The court ruled that "at no time did Shane register any complaint to his parents about the sexual liaison with Colleen". The court also ruled that a mother's potential culpability under criminal statutes was of no relevance in determining the father's child support liability in a civil action. The court stated that the state's interest in ensuring that a minor (Don't you mean the woman? There's literally zero to stop the mother spending it on herself - Imp) receives child support outweighed its interest in potentially deterring sexual crimes against minors
LOL! Wait, so you came with an insane conspiracy theory about the womens supporting child rape "to get their cut", and can't back it up?
Of course!
The putative father at time of conception was 15 years of age (his date of birth August 12, 1979). The mother was living in the youth's family home as a guest and apparently seduced the fifteen year old young man resulting in her subsequent pregnancy. She was age 20 at the time. No criminal prosecution was instituted since the sexual act was by a person age 20 having unlawful sex with a minor over age 12, but less than 18. Apparently, consent is not an issue in the commission of this felony.
When was that? Can you give three links?
And how does this justify your support for a rape victim fine?
Maybe you could just read the case law yourself?
I'll just paste the case finding from Wikipedia.
Excuse me, you were claiming that the Evil Women "supported 'what if the child consents' [for decades] to get their cut". How about you prove that?
Oh, and that is a case that is merely applicable to Kansas, you big, fat, armskin-cocked liar.
Well, show me them turning down the money.
The case was referenced in Florida in 1997, once again condemning a minor to servitude. In this case, they admit the minor can't afford to pay her, but decide to place the burden on him anyway so she gets her cut when he starts earning.
LOL! Wait, so you came with an insane conspiracy theory about the womens supporting child rape "to get their cut", and can't back it up?
Of course!
The putative father at time of conception was 15 years of age (his date of birth August 12, 1979). The mother was living in the youth's family home as a guest and apparently seduced the fifteen year old young man resulting in her subsequent pregnancy. She was age 20 at the time. No criminal prosecution was instituted since the sexual act was by a person age 20 having unlawful sex with a minor over age 12, but less than 18. Apparently, consent is not an issue in the commission of this felony.
This is what you are whining about?