Why can a woman sue a man for child support in rape cases?

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

Right. And in fact, this law may be very reasonable and loved by almost everyone. I don't suspect it was written to ensure that minors who are victims of crime are required to pay the criminal money for 18 years.

I found the case(s) curious and tried to look into the legal arguments. With only a very superficial reading it seems that the following things were at play (with no singular law responsible for the results)

- the lawsuits were civil in nature and did not consider criminal culpability (which is possibly a big issue for victims, but I am not sure how these things are generally handled in civil courts)

-  as consequence the means of conception were often found to be irrelevant for the child support case

- quite a bit more concerning is that in at least on of the cases the court reasoned that there was partial consent and that the victim in fact contributed to a misdemeanor (which to my layperson's eye reads like a victim blaming excuse which is sometimes use for reduced rape sentencing). That part seems to be a systemic issue where consent and capability of consent seems to be used rather loosely in court. In some cases consent did not really factor in (see first point)

- the courts (including the Kentucky Supreme court) further weigh the importance and right of child support against the goal of deterring statutory rape and generally decided that the rights of the child outweigh the latter

- child support is for the child and paid by the non-custodial parent, which typically has asymmetric results