The state’s highest court ruled Wednesday that a father from Massachusetts could not use a restraining order meant to protect people from domestic violence to prevent an adult from meeting his 16-year-old daughter with the intent to engage in consensual sex.
The Supreme Judicial Court pointed out that 16 is the legal age for a teenager to engage in consensual sex and that the father showed no evidence that the adult, a 24-year-old visiting from England, had threatened or planned to abuse her in anyway.
Comments
Rodney Ireland is an idiot! We have the most ridiculous State Supreme Court in the nation and we keep putting on outlandish choices (who are usually carpetbaggers). Who is supporting this 16 year old? I strongly sympathy with this parent.
In this case, the court correctly interpreted the law. If you don't like it, your problem is with the law, not with the court.
Who is supporting this 16 year old? The same people who decided to engage in intercourse themselves and therefore commited to supporting the resulting child for 18 years. Their duty to provide for their daughter is not an option. It is not subject to their level of control over her. What gives them the right to cast aside personal responsibility? "Oh, but parenting is hard! And they only care for her well being!" Yeah, we know. And that's what they signed up for.
The age of consent in Mass in 16, as it is in most other states and in Europe. If you don't like it, you should work to get it changed instead of stupidly blaming the courts for interpreting the law correctly.
Any intelligent person who reads your post knows who the idiot is.
Totally appropriate decision. We do not need smarmy, controlling parents dictating their children's sexual choices when they are of legal age.
Oh, for heaven's sakes! Just ground her like my parents grounded me for half my teenage years! I think I was 20 before I realized I could just leave. :)
:-D !
darling2's comment is, sadly, a routine, knee jerk statement of those who dont understand or care about the functions of courts. the logic is quite simple and has nothing to do with ad hominem attacks on judges: the law of majority in the Commonwealth for relationships is 16 and that means that once reaching that age, a teenager can choose with whom she or he has what type of relationships. parents lose the legal right to issue commands. period. if you dont like this, or dont like the age of driving or the age of voting or the age of contracts or the age of enrolling in the armed services, contact your representative and organize to change the law. blaming the judges who render decisions which are compelled by law is silly, illogical and childish.
and carpetbaggers?? so, you dont know history, either. use of a Confederate white supremacist term reveals just how ignorant and incapable of rational thought darling 2 is. I can understand, as a parent, why the father would become upset with the age difference, the appearance of a man to bed his daughter, etc., etc. but, you know what? as our children become adults, in one area after another, we have to man up and become more mature ourselves. aint only our children who have developmental stages. so much damage done by immature parents who cling to their babies. thanks to our Revolutionary Generation and those who followed that we have separation of powers, democratic policy selection and judges with the guts to make the unpopular decisions.
by the way, darling2, the Supreme Judicial Court is one of the best appellate courts, state or federal, in the country. and, please, rethink your use of ad hominem attack. there is a difference between critiquing an individual's behavior and just slinging mud.
if you mean judical activism, and supporting moral decay..... that I would agree they are the "best".
If the law says 16, so be it. But is certainly highlights the decline of our nation.
You're an idiot. It has been 16 for over 60 years.
24 and 16...gross, this guy is a creep. Seems like we label 18 year old boys as sex offenders for dating their high school girlfriends, so I am surprised at the comments about this relationship. I would have grounded this girl and my husband would have told the guy outright to stay away. No court involved, but this guy should have known better...he was going to come over from England so they could hole up in a hotel and drink...desperate much?
This another "evolving paradigm".
Nambla, here we come!
>>"desperate much?"
Or in love...
Weren't you ever young? Didn't ever let emotions influence your decisions? Maybe you're one of those people whose only emotions are anger and hard-heartedness.
This is the type of case where the ruling may be legally sound (age of consent) but it is just so wrong in the sense that it leaves parents powerless to act in the best interests of their children. At 16 the girl is still a minor, and her father is still responsible for her. At the very least we need consistency in such matters. Either raise the age of consent to 18 (which opens a whole new can of worms) or release parents from responsibility for those children who, upon reaching the 'age of consent,' have chosen to ignore their parents' rules of the house (which also opens up a horrible can of worms).
You're right, but the father should be trying to control his daughter, not the boyfriend. She is still a minor and he has every right to restrict her actions. Take her phone and computer away, for instance.
Trying to charge the boyfriend with a crime when you can't control your own daughter is beyond the pale, in my opinion.
Agreed on that. I confess I'd still be tempted to offer the punk a 12-gauge vasectomy, but there's something about being the father of a daughter that makes you a bit more protective.