Rapist wants visitation rights; teen mom fighting back

What makes you sick is calling this girl a whore and attacking her on things you can clearly tell from the article she is innocent of.
This was not consensual sex. the girl has suffered emotional trauma and is afraid of him. 4 counts does not mean they had sex for times or that he raped her 4 times. The girl went to the police with her mother, it doesn't say her mother went to the police by herself.
Why are you so quick to attack this girl, first by calling her greedy when she was not the one to request child support, and doesn't even want it, and then to call her a whore an blame her?
I find it extremely disturbing,

Originally posted by calstorm
What makes you sick is calling this girl a whore and attacking her on things you can clearly tell from the article she is innocent of.
This was not consensual sex. the girl has suffered emotional trauma and is afraid of him. 4 counts does not mean they had sex for times or that he raped her 4 times. The girl went to the police with her mother, it doesn't say her mother went to the police by herself.
Why are you so quick to attack this girl, first by calling her greedy when she was not the one to request child support, and doesn't even want it, and then to call her a whore an blame her?
I find it extremely disturbing,

She went to the police cause she got pregnant and probably realized her parents would disown her if they knew she was dating a 20 year old... Emotional trauma my ass, if it was unwilling "rape" it would not be statutory rape, he would be charged with "Rape"... And a whole lotta other stuff. Defend her all you want, she could have aborted the kid.

If the child was raped (4 times in the same 24 hours isn't impossible for a 19yr old) then she has enough emotional scarring. Handing her baby to the felon once a month, every other holiday, and expect timely child support for 18 years seems improbable.

If his conviction is as stands, he's not man enough to follow thru. This is his way of maintaining control of the situation. Her lawyer will file again.

He's affecting two lives. He didn't even give them the opportunity to just make choices. Now they have to heal.

Jerk.

if he did visit with the kid he could end up posing the argument....

"your mother refused to have you, she didn't even want you, so I was forced to rape her so you could be born, because I love you so much that I'd do anything to bring you into this world."

How do you know right???/

reply to post by SeenAlot


How can you categorically state that sex within some set period of time is emotionally scarring? I'd love to know the rationale there.

This is clearly stated as statutory rape, and in Massachusetts that specifically means "Criminal inducement to get a person under age 18 of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse". If this were against her will, it would be aggravated sexual assault. The fact that it was determined to be statutory rape is simply because there was more than two years age difference and she was under 18 in any case.

If there is emotional scarring, it's probably more because of the shame she's had to endure from the church, family, and friends.

Also, please, folks: Remember the source of this info. FoxNews is highly sensationalist and they're going to blow everything up to get your attention.


In any case, this guy can only get up to three years in prison or up to two and one-half years in jail for each charge at a maximum, because it is simply statutory rape. There was no violent aspect to it implied anywhere. When she says he threatened her and whatever, that could really mean a whole lot of things.

Demonizing either party is pretty stupid. They liked each other when this happened. If the whole thing hadn't been criminalized, they could have worked it around to a nice young family. It used to happen even early last century. As human beings, we're just the same critters now.

If you read the article close it says Statutory Rape meaning he was over age and the girl was a minor which is not the same as straight up Rape as in he forced her to have sex with him. If this is a case of consentual sex between two people and one of them being underage I still think the father has a right to see the child. When I was 14-15 I used to spend two nights a week in the night club picking up 18-21 year old college girls and lying to them that I was older. If one of them got pregnant I would feel that I had a right to see the child even though I was underage when I did it. The majority of the comments I am reading seems like everyone is under the impression that this old guy raped a child and she got pregnant but I am reading this as an older scum bag guy got a young girl to get busy a few times and then ended up with a baby.

Society does not have much of an issue with a 15 year boy having sex with a 20 year woman but turn the tables and now we have a major problem. I think young girls need to take responsiblity for themselves and even at 14 you know right from wrong.

If the sex was consentual and not forced I feel he has a right to see the child.

This person was convicted, not accused, of sex with a minor. Now he is pleading to have the court order him visitation of a child Thats like letting the fox guard the hen house or putting an alcoholic in charge of the outdoor wet bar.

reply to post by CosmicEgg


There were four charges of rape. I was simply responding to those with the "she liked it cause she went back", group.

He liked her, she liked him. There were flowers in the sky and Sinatra singing. She was still underage and it IS his responsibility to behave in a mature fashion. If she was older, I'd feel the same way. The mature one must be held responsible.

If there is still an emotional relationship, the question of visitation shouldnt even be a problem. They are in love and will raise a happy family together.


Hi! Welcome to ATS where cynics abound. I have known dozen of kids in these age groups who were protected from any legal problems. Love conquers all.

I don't believe for one second this young man gives a crap. It's a lawyers card trick to mke him seem sympathetic. 😥

reply to post by sonnny1


First of all, there is a huge difference from "rapist" and "statuatory rapist". The former being only one consented the latter they both consented but one was underage.

Huge difference.

reply to post by SeenAlot


Lots of young girls are enamored with older guys. Has anyone here not been swept up in a passionate moment? If you haven't, you might want to move away from the computer and go live that vital moment of existence while you're still breathing.

I read the article too, and again, it is courtesy of FoxNews so exploiting the facts is a given.

I just wish people would think critically when they read things and stop reacting with such harsh judgment, as though they themselves had never transgressed another ever in all their days, and also to realize that they are all being played like fiddles.

Only the first line was directed at your post. The rest was for broader consumption.

Originally posted by IronNuts
So the man was charged with statutory rape, maybe the girls parents were the ones to press charges. Maybe the girl loved this man and is the reason she didn't abort. If the girl gives it the thumbs up then by all means should the father be able to see his kid. Why do we rely on others so heavily to live our own life? It boggles my mind peoples rationality.

Exactly.

We need to know the context and laws of the states involved here.

How old is he, and how old is the girl? You know that it's classed as statutory rape even if it's consensual, right? Even if the boy is the same age as the girl, it's considered rape.

I think a lot of people here need to get their heads out of their asses and work out how to read between the lines and use some damn common sense instead of making assumptions when they have NONE of the facts.

None of you know how old he was, or she was, or the laws of the state, or whether this was the parents doing... yet you're calling for him to be murdered like some kind of vigilante mob.

People here are no better than the idiots who murdered a pediatrician because they thought he was a "pedophile". Complete and utter insanity, and a perfect example of how the American education system is a complete farce too.

ca.news.yahoo.com...

This video clearly says he came into her home threatened her and raped her. The issue is with the judges sentencing.

I wasn't aware consensual sex involved threats.

reply to post by calstorm


The video presents the story in an entirely different light than the article did. Why is the guy not classed as a sexual offender? The way the girl and the mother describe it is clearly rape and not statutory anything. She was not a willing partner.

As a sexual offender, he would not have access to a child, not even his own but in light of the circumstances, how could he even be considered for parental rights? Access to a female toddler? Is the Massachusetts judicial system working for rights for sexual offenders by not calling them by their real name?

Deny visitation rights, get a restraining order against him and make him pay child support.

Sexual intercourse by an adult with a person below a statutorily designated age.

The criminal offense of statutory rape is committed when an adult sexually penetrates a person who, under the law, is incapable of consenting to sex. Minors and physically and mentally incapacitated persons are deemed incapable of consenting to sex under rape statutes in all states. These persons are considered deserving of special protection because they are especially vulnerable due to their youth or condition.

Most legislatures include statutory rape provisions in statutes that punish a number of different types of sexual assault. Statutory rape is different from other types of rape in that force and lack of consent are not necessary for conviction. A defendant may be convicted of statutory rape even if the complainant explicitly consented to the sexual contact and no force was used by the actor. By contrast, other rape generally occurs when a person overcomes another person by force and without the person's consent.

I think this girl is getting attacked falsley. We don't know all the facts and shouldn't be judging on what little information is out there. We don't know what the actual charges were, only what he plead to, which is usually less than the indictment charges. Also, the girl AND her mother went to the police and filed charges. Another thing, many times the indictment "count" charges do not match up with the actual committed criminal act(s). Take James Holmes for instance, he killed 12 people but got charged with 24 counts of murder - 12 counts of first-degree murder, 12 counts of first-degree murder with "universal malice manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life". I wonder how many of you who are defending the rapist, would do so if it was your daughter or grandaughter, neice or sister who was the victim.

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.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

The parents went to the police when they found out, the girl didn't. It was statutory rape, not forcible rape. He's the father. Let him see the kid. In medieval times girls got married at the age she was 'raped.'

Originally posted by SeenAlot
If the child was raped (4 times in the same 24 hours isn't impossible for a 19yr old) then she has enough emotional scarring. Handing her baby to the felon once a month, every other holiday, and expect timely child support for 18 years seems improbable.

If his conviction is as stands, he's not man enough to follow thru. This is his way of maintaining control of the situation. Her lawyer will file again.

He's affecting two lives. He didn't even give them the opportunity to just make choices. Now they have to heal.


Jerk.

What you don't seem to get is that it's not just about those 2. The baby has rights too. Let the baby see its father. She didn't object to the relationship until she got pregnant and then got scared of her parents. It wasn't forcible rape. She wasn't 7, she was 14.

Reply to post by dayve

your comments about the girl are quite disturbing, you seem to have alot of anger directed at women in general, calling her a whore and jailbait without even knowing what happened. methinks you have been rebuffed by alot of women in your life to make the nasty post, little bitter are u? he was 20, she was 14, the man is a pig and a crimminal, the last thing he should be allowed is to spend anytime with with young women in general and especially that of a young child. thank goodness your not a judge, you would probably give him a pat on the back and ask him for details. your attitude is deplorable and yes sick sick sick.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by sonnny1


I'd either deny him rights or at the very most have supervised visitation. The supervision being provided by a cop or a social worker. That way if he had visitation at least it would be reviewed to determine if he was a negative influence on the child or a risk. Although, denying him the rights to visitation seem like the most ideal path in this circumstance.

I don't believe that should be the case with all statutory rape cases though; Like in a statutory case where the male was say 18 and the girl was 16. In that particular sort of circumstance I don't believe it's statutory to begin with because there is only a two year difference and a sixteen year old is intelligent enough to make up their own mind. Statutory rape is considered rape simply because of the age difference and not necessarily because of anything else. I know that it's possible to be charged with statutory even if it's consensual as long as that age difference exists either the state or parents can charge the older counter part. Which I think is wrong. Rape to me is forced unwanted sex. If it's consensual and both parties are capable of making their own decision then I don't believe it's rape. They allow you to drive a car at sixteen, I don't see why you could be considered incapable of deciding whether or not you want to have sex at the same age.

So if they made a ruling about this particular case that is negative to statutory then good on them, but either change the rules of what defines statutory or make it a specific ruling for this case. I do think a that in the case of an 18 year old and a 16 year old where both parties consider the event consensual that the father should be granted the same legal rights as any other father of normal circumstance.

Interesting, anybody that side with this sick rapist forcing his so call "parental rights" needs to read the story one more time

From the source,

"She got raped at 14. She decided to keep her baby. And now she has to hand her baby over for a visit with her rapist?" the victim's mother said.

The teen mother, who still suffers from severe anxiety and depression, says she's terrified at the thought of having to face the man who raped and impregnated her to arrange for visitation rights.

"He threatened me. He told me that he could make my life upside down, and I wouldn't have anybody and he would pin it all on me. So I was scared," she told FOX Undercover reporter Mike Beaudet.

It happened when she was in eighth grade, just 14-years-old. He was a 20-year-old man she knew from her church, the boyfriend of her friend's older sister.

Anybody that have intelligence can tell that the only reason this sick rapist wants parental rights is to exercises his powers over the still mother victim

Plain and simple.

He should be hanged by his genitals, until they dry out and fall off.