by DamianaRaven » Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:16 pm
It doesn't really make that much sense to me. A father doesn't have to have "joint custody" in order to be legally liable for child support payments. On the contrary, male rape victims have been forced to pay child support to women who impregnated themselves without consent - even AS the judge acknowledges that he was an innocent victim. "Too bad about your baby-mama being a sexual predator, but we need to think about the CHILD and since your rapist is raising that child, she deserves to be paid on its behalf." I think a lot of that has to do with the (terribly wrong and horribly mistaken) assumption that men can't be "raped" like that. After all, if he ejaculated enough to conceive a child, he must have enjoyed it! (Women certainly aren't the only ones victimized again and again by the sick Rape Culture in this country.)
This particular case seems like the work of a VERY SICK judge who's hell-bent and determined to punish this poor girl for being raped. She moved out of state shortly after she was kidnapped and raped, but now she's being ordered to move back to Michigan or be held in contempt of court. Furthermore, she's not allowed to move more than 100 miles from where she was traumatized and forcibly impregnated, because... hey, she was probably asking for it, right?
*gets angry and storms off before the tears start*
Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies. (76th Rule of Acquisition)