Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Someone who is told they are the father of a child in order to get them to support said child is certainly the victim of fraud at the very least.
Is fraud the same as statutory rape? No. But.. Emotionally.. I'll bet it probably runs as high.
Just because YOU could do that. Doesn't mean everyone could.
Is it an option to them? Yes. Emotionally.. Could they just walk off and pretend that the child doesn't exist? That could be a hard thing for many people to do.
Not to mention.. Let's say the kid is raised by the mother.. A mother who is now a sex offender. This one wasn't a teacher, right? She was a cafeteria worker? There's so many, hard to keep track of them all. That's.. Not the greatest of careers to start with.. but it's over now. Being a sex offender will limit her work.. Honestly.. There's a decent chance here that the kid will have a better life being raised by the 13 year old and his parents than the mother.
Anymore, anyone who is NOT married and supposedly gets a woman pregnant should get a DNA test post haste.
And the reason some men have to continue to pay child support, even after they've found out they are NOT the father, is because they've established a pattern of supporting the child, and it's not fair to the CHILD to suddenly withdraw support.
I get how that doesn't seem fair, but that's the court's outlook on THAT.
It is her child. She is the child's mother and there is no evidence she would not be a fit mother. Just because she had sex with a minor does not make her a sexual predator that would endanger her own child. Being convicted of a crime should not be reason to take someone's child away. There is no evidence that she would be an unfit mother.
No, its not enough to say you will take care of your child. Courts order child support. The department of child support enforcement makes sure you pay it.
And most times the kid is his. If you are just sleeping around or having relationship problem's I would think you would question paternity. I'm not sure how that is relevant to this situation.
A plea deal was signed. Nothing she does not is going to force the prosecution to include jail time. Its done.
That last part is just completely wrong. A plea agreement is between the prosecution and defense. It's up to a judge to accept or reject it. While 99% of the time, that's just a formality.. Once things hit the public eye.. All bets are off.
That's just a few examples. Some directly related to sex offenses, some not.
Now.. If this case has been adjudicated.. meaning she's already pled guilty, the agreement was accepted by the judge AND she has officially been sentenced.. It's a bit more set in stone.. But not completely. Epstein is an example of this. They can always pull you back in and attach another charge and throw the book at you on that.
but.. Perhaps that's what the mother is going after. Get the public riled up so that the plea agreement is rejected. It's a good strategy if her endgame is making sure the woman gets jail time. Has a decently good chance of working.
"Most times" the kid is his.. yeah.. Most of the people who get executed are guilty. Does that sound acceptable? I'm sure it's not if you're the one innocent person who gets executed. Thing is.. Crap happens. Guy has no clue that his wife is being unfaithful.. Thinks the kid is his.. Finds out, maybe years later the kid is not.. He's still on the hook (in some locations) for support.
Some backup on that.. and.. remember.. This is NOT a black and white situation (What is?) as different states and jurisdictions may have different rules.
Specifically, see the part about "equitable paternity" there.
I didn't say the child should be taken away. I said that.. There's a distinct possibility that the child may be better off with the father and his family.
Again.. This all depends on the state.. Different rules in different places. But.. if this were Florida.. Where you have the sex offender camps under a bridge because the rules are so strict that they can't live anywhere else.. Some states, sex offender can't set foot on school property, can't live or visit within a radius of where 'children congregate'.. So.. She wouldn't even be able to drop her kid off at school or take them to the bus stop. Can't take the kid to a park. And.. my point.. If your kid is friends with this child.. You letting your kid go over to their house? So.. Now.. We're also stigmatizing the kid here.
My point here.. There's shades of gray to everything. You seem to be saying everything is nice and tidy and all in black and white. Nope. There's LOTS to consider here. are all of the things I bring up certain to apply? No. Are they things that might? Yes. Does this bring up some things that, perhaps, need to be changed? yeah.. I could see that. I mean, parents not being allowed to set foot on school property? That's.. A pretty big deal right there. Not only from keeping in touch with their childs education, but being there for life events of their child. Not being able to attend graduations. The kid is acting in the school play.. Nope, mother might not be able to attend.
FYI.. Quick look.. Colorado seems to not have many restrictions on sex offenders. I can't find any living restrictions or illegal to visit a school or anything. though, i am no expert on CO law. I know that NC.. You can't even have a facebook account. No social media (This.. I seem to recall there being a court case and this may have been tossed).. Florida, as discussed above is pretty draconian.. South Carolina has many of the stringent restrictions and was lifetime. No way to get off. That was just overturned fairly recently.
I'll be interested to see if the plea deal is accepted. Public outrage, especially if judges are elected officials.. Will sway a decision. It appears that judges in CO are appointed. So.. That'd be a good sign for her.
Also.. you know.. the whole point that if this was a guy and a 13 year old girl.. We wouldn't be having this discussion at all right now. The discussion would likely be more along the lines of 20 years being too little time.
Well it was a plea bargain. The mother of the victims says she is not happy with the deal offered but we dont know how much input she had in it. She also says this ruined her son's life and now he has to be a father yet she is suing for her son to get custody of the baby.
He shouldn't have been having sex in the first place. So she failed as a parent.
Do you think all people convicted of crimes should have their children taken from them?
She was convicted of having sex with a minor. This dosent necessarily men she is a child predator as in she will continue to do this. There have been cases where rapists have been granted shared custody of their child born of rape.
Someone mentioned Mary Kay Letourneau. After serving her time they married and had a second child together.
Child brides have not be uncommon in our history. I'm not supporting it, just pointing it out.
Sex crimes against children? Absolutely the perp should lose access to their own. My brother is on the sex offender list, Level 3. He has a daughter he's never even met, and another he hasn't seen since she was about 7. All because he was dumb enough to diddle a young child.
Sex crimes against children? Absolutely the perp should lose access to their own. My brother is on the sex offender list, Level 3. He has a daughter he's never even met, and another he hasn't seen since she was about 7. All because he was dumb enough to diddle a young child.
And yes, it DOES make this woman a predator.
Did your brother lose his parental rights because he is on the sex offenders list?
In some states the courts give parental rights to convicted rapists.
Well it was a plea bargain. The mother of the victims says she is not happy with the deal offered but we dont know how much input she had in it. She also says this ruined her son's life and now he has to be a father yet she is suing for her son to get custody of the baby.
I have a feeling the son didn't want her locked up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation
Another thing to remember is that this is a teenage boy.
I'd say his friends were probably jealous, he was getting high fives, etc.
I'm not condoning it, and there needs to be a penalty, but it's not the same thing as if it happened with a small child.
Right a teenage boy who was probably getting a lot of high fives for bagging an older woman who was a teacher. Others will only fantasize about bagging a teacher
I find it odd that the boys mother wants full custody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom
I think the antiquated and sexist notion here is that only men (or in this case boys) have any agency. Men do things, women have things done to them. So even if we have a fully-grown woman and a 13-year-old boy, the boy should accept some if not all of the responsibility because women are inherently unable to act.
Perhaps in your case it's not sexism. Maybe you're a person who would say the same thing about a 13-year-old girl, that while you don't hold her responsible, you "certainly bet she egged it on and got what she wanted". Most people would take extreme exception to that sort of statement if it were about a girl. As a parent of two girls I certainly would not take that stance if it were either of my daughters. They are kids and an adult doing something like that bears the full responsibility for their actions. I don't see why it's reasonable or fair to think differently of boys.
I was dating a 21 year old college guy when I was 13 or 14.
Things were different back then. Older men used to marry teenage girls 50+ years ago. I don't doubt that pretty many people have grandparents where the grandmother was a teen or young teen, the grandfather was legally an adult.
Did your brother lose his parental rights because he is on the sex offenders list?
In some states the courts give parental rights to convicted rapists.
Well, he's in NY, and his daughters are both in MA. And he's on the list specifically due to sexual contact with a minor-aged child. He also got nailed for possession of child pornography AFTER having been released on probation, when he got caught in a sweep designed to make sure all registered sex offenders in the area were at home due to it being Halloween.
I don't have any problem publicizing his abhorrent behavior, so....
Among the local connections, the TU discovered that Karl Alberga, who was a leader in Schenectady, was caught naked in his apartment with a 14 year old boy. Alberga is currently in prison, serving time for convictions related to sexual abuse - although not serving time for this crime.
And also... This is the cr8me he is still "doing time" for. He was up for release again last fall, but was thankfully denied.
Police arrested a town man Tuesday on a child pornography charge.
Karl A. Alberga, 40, of 101 Freemans Bridge Road, allegedly had sexually explicit pictures on his computer. Alberga was on probation and is a registered sex offender from an arrest on a sexual abuse charge in Saratoga County in 2004. Glenville Detective William Marchewka seized Alberga’s computer and was able to obtain the pornographic images.
That last part is just completely wrong. A plea agreement is between the prosecution and defense. It's up to a judge to accept or reject it. While 99% of the time, that's just a formality.. Once things hit the public eye.. All bets are off.
Now.. If this case has been adjudicated.. meaning she's already pled guilty, the agreement was accepted by the judge AND she has officially been sentenced.. It's a bit more set in stone.. But not completely. Epstein is an example of this. They can always pull you back in and attach another charge and throw the book at you on that.
but.. Perhaps that's what the mother is going after. Get the public riled up so that the plea agreement is rejected. It's a good strategy if her endgame is making sure the woman gets jail time. Has a decently good chance of working.
I didn't say the child should be taken away. I said that.. There's a distinct possibility that the child may be better off with the father and his family.
My point here.. There's shades of gray to everything. You seem to be saying everything is nice and tidy and all in black and white. Nope. There's LOTS to consider here. are all of the things I bring up certain to apply? No. Are they things that might? Yes. Does this bring up some things that, perhaps, need to be changed? yeah.. I could see that. I mean, parents not being allowed to set foot on school property? That's.. A pretty big deal right there. Not only from keeping in touch with their childs education, but being there for life events of their child. Not being able to attend graduations. The kid is acting in the school play.. Nope, mother might not be able to attend.
FYI.. Quick look.. Colorado seems to not have many restrictions on sex offenders. I can't find any living restrictions or illegal to visit a school or anything. though, i am no expert on CO law. I know that NC.. You can't even have a facebook account. No social media (This.. I seem to recall there being a court case and this may have been tossed).. Florida, as discussed above is pretty draconian.. South Carolina has many of the stringent restrictions and was lifetime. No way to get off. That was just overturned fairly recently.
I'll be interested to see if the plea deal is accepted. Public outrage, especially if judges are elected officials.. Will sway a decision. It appears that judges in CO are appointed. So.. That'd be a good sign for her.
Also.. you know.. the whole point that if this was a guy and a 13 year old girl.. We wouldn't be having this discussion at all right now. The discussion would likely be more along the lines of 20 years being too little time.
I said "Nothing she does not is going to force the prosecution to include jail time"
There is a decent chance the kid will be better off with me, but thats not the point. She is the mother, she has not been proven to be an unfit mother and the courts most always side with the mother over grandparents when it comes to custody. That 13 year old boy does not have the means to better parent a child.
I think I read the terms of her probation will be decided in May.
No the point is not if this was a guy and a 13 year old girl.
Looking at the CO law it would appear this is a class 4 felony which the penalities are : two to six years in Colorado State Prison and/or fines of $2,000 to $500,000.
Some articles seem to contradict. One stated:10 years to life on sex offender intensive supervised probation, while another stated: Serrano will avoid jail time but must register as a sex offender. A judge will decide if she will be subject to sex offender intensive supervised probation and for how long. "Colorado’s Sex Offender Intensive Supervision Program (SOISP) is a required intensive probation program for non-violent, low-risk sex offenders who were not sentenced to prison."
Perhaps they will update this story in May after the hearing.
I said "Nothing she does not is going to force the prosecution to include jail time"
There is a decent chance the kid will be better off with me, but thats not the point. She is the mother, she has not been proven to be an unfit mother and the courts most always side with the mother over grandparents when it comes to custody. That 13 year old boy does not have the means to better parent a child.
I think I read the terms of her probation will be decided in May.
No the point is not if this was a guy and a 13 year old girl.
Looking at the CO law it would appear this is a class 4 felony which the penalities are : two to six years in Colorado State Prison and/or fines of $2,000 to $500,000.
Some articles seem to contradict. One stated:10 years to life on sex offender intensive supervised probation, while another stated: Serrano will avoid jail time but must register as a sex offender. A judge will decide if she will be subject to sex offender intensive supervised probation and for how long. "Colorado’s Sex Offender Intensive Supervision Program (SOISP) is a required intensive probation program for non-violent, low-risk sex offenders who were not sentenced to prison."
Perhaps they will update this story in May after the hearing.
I think you're saying that nothing the boys mother does would force the prosecution to include jail time. Well, again.. If you're just going to ignore the evidence I've given that shows that public opinion, which the mother is certainly trying to sway, can influence whether jail time is given, or whether a plea deal is accepted by the judge.. No point further arguing that. We'll see how it turns out.
Also.. The boy in this case.. I'll have to search around for it.. But.. at least what I've seen.. This really seemed a pretty clear case where she kept after him. I mean, to the point where this almost felt more like a full on rape case than statutory rape. Not a situation where the kid took what he could get and the parents found text messages or something. There was a line somewhere about him being very upset when he was with her I seem to recall.
Why the discrepancy here? One gets 18 to life, other gets probation? And they were both adult female and underage male.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
