Originally posted by blownaltered
Again, that's not what the law says. He was under the age of consent. I get what you are saying, yes, he did it willingly. But legally, he wasn't old enough to consent which is why the state picked up the charges.
Originally posted by blownaltered
I do agree that the child shouldn't have to suffer, but it is hard to see the logic behind the State and mother's motives in pursuing this. I thought this kid had a hell of a case, before I knew legal precedent had been set. I'd fight the hell out of this for all of the obvious reasons.
Comment