September 26, 2012
-
Rapist Wants Visitation Rights
A man was convicted of raping a 14 year old girl when he was 20. She had a baby and he is the father.
Now he wants visitation rights. He wants to see his child. The victim of the rape does not want the guy in her life.He pays child support. Here is the link: LinkIf the rapist is paying child support, should he get to see his child?
Comments (95)
Absolutely not. I can’t believe people are taking his request seriously.
Not only NO, but HELL NO!
If I rob a bank and get caught, do I get to keep the money later?
Prosecutor sought a 3-to-5-year sentence, but the judge in the case gave the man 16 years’ probation.
After he raped his girlfriend’s little sister. This is exactly what happened to Jaycee Dugard’s rapist. And he ended up kidnapping her at age eleven and making her his sex slave for 18 years, while he was on probation. The legal system never learns. I wouldn’t put it past them to hand that baby over to him. Watch them.
No. I wouldn’t want his child support, either.
No. And I wouldn’t want his money for child support.
Whats the precedence? This couldn’t be the first time this has happened…
He raped a child, so great idea to give him access to another one. Genius.
He raped a 14 year old…how is he suppose to be trusted with a baby?!?!
This is disgusting!
No and he is a felon with no rights.
Yes– The mother’s dislike of the man doesn’t mean he’s not the father of her child.
Also, the commiting of a particular crime (rape) doesn’t mean he magically lose a given right (visitation). This is as arbitrary as saying that anyone who jaywalks should lose the right to vote or anyone who robs a bank loses his constitutional protection from cruel and unusual punishment.
@Celestial_Teapot - I feel like “dislike” is quite a soft word for it.
The question is morally repugnant; I am beyond words, other than to say NO.
I hope the girl (and child) is lucky enough to have found an appropriate father figure in the baby’s life, though.
Rape topics are too serious and unbecoming in certain atmospheres..but no he should not..
Given the circumstances, I feel like this is where the legal system gets extremely illogical. This lacks common sense. Putting aside the fact that this guy raped his child’s mother, he raped a child, period. Why should a convicted sex offender and child abuser gain access to a child directly through the court system? Ridiculous.
@Celestial_Teapot - That is a good point of view but there are certain crimes where a person should lose all rights to compromise. And in this case the man is forcing himself absurdly into this woman’s life..
@Lithium98 - Only if you’re the CEO of said bank.
@Rob_of_the_Sky - So, if the rapist is the girls father, it’s all kosher, I guess.
fuck that shit
Nope. he forcibly caused the mother to become pregnant with that child against her will, so she has the right to forcibly keep him out of that child’s life against his will.
@Lithium98 - “If I rob a bank and get caught, do I get to keep the money later?”
At pottery barn, you break it you buy it. The manager shouldn’t be able to prevent you from keeping the shards even after paying for it.
@raspberryjade - “Nope. he forcibly caused the mother to become pregnant with that child against her will, so she has the right to forcibly keep him out of that child’s life against his will.”
The mother made the conscious decision not to abort the fetus. Shouldn’t she accept responsiblity for her own choices?
@Foodhog - “He raped a 14 year old…how is he suppose to be trusted with a baby?!?!
This is disgusting!”
Visitation rights =/= custody rights.
Sure: Felons of violent crimes generally make unsuitable parents. No one, though, is arguing that the rapist should be preferred over the mother in raising the child.
You may not like this, but there are basic rights and basic responsibilities that come with being a parent. No ammount of popular outrage changes this.
@thefittedsheet - “Putting aside the fact that this guy raped his child’s mother, he raped a child, period. Why should a convicted sex offender and child abuser gain access to a child directly through the court system?”
Because the court system has decided that certain rights and certain responsiblities come with being a parent. Why else is the man legally directed to pay child support?
If the man clearly poses a threat to the child: then sure, out of the safety of the kid, keep the guy far away.
The father, in this case, though, has not demonstrated himself to be a danger to his own child. Irrational fear, alone, shouldn’t be enough to deprive an individual of basic and fundamental rights.
@MyPublicSite - “This is exactly what happened to Jaycee Dugard’s rapist. And he ended up kidnapping her at age eleven and making her his sex slave for 18 years, while he was on probation. The legal system never learns.”
Anecdotes make poor basis for general policy.
You know, circumstances and motiations for crime actually vary from case to case. So too their recidivism.
It’s so sad to hear. I mean, the baby has no siblings. They should make more babies together when he visits. I know it might be difficult, but they hafta do it for the child. That’s commitment and I’m pretty sure they’re not trying to work it out. Think about the kids! For gods sake!
haha I’m jk btw. There’s no reason a family needs to be together, and if he abused her like that, and she doesn’t want to see him, then he should be considerate of her feelings. He has to wait until she’s ready to meet him again.
Anywho, this all assumes that it’s a legitimate rape case. If it’s illegitimate rape, and she just wanted revenge, then.. ouch that’s mean.
he can’t be trusted around kids. he’s a rapist/sex offender. if I was the judge, then if his hands are cuffed behind his back, then maybe he can sit in the same room and look at the baby from at least 5 feet away. the visitation will last 1hr a week in a supervised room with a police officer in the room. if he has other special requests, then his entire visitations will be taken away. he’ll have a shock collar around his neck during probation with gps tracking, and a restraining order against him. if he goes within a particular amount of distance to the mom and baby, the red button linked to his collar will be pushed. he can’t sue because he’ll have to sign over his life
he forfeited his rights. I’m the judge now*count dracula laughter*
@Celestial_Teapot - Depends on intent. If you purposely break merchandise, the manager has the right to remove you from the store with a permanent ban from the establishment. The offender had no expectation of purchasing the broken merchandise and would be considered damaged property, not merchandise to be sold.
This guy didn’t have any intention of fathering a child. His intention was to rape a child. Breaking something at a store is hardly even close to the same thing.
This man forfeited his rights when he took this child’s rights away. He is no father, he is a predator looking for easy prey. Surely part of his probation is maintaining a certain distance from any and all children! This poor girl should nt be forced to endure putting her child in danger because she made the decision to allow an innocent to go unpunished for it’s Father’s ferocious offense(s).
@Lithium98 - “This guy didn’t have any intention of fathering a child. His intention was to rape a child.”
Sure, but neither of this impacts the responsibility of fatherhood nor the rights of fatherhood.
@Lady_Kelacy - “This man forfeited his rights when he took this child’s rights away.”
Voluntarily? Certainly not, as evident by his seeking visitation rights.
It really seems as if the lot of you are basing a person’s parenthood rights based on how fucking angry you guys get.
Just as popular opinion isn’t fair basis for stripping voting rights, speech rights, or reproductive rights– it isn’t a lever for denying parenthood rights.
“He is no father, he is a predator looking for easy prey.”
Biologically, he is the father; and it seems as if he wants to be involved in his child’s life.
It is interesting how you can so easily peer into the man’s thoughts and future. You must be that telepath in the X-Men.
No way. The fact that he raped a minor should automatically preclude him from having any chance of being around a child. Duh.
HE and HE ALONE made the choice to create that child, so he should have to pay and suffer the consequences. It’s one thing if two adults have consensual sex that results in a pregnancy, and the woman chooses to keep the child against the man’s wishes– then I can understand a man’s frustration/anger at having to pay child support, when his opinions were not taken into consideration. With a rapist, though– he should just be thanking his lucky stars that he never had to go to prison for this.
@Celestial_Teapot - Biologically he is the father, and maybe he DOES want a relationship, but why should his selfish wants take precedence over the safety of his child? He already demonstrated that he is incapable of behaving appropriately around children– why should he be given another chance? When the safety of a child is concerned, I don’t think that you should ever have the attitude of, “Well… let’s just wait and see if he rapes this one, too.” He already lost his chance. And honestly, I would be very surprised if his desire to “have a relationship” with the child was nothing more than an act of spite because he’s pissed off that he has to pay child support. No, I’m not Jean Gray (or Professor X, or Emma Frost), but was he whining about his parental rights before people were knocking on his door demanding child support? The child is a toddler, and he didn’t care about knowing her until now. I’m not saying that forcing him to pay child support is an appropriate consequence for his actions– I think that he should have been locked up, and for longer than the 3 to 5 years that he WOULD have gotten. Asking him to pay child support is just asking for a stupid situation like this, where he thinks that he has a right to be involved in this child’s life.
@Celestial_Teapot - the problem is, he raped a child, and it is not in the child’s best interest to allow this man near them. In custody/visitation/support issues, the rights of the parents don’t mean jack shit. It’s what’s best for the child.
It is not up to the mother to show how he’s NOT good, but up to him to show how it would improve the child’s life. Until he can, he gets no visitation. That’s the policy of family law.
ALSO, if we start allowing every rapist to have parental rights with the offspring that they create, what’s to stop lonely people who want families but can’t get dates to just go around raping people until one of the rapes results in a pregnancy? I’m not a big fan of using the slippery-slope logical fallacy, but I could understand how a person might be motivated to do that if they were desperate or crazy enough.
Raping an adult woman is sick enough. Raping a 14 year old girl is even sicker.
1. He should NEVER be allowed to see the child or the girl.2. Rape once, and you will rape again. Keep him in jail as long as possible. After release, see to it that he cannot contact her. Probation for life, and he must live states away.3. Keep making him pay. If she chooses not to accept the money, still keep making him pay, but have the money to towards rape victim counselling.
Money does not make a father.
She didn’t consent (or couldn’t because of her age) to sex with him. The sex that made the baby, that made him the sperm donor.
She didn’t get a choice.
Now he shouldn’t. Her choices shouldn’t get taken away from her twice, by him. Think about it…first he rapes her and now he gets to force himself into the life of her child against her will? I don’t think so. He doesn’t get to manipulate and victimize her twice.
Money does not make a father. He was a sperm donor to an unwilling, underage child. He forfeited his rights when he took away someone else’s.
that is a hard one.
Child support is not “pay” for visitation.
Otherwise, what other felonies will allow “visitation” for?
Mugging?
Battery?
Nope…
Ah, Good ol’ Fox News. Todd Akin must be so proud.
@Celestial_Teapot - I’ll be perfectly honest. I do understand where you’re coming from with this, and I’m going to set aside my own feelings about this, just for a moment. Before I read the story, I assumed that the mother -wanted- child support from the father of the child, and I think that if she -wanted- the child support from the father, she made a choice to allow him into her life again. But after reading the article, it was the judgement of the court, not of the mother. He wasn’t actively seeking to be a part of his victim’s child’s life until the judgement was passed. But now that the judgement is passed, he has an opportunity to be not only in his child’s life, but also his victim’s. His ‘desire’ to be in the child’s life, in my opinion, is a way to continually hurt the victim.
But moving on with my feelings…No. No. No. As I’ve stated in the reply above, it was a judgement of the court; not his choice or the mother’s. I see it as him using this as a chance to re-victimize the mother potentially. How would any of us feel if a rapist decided to make their way into their victim’s life again using this? It’s not motivated out of love, but out of the need to have control/power over the victim.
“…
amend the sentencing
and order the man to pay restitution instead of
child support. This would
force him to support the child but not give
him visitation and other parental rights.”
This should have been done in the first place! Hindsight is twenty-twenty vision. But better late than never; and totally appropriate. IF this man man’s up and supports the child financially, perhaps the child will have a reason to seek him out AFTER becoming an adult. But it is his responsibility to support the child financially whether it’s called child support or restitution; and the court shouldn’t have to point this out to him AGAIN! His seeking visitation in this situation speaks volumes! He’s still an asshole!
Absolutely not! Once a rapist, always a rapist. The mother of a friend of mine married a man who turned out to have been convicted of rape and set free years before. She only found out about it AFTER he raped the 10-year-old daughter they’d had together.
@Celestial_Teapot - But it does, according to you analogy. Intention and expectation. He intended to rape a child. The expectation as a result of that is not parental rights to a possible child. It’s a harsh prison sentence and a cellmate named “Bubba” who likes to “cuddle”. He’s always big spoon.
Erm, I hate to be the devil’s advocate here, but has anyone asked what sort of “rape” this was? If it was statutory rape, that includes any 18 yr old having sex with a 17 yr old in the United States. They can be 1 day apart and suddenly one is a RAPIST! ogodno! Ok, so in this case they were 6 yrs apart, and 14 is very young by the standards of most countries (excluding Japan), but come on. Has anyone asked if the sex was even consensual? Were they dating beforehand? People develop at different rates, intellectually and sexually. Just as it’s unfair to say a 14 yr old is sexually mature, it is equally unfair to say a 40 yr old is always sexually mature – many people NEVER mature sexually such as with the mentally handicapped, while some do much earlier in life. All I’m saying is, don’t rush to judgement, and most of all, think of the child. As disgusting as the word “rape” is, can you imagine that maybe some day that child will want to know her biological father?
Definitely not! I thought there were laws that were supposed to prevent sex offenders from hanging around children. If he raped a person who, in most states, is well under the age of consent, he should not be given access to any child, regardless of whether or not the child has his DNA. He’s traumatized this poor girl enough. Let’s not give him the opportunity to do further damage to her and possibly to her child.
@Celestial_Teapot - You do know this man doesn’t actually want custody rights and is only doing this so that the girl and her family will stop asking for child support. Did you read the link?
@skeptic42 - He was convicted of rape. Therefore it was rape. She was 14, and he was dating her older sister’s friend, he legit raped her. She has PTSD from the incident. And I can’t believe you’re asking that when he’s 20 and she’s 14.
lol @ the picture you picked
My gut says no. It appears as if he’s merely trying to hurt her even more with the antics, even if he’s not doing so intentionally.
However, I do believe @grim_truth is right with the family law policy. It has to be about what’s best for the child, otherwise the argument is moot.
@Celestial_Teapot - No, her responsibility of keeping a child does not involve letting a child molester into her child’s life.
@raspberryjade - Indeed, her responsibility would be keeping a child molester OUT of her life.
I don’t know how the law works in that case, but I =HOPE= it says NO ! You can’t. You committed a crime and therefore you lost your privileges in toto.
Fully recommend Grim_Truth‘s and RaspberryJade‘s post.
OH HELL NO!!!! Sorry, not to be blunt but that is how I feel to the question that was asked on whether he should get to see the child.
Child support payments and visitation rights are two totally independent issues, neither of which should have any bearing on the other.
I thought paying child support = getting visitation rights.
@Celestial_Teapot
- If the man clearly poses a threat to the child: then sure, out of the safety of the kid, keep the guy far away.
He’s a convicted child molester and rapist. That clearly poses a threat to the child.
noooooo
I wonder why he wants visitation rights …
Holy Hannah, this situation has the potential to cause a ridiculous sh*t storm of people asking for visitation rights with children fathered through rape. Oy.
I have just a couple of thoughts to share on this topic..1 – Rape is a terrible, horrible, awful, degrading, demeaning, terrifying thing, and something from which it is difficult, if not impossible, to ever fully heal. This girl will never be the same as she was before the rape. Is anyone looking out for the best interests of this girl, who, incidentally, is still a minor? She is the victim in the case, and shouldn’t her wishes be considered before those of the offender?
2 – This man knew what he was doing when he raped this little girl. He knowingly committed a felony. Why shouldn’t we hold him accountable? Yep, he created a child. Yep, he is required to pay for that child. But given the circumstances in which conception occurred, why should this guy be allowed to have legal visitation with the child, and by extension, be allowed to consistently force himself into the life of his victim on a regular basis?
3 – I completely understand the concept that there are certain rights and responsibilities that come with parenthood, and I also agree with the notion that if you’re taking care of the responsibilities (as the man is in this case, by paying child support), you should be able to enjoy the rights that go along with them. However, again, the guy is only in this position because of his criminal behavior. Why is rewarding that behavior by giving the guy what he wants even a consideration?
@Celestial_Teapot - I’m sorry. What?? Because she didn’t abort the baby, she should have to deal with the consequences, meaning she should have to deal with the fact that the rapist still be a major presence in her life? Do you have any idea what it is like to HAVE to maintain contact with someone who abused you? Besides the fact that it’s not the baby’s fault for being conceived, you would suggest it better if she just killed it?
I honestly cannot believe that you suggested abortion as being the be-all, end-all to that situation. I am not saying this from a pro-life perspective, because I do support the right to choose, but to say that it is her fault for choosing not to kill her rape baby on top being forced to conceive is unbelievable, and I find it difficult to take any of your further arguments credibly.
Rape is never a black-and-white issue. What you are saying is akin to blaming the rape victim for being raped.
Hell Fucking No.
I hate to say this, I really do, but…
If he had raped another person, or even another child, the court couldn’t keep him from his own child/ren.
Of course, it would be supervised visitation, I’m sure.
Therefore, I see no difference.
Regardless of how the baby was conceived, it is biologically his baby.
@PrettiEnough - Supervised visits…I suppose if it was videotaped the Judge could see portions where the “rapist” might be a good father or a bad father.
Unfortunately most supervised visits have volunteer watchers or be paid very little to supervised. Too bad that I don’t think this solution is perfect either but it is a nice suggestion.
Point blank. He IS the father. If they didn’t want any ties with him, they shouldn’t have seeked child support. It’s like saying ” I only want your money, I’m willing to deal with the pain of where it comes from”I think the circumstances of him seeing the child should be very strict, like supervised until a certain age, but end of story he IS the father. the mother never has to see him, a case worker can bring the child where need be, and if it’s a supervised visit, it has to be with a caseworker anyways. I’m a mother of two, boy and girl. I’ve been raped when I was a teenager as well.
No.
Absolutely not….although this system is broken. I can see how the law might be on his side.
I think it all hinges on the Question if this was Legitimate Rape or Not.
If a man raped me now way in HELL would he ever see me or that child again.
First of all I am a bit out of sorts because it isn’t often that a rape victim chooses to keep the baby. They either abort or give up for adoption. I know it sounds harsh but they choose to not keep a constant reminder around of a horrible event.
Before people jump down my throat – let me ask you – have you been raped? No? Then back off! Yes? I am sorry. I was too.
Good for the girl for being brave and keeping the child despite the events.
So he paid child support. Well, not too many rape victims get monetary compensation for the medical bills that happen after a rape (tests, mental health, medications) so why shouldn’t she get child support? If I could have sued my raper for mental anguish I would have.
Nope… I agree with @Lithium98 -
For me, that question is a rather hard one to answer. instinctively, I say no. but I also say yes if circumstances are right:
1- he must have changed for the better in some way.
2- it must be supervised at ALL times with the supervisor being chosen by the mother.
3- he must pay child support (he is already doing it so that one I know is good)
4- He MUST be there for the child at any time of need. although he is not the one raising the kid, he still needs to be a responsible parent.
5- He must love the child.
Honestly, I believe that someone could change. what we once did, is not necessarily who we are now. “you are more than the choices that you’ve made, you are more than the sum of your past mistakes, you are more than the problems you create”. there is always that chance for change. If he is a new person then I believe that he should be allowed to see his child.
@Celestial_Teapot - “Irrational fear,
alone, shouldn’t be enough to deprive an individual of basic and
fundamental rights.”
How is the fear of him harming the child irrational?
“circumstances and motiations for crime actually vary from case to case. So too their recidivism.”
Right. So given the very little information about the case, we know close to nothing about the rapist, the rape incident, his past, or the motivations for his request. The only person who knows (or have a higher chance of knowing) this is the mother. So if she doesn’t want to see him or have him see the child,it’s highly likely that her decision is based on more than just irrational fear.
Yes, because he’s taking responsibility for what he did. And if the reason the family won’t let him see the child is because they don’t want to relive emotions caused by the rape, they shouldn’t make him pay child support either.
HELL NO
No way. It’s not bad enough that such a young teenager got raped, she also got pregnant by it and chose to look at the result for the her life. Not that it makes any sense why he’s paying child support but children are expensive so sometimes parents have to make unsatisfactory choices.
I cannot respond logically because I really do not personally believe that statuatory rape should be a crime if a minor is in the teens and what I personally believe is not a legal argument. Seriously, teenagers are old enough to know what they are doing.
Anyways, I do not understand why people are convinced that he is a horrible person who should be banned from ever seeing his child. By the previous posters’ reasoning, I should not be able to be around my children because I engaged in sex acts with a minor at one point in my life. Sure, I was technically a minor too and the other minor was older than me, but by the current state laws, I should have been charged with a crime. So…am I safe to be around my children or not?
The girl can claim anxiety all she wants, but I know consenting adult females who have anxiety attacks because they regret sleeping with someone. That does not keep one friend in particular from letting her child’s father have visitation rights.
i say so. why? because her religious conviction is/did impede upon his liberty. she brought the fetus to infancy, but he is financially on the hook.
if he should be financially on the hook it should be for consistent reasoning. if he is on the hook for rape then yeah he should have to pay her to attone for the crime. but if the payments are for childcare for his child- and not rape- he should be granted the role of fatherhood which he is paying for. you can’t reasonably judge someone to be something and then say they are exempt from that classification for some reason- leading them to bound to the responsibilities of the title but not the entitlements.
if you don’t want to give the guy visitation for some reason, then you can’t extract wealth from him. and that sidesteps that the girl knew bringing the fetus to infancy and requiring child support would put him in the position to be back in her life. he made a mistake with fairly short term consequences (this is coming from someone who was raped) and she put him in a position to extend the consequences laid upon him. it doesn’t matter if it was done from mallice, or true religious faith, she made a decision which could only reasonably keep him in her life- if only through the child.
Hell, no!
I haven’t read the article yet but if it was physical, violent rape, HE’LL no. Rapists are the only criminals who are found to not be treatable. They always rape again which is why they should be put to death on conviction. Yes, I have been raped before so I could be biased but he sounds like a pedo which is the lowest form on the planet. He doesn’t deserve any rights especially with another kid. That is only if he raped her and it wasn’t that statuary bullshit but consensual.
@Celestial_Teapot -
Irrational fear, alone, shouldn’t be enough to deprive an individual of basic and fundamental rights.
1) Keeping a pedophile away from a child is not irrational.
2) The victim was deprived of her basic and fundamental rights when he assaulted her. The consequences she endured (willingly or not) for the assault are not owed to him due to the fact that he never had the right to create them. (e.g. If I rob a bank and build a company with my stolen money, that company does not belong to me. I may have created it, but I have no legitimate rights to it.)
“Sure, but neither of this impacts the responsibility of fatherhood nor the rights of fatherhood.”
What you are saying is that a man is entitled to an additional legal right BECAUSE he raped a child?
@Celestial_Teapot - @grim_truth -
Guys, it was statutory rape. He was 17 (20-3) at the time and she was 14. It wasn’t necessarily because he forced her to have sex with him. But for the legal fiction that has him labeled a rapist because he’s 17 and not 16, the man has no visitation rights to his own daughter whom he may truly love?
Grim truth is right that what matters it the best interests of the child. It’s just not clear whether those interests lie in giving him visitation rights or not. The article misleads everyone to think this guy’s a pedophile and took this girl by force. That’s just not reflected by the facts we know right now.
@nyclegodesi24 - You obviously didn’t read the article. He raped her when he was 20 and she was 14. And she still suffers trauma. There is nothing there to support your conclusion that it was statutory. He’s a child rapist, but luckily for him lots of people are here to defend his “right” to get at yet another child.
@EmilyandAtticus -
“The teen mother was raped by the 20-year-old family friend three years ago…”
Was he 20 then and 23 now, or 17 then, and 20 now?
And the article says statutory rape: “The man, who the victim knew from church and who was the boyfriend of her friend’s older sister, pleaded guilty to statutory rape in Norfolk Superior Court last year.”
Yes, I did read the article, thankyouverymuch.
Man, people are sheep
Based on the simple fact that the prosecutor was only seeking 3-5 years, it seems like this situation was much less sinister than people are imagining. If it was forced sex, the punishment range would very likely be much higher. I think it’s most likely that this was a consensual* act between the two, but seeing as she was below the age of consent for that state, it was a crime. (By the way–I’m not condoning his behavior. He broke the law and most likely took advantage of a young girl. That’s plenty disgusting.)
As a side-note: Without seeing actual court documents and reading the penal code of the state at issue, I have no clue what actual offense was committed. The story says statutory rape, but many states simply have sex with a child below the age of consent under the state’s rape provision.
*Well not really consensual if she was below the age of consent, but I mean that it wasn’t a typical rape scenario.
@dream_guru5 -
It’s a myth that sex offenders have a nearly 100% recidivism rate–multiple studies have shown this to not be true. Many studies show that recidivism rates among sex offenders is actually lower than other serious crimes.
@User325 – The only issue I see with your post is the basic premise on which you base your argument: This rape victim did not seek child support. Rather, the offender was court-ordered to pay child support for the child, in according with all applicable family court laws, as part of his sentence. In this case, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for the rape victim to not want to risk having her rapist be anywhere near herself or her child.
omg. no way!
as much as I want to say flatly: NO.. i tend to think.. well.. he IS the biological father, and he DOES have the right to see his baby.
BUT, the mother also has a right to say no to her rapist. Which means: if she says no, then too bad, you can’t see your kid.
Hell NO!
This is a case of STATUTORY rape, the sex was consensual but she was under age, she being 14 and he being 20 at the time. I know a 14 year old girl can’t really understand the consequences of sex like a 20 year old boy can, but it’s not like he jumped out of the bushes and held her down.
Has anyone considered that he might be repentant and wants to do the right thing for his daughter?
He’s a pedophile rapist, but he’s paid his debt to society, so now the right thing to do if he truly cares about his daughter of rape, is to drop dead.
No. He’s a rapist. Keep him the fuck away from that kid.
No way, I wouldn’t even take the child support payment.
That poor newscaster.