PDA

View Full Version : Rape victim ordered to pay child support to rapist...



zraver
27 Jul 13,, 23:38
VICTIM ORDERED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT TO AGGRESSOR
POSTED BY LIVEWIRE ON MAY 29, 2013 IN NEWS | 1 COMMENT
AT-M Ad
A 15-year-old boy who was raped by a 34-year-old woman now faces child support in Nebraska.
This is the case for now 19-year-old Jeremy Steen, of Lincoln, Nebraska. In 2008, Steen was seduced and raped repeatedly by his 34-year-old baby sitter Linda Kazinsky. Sources testified that the sexual abuse took place weekly for nearly 3 years. After police were alerted, Ms. Kazinsky was arrested and charged with statutory rape and false imprisonment.
Kazinsky was employed as a babysitter for the Steens for nearly 3 years.
After Kazinsky’s release from Nebraska’s state prison system in 2012 she was able to regain custody of her child. The child had been a ward of the state for the first 13 months until Debra Kazinsky, Linda’s sister, was able to gain custody. After being reunited with her child, Kazinsky promptly filed for Aid and Government assistance which in turn landed Jeremy with a subpena for child support.
Jeremy had his day in court and was ordered to pay $475 a month in child support to Linda Kazinsky as well as a whopping $23,000 in back Child Support payments.
As incredible as this case sounds it’s not the first nor the last of its kind. Unfortunately, men are victimized as much as women over child support these days. It’s an unpopular topic but one that should be addressed. Here is another story from last year:

Victim Ordered to Pay Child Support to Aggressor | Live Wire Review (http://livewirereview.com/pay-child-support/?utm_source=taboola)

That is $91800 over the next 18 years he has to pay his rapist or he goes to jail...

kato
28 Jul 13,, 10:28
...why did that boy have a babysitter at age 15 to 17, much less an adult woman?

On a side note, there's nothing incredible about this. Child support goes towards the child, not the other parent. And $475 per month is a laughably low settlement on that too.

Blademaster
28 Jul 13,, 16:58
...why did that boy have a babysitter at age 15 to 17, much less an adult woman?

On a side note, there's nothing incredible about this. Child support goes towards the child, not the other parent. And $475 per month is a laughably low settlement on that too.

Why should the victim support the child? he had nothing to do with it. He was not legally the age of consent so therefore cannot be legally responsible for any actions that occurred.

Goes to show what double standards exist for men.

Gun Grape
28 Jul 13,, 18:24
Trying to get more info about this story. The above mentioned article is the only reference on the net. Most of the comments are saying this is a fake story. Especially since the boy was named. Crime happened when he was a minor. Some are pointing to a case in the 1990s as the source

Statutory Rape Victim Ordered To Pay Child Support - Chicago Tribune (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-12-22/features/9612220045_1_pay-child-support-child-support-behalf)

She was 34 he was 15. Sound familiar?


The case began in 1994, with a two-week affair between the boy and the unmarried woman, listed in court records as Ricci Jones.

According to court records, Jones and the teenager discussed having sex in advance and made a clear decision to do it. They had intercourse approximately five times, in what the boy later told police investigators was "a mutually agreeable act."


Neither Jones nor the teenager could be reached for comment.

The matter did not become a court case until after their daughter was born on Jan. 20, 1995, and Jones began receiving welfare on the daughter's behalf. Under federal guidelines, counties must make an effort to determine the identity of the father of any child on welfare and collect child support from him to offset the welfare payments.

That's exactly what San Luis Obispo County did.

As soon as county officials realized the baby's father was a minor, they filed statutory-rape charges against Jones, which resulted in a conviction but no jail time. Almost simultaneously, they sought to have the young father registered as being responsible for child support.

After being ordered to pay by Superior Court, "Nathaniel J." and his parents appealed the decision, arguing that a child who was the victim of sexual exploitation by an adult should not be penalized for the consequences of the exploitation.


Professor Mason said the case adds several twists to traditional family law.

"This shows two new directions in the law that are just now coming into play," she said. "One is that the state is going after young dads--and it isn't necessarily using much discretion. The other is that women are being prosecuted for statutory rape, which never would have happened two or three years ago."

Until 1994, the state's statutory-rape law didn't even apply to boys; only adults who had sex with young girls could be prosecuted. The legislature changed the law two years ago, but prosecutions of women are rare, Mason said.

Gun Grape
28 Jul 13,, 18:42
Why did the boy have to pay? It was voluntary sex

Community of the Wrongly Accused: Statutory rape victims are held liable for child support (http://www.cotwa.info/2013/07/another-statutory-rape-victim-is-held.html)


California courts charged with interpreting California's statutory rape laws have recognized that "a minor . . . who voluntarily engages in sexual intercourse is not necessarily a victim of sexual abuse." In re Kyle F., 112 Cal. App. 4th 538, 543, 5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
Other state supreme courts and several state appellate courts have also ruled that male statutory rape victims can be financially liable for supporting a child resulting from their criminal victimization.

Minskaya
28 Jul 13,, 19:07
Trying to get more info about this story. The above mentioned article is the only reference on the net. Most of the comments are saying this is a fake story. Especially since the boy was named. Crime happened when he was a minor. Some are pointing to a case in the 1990s as the source
I can find no news article or court proceeding of such a Nebraska case. All of the Google hits point to livewire.com as the stem.

It appears to be an iteration of a case adjuticated in California in 1996...

County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 842 [57 Cal.Rptr.2d 843] (http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/74059)

zraver
28 Jul 13,, 19:34
Why should the victim support the child? he had nothing to do with it. He was not legally the age of consent so therefore cannot be legally responsible for any actions that occurred.

Goes to show what double standards exist for men.

I 100% agree, a woman can terminate a pregnancy forced on her, but a male rape victim is out of luck....

kato
28 Jul 13,, 20:19
He was not legally the age of consent so therefore cannot be legally responsible for any actions that occurred.
The notion that a minor can't enter contracts at all (and sex, with the acceptance of joint responsibility stemming from the act, is one, technically) is a very American thing, i have to say. A weird one, in my opinion. What's next, dead people can't aggregate debt either?

zraver
28 Jul 13,, 21:39
The notion that a minor can't enter contracts at all (and sex, with the acceptance of joint responsibility stemming from the act, is one, technically) is a very American thing, i have to say. A weird one, in my opinion. What's next, dead people can't aggregate debt either?

You keep using that word. - YouTube (http://youtu.be/G2y8Sx4B2Sk)

Did you mean abrogate?

kato
29 Jul 13,, 22:21
No, aggregate. As in create and increase.

dave lukins
30 Jul 13,, 00:32
...why did that boy have a babysitter at age 15 to 17, much less an adult woman?

On a side note, there's nothing incredible about this. Child support goes towards the child, not the other parent. And $475 per month is a laughably low settlement on that too.

There may well have been other siblings in his family for her to babysit.

zraver
30 Jul 13,, 01:39
No, aggregate. As in create and increase.

Then that is truly baffling... You said, "What's next, dead people can't aggregate debt either?"

Uhm, how do the dead create and increase debt other than funerary and estate settlement/management costs? They are dead.....

Doktor
30 Jul 13,, 02:02
Z,

It is a sarcasm by kato. Re-read his post.

zraver
30 Jul 13,, 02:21
Z,

It is a sarcasm by kato. Re-read his post.

Not very good in that department, I tend to take things literally.

kato
30 Jul 13,, 19:01
Actually, it isn't so much sarcasm. Dead people over here can run up debts, which are ultimately passed on to any inheritors. For example rental contracts continue to run, subscriptions do (and those tend to auto-renew!) etc.

Doktor
30 Jul 13,, 19:15
Not very good in that department, I tend to take things literally.

I saw it as one of those 'you mean to tell me'...

Doktor
30 Jul 13,, 19:16
kato,

I believe in Germany as well minors can't sign contracts, therefor they can't get into one.

kato
31 Jul 13,, 06:51
Minors can sign contracts that are within their... well, mental capacity. And of course minors have to pay child support for children they father (or mother). Regardless of age, unless raped.

Doktor
31 Jul 13,, 07:12
Never heard of this.

Any examples of such contracts? Library membership?

kato
12 Aug 13,, 14:24
Children (over age 7) can e.g. buy things that are within their financial means as granted by their parents. They can also legally accept gifts without having to have parental consent.

Doktor
12 Aug 13,, 14:38
Children (over age 7) can e.g. buy things that are within their financial means as granted by their parents. They can also legally accept gifts without having to have parental consent.

No idea what the law says, but good luck bringing home such 'gifts'.

Drums and other musical instruments are in the yard. Close to the neighbors' BBQ :biggrin: