing the man who provided half the genes? Usually I'd say yes...but here I might say that the longer the awful truth about the birth can be hidden the better.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2012 14:26:21 GMT
Out of interest, was this a case of what we call statutory rape - one where the girl was willing but wasn't old enough to give valid consent?
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Oct 29, 2012 20:45:59 GMT
There is no reason this girl should have to deal with her rapist for the next 18 years. It is going to be hard enough for that child to know they are the product of that act.....without having the attacker in their life.
To me this is another attack on this person and about this lowlife still having control behind bars.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2012 20:59:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2012 8:08:54 GMT
I'm still not convinced that the girl wasn't a willing party to the sex act; I'd need to know more. She seems to have said she agreed because she felt threatened, but her testimony on this wasn't the issue because she was only 14. He was only 17 , however, so it probably was right not to jail him.
However his argument for parental rights seems to be based on the fact he is being made too support the child. That's plainly wrong; maintenance and rights are two separate issues. If the man's name wasn't on the birth ceertificate he will have a tough job ahead and I hope he doesn't win.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2012 23:23:07 GMT
The fact that she was 14 and he not much older than her. Both were still not adults in the eyes of the law.
I think he should be able to see his daughter. This case is not your typical rape case. They were both young, both knew each other and she consented, although she said it was under pressure. I wonder what that means exactly?
Should someone who was 17 at the time be punished for the rest of his life? I don't think so.
Think about it, how many children are born within the marriage vows, but through rape or rape like conditions? Many. Probably more than we know. People are pressurized to have sex every single day. Sure they are older and wiser, and 'committed' to each other via that piece of paper. But not all sex is free giving, there are many many different reasons that is happens - and children are the result. Should all those dads not be allowed to see their kids too?
I'm kind of tired of how people are so quick to condemn and keep on condemning someone, even though they have paid the price. And how so many want just about everyone who commits anything in prison with the key thrown away. It makes a joke of the system.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2012 8:23:14 GMT
The law in England was revised in 2003 but IF I have undertood it correctly, if this happened here there would have been no offence if she had been willing, because she was over 13 and he was under 18. The only issue would have been consent, and he would either have been convicted of rape or acquitted.
Of coure I know nothing of the laws in that state, but the man was convicted of "statutory rape"; had there been clear evidence of force I expect he would have been charged under a different statute or section.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Oct 31, 2012 11:57:36 GMT
The law in England was revised in 2003 but IF I have undertood it correctly, if this happened here there would have been no offence if she had been willing, because she was over 13 and he was under 18. The only issue would have been consent, and he would either have been convicted of rape or acquitted. Of coure I know nothing of the laws in that state, but the man was convicted of "statutory rape"; had there been clear evidence of force I expect he would have been charged under a different statute or section. I thought he was 20. Anna's article says that. The story at your link says he met her when he was 17... EDIT: Okay, yes, a third article says he was 20 when he raped her. So he really is a rapist. I also read that 16 states have laws saying that a rapist should have no parental rights. And now that a 17th* state is considering the problem, the court is being asked to amend his sentence to say he has to pay "restitution" rather than child support, so that he will pay to help raise the child, but will have no parental rights, and in fact will be ordered to stay away from the child. *The remaining 33 states have not yet addressed this issue.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2012 15:11:26 GMT
From another story I read, the victim's family agreed with the punishment, which involves a long period on probation and the maintenance; I think that the court would have ordered jail had it thought the offence very serious, wouldn't it?
Either way, I wonder if the boy would be asking to see his daughter if it wasn't for the money he is having to pay. Only those who know him - and maybe not even they - can judge.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2012 17:14:19 GMT
I agree skylark. We, who really, know very little about what did and did not happen and the severity of it are not in a position to judge.
If he is not allowed to see his daughter ever, he will be paying for what he did for the rest of his life, and never have the chance to prove that over the years he has changed or that he regrets the one mistake he made. I really think he should be given the chance to see his girl and prove that he can be a good person and a good parent.
Over the years I've known girls who were much worse than boys when it came to things all to do with sex. They are not all the little angels that the media would have us believe, I think we need to realize that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2012 18:15:30 GMT
What worries me a little (again I may be misjudging him) is that he is ONLY doing this because he is having to pay maintenance - maybe a sort of revenge?
Will he start seeing the child, build up a relationship then disappear off the scene later? OK, you can say that about anyone, but I think his motives need to be examined.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2012 15:21:47 GMT
OK, this is very much a live issue for me at the moment. My husband is only the father of two of my three children. My eldest girl is nearly 13 and she is the result of me becoming pregnant by my rapist.
For years I've had no contact with him but recently she's started asking questions about her biological father. She knows she was born out of rape and that I don't have any contact with him but I don't know what I can say to her.
She is a lovely well-adjustied girl and maybe when she's 18 or something I might have to let her try and track him down but I honestly DON'T want him to play any part in her life.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Nov 30, 2012 21:44:14 GMT
Donna, I would advise you to discourage your daughter from having contact with her biological parent. He showed clearly by his actions that he is not a considerate and responsible man and as such I do not believe it would benefit your daughter to have contact with him at any stage in the future.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Dec 1, 2012 1:17:59 GMT
Rape is a nasty crime. It's often lumped together with murder, assault, and other major crimes.
But all rapes aren't the same. Consider these examples:
-> A man wearing a mask knocks at your front door in the morning just minutes after your husband has departed for work. He threatens you with a gun. He forces himself on you. The timing of his attack makes it clear that he planned this crime. He looks to be about 35 years old and you are 25.
-> You return from the supermarket with a lot of groceries. You pull your car into your garage and begin to unload the groceries from the trunk of the car. You fail to push the button closing the electric garage door opener. A man enters your garage and he pushes the button. He has wrist ties for your wrists, duct tape for your mouth, etc. He clearly planned this rape and followed you home from the market. You are 23 and he appears to be about 30.
-> You are 16 out on a date with a boy of 18. You go to dinner and a movie. Afterwards he drives the car up to a scenic overlook in a remote area where you do some necking. This is OK with you. You begin to kiss and make out. His hand slides up your skirt and you tell him no. He persists. You just can't seem to get him to understand that no means no.
In my opinion, child visitation should be out of the question in the first two examples, but up for discussion in the third.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2012 6:51:34 GMT
Bush, I can't see why the third is "up for discussion". She said "no" and that must be respected.
But there is a fourth scenario : the under age girl is a willing participant. She is still too young legally to consent so the boy is committing a crime, which is often called "rape" (though no longer always in England).
|
|