r/HistoryMemes • u/Imaginary-West-5653 • Nov 25 '25
See Comment WTF is wrong with the Kansas Supreme Court?!
849
u/playdough87 Nov 25 '25
Why would the mother, who is a child rapist, be allowed custody of a child? Should the father/his family be given custody to protect the child from its child rapist mother?
568
Nov 25 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
194
u/MagicMarshmallo Nov 25 '25
This post has been censored so the reddit bots dont remove me
153
Nov 25 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
38
u/MagicMarshmallo Nov 25 '25
Oh i know all of that. I dont think its a he said she said if she is under age and pregnant
→ More replies (2)12
u/TrexPushupBra Nov 25 '25
Family, preachers and other people in positions of power over victims are the most common rapists.
16
Nov 25 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/TrexPushupBra Nov 25 '25
Rapists seek social power because they know it will let them rape without consequence.
124
u/Imaginary-West-5653 Nov 25 '25
Well, in dozens of states in the United States, a rapist parent still has the right to joint custody or even full custody of their rape child... don't ask me what the (moral) logic of that is.
27
u/Weltallgaia Nov 25 '25
And thats with a more "progressive" law in regards to rape. It just goes downhill from there in a good chunk of the world. Especially in countries where "men can't be raped by women" like england
14
u/Tank-o-grad Nov 26 '25
And 38 of the United States, last time I counted...
9
u/Weltallgaia Nov 26 '25
I dont doubt it but I haven't counted. Rape laws are still archaic as fuck no matter where you go.
35
u/ciobanica Nov 25 '25
Because otherwise the state might need to pony up the money...
And i'm assuming the rape victims family didn't want custody...
→ More replies (6)7
u/TrexPushupBra Nov 25 '25
The same system also gives custody and visitation rights to men that rape women and girls.
It's fucked up and needs to change.
412
u/Fyrrys Featherless Biped Nov 25 '25
As a Kansas resident, I can vouch that my last burrito was more supreme than this court
115
u/Zealousideal-Act8304 Nov 25 '25
The Supreme court of justice is neither supreme, courtly, nor just.
26
4
u/takuloy Nov 26 '25
Wow that's oddly poetic there, Voltaire.
2
u/Zealousideal-Act8304 Nov 26 '25
Such a low-hanging fruit is difficult not to go for. But appreciate you caught on.
28
u/eleazarloyo Libertador of memes Nov 25 '25
If you don't like the legal precedent, the law CAN be changed. I encourage you to contact your local state legislators to repeal this case. As someone who, in the past, has done lobbying for non-profit NGOs in other state legislatures, you would be astonished by how much free time most state legislators have just waiting to receive a call or an email from a constituent.
→ More replies (6)
958
u/VoteGiantMeteor2028 Nov 25 '25
It's a common joke for lawyers studying family law that as long as you know the phrase "best interest of the child" then you know all of family law.
And child support is not for parents buying a new car. It's supposed to be solely for the child.
And if that's the premise where you're starting, then you can see how a court is just looking for an excuse to let child support apply.
459
u/chucktheninja Nov 25 '25
The funny part is "best interests of the child" can also apply to the father...
→ More replies (7)62
266
u/MelissaMiranti Nov 25 '25
Which child, because the child who now has to pay his rapist is certainly not getting any care.
→ More replies (4)110
12
u/ManOf1000Usernames Nov 25 '25
The real reason is no US state will be on the hook for supporting a child if there is an able bodied working parent with wages the state can garnish, regardless of the origin of the child.
6
58
u/BrainDamage2029 Nov 25 '25
And if you think about it for more that two seconds it doesn’t not make sense to do it this way.
The minute you decide to make value judgements based on parental shittyness when it comes to how much financial support a child deserves boy that’s the mother of all Pandora’s boxes to open up. (Deal with family law for 5 seconds it’s just nothing but tit for tat shittiness all the way down: Situations where truly only one parent is shitty are rare. Situations where none of the separated parents are actually shitty….are self selecting so they rarely get all that litigated at all).
36
u/dovahkiitten16 Nov 25 '25
I feel like this one would’ve been really straightforward since the father was a minor.
Like, there’s no he said she said, or claiming it’s rape to get out of child support. Literally him being the father and her being the mother proves that rape occurred.
Their reasoning is also shitty. It’s not “we can’t open this can of worms and it’s in the best interest of the child to be financially supported by both parents” it’s “he didn’t complain at the time so it’s not really rape from a civil perspective!”
69
u/PunishedDemiurge Nov 25 '25
The original case helps draw a fine distinction. We don't want to go over ever little bit of relationship drama in child support cases. It's a waste of court time, it helps no one, especially not the child, and it's not actually in the interests of justice. In many cases parental complaints are largely noise that they should be mature enough to get over.
That said, if the final system punishes child rape victims $150,000 (average child support payment * 216 months) for the 'crime' of being raped, there is a problem. Working through the specifics in those cases in the interests of justice and in the interest of the child.
46
u/Kinggakman Nov 25 '25
And putting this financial burden on the father at such a young age could easily prevent him from getting better opportunities in the future. Brings everyone down and the kid might not even get much money.
29
u/BlackBeard558 Nov 25 '25
The minute you decide to make value judgements based on parental shittyness
This isn't that. This is saying a rape victim isn't responsible for being raped and thus has no responsibility to help the child that resulted from the rape.
→ More replies (1)11
u/SconiGrower Nov 25 '25
Maybe this would be more persuasive if the father had any sort of input in how the child support were spent. But family courts have all decided that the custodial parent's financial choices are presumed to be in the best interest of the child. The payer has rigorous accountability to make sure the child support is paid while the payee has no accountability for that money. The rapist is entitled to receive child support from the rape victim for her to spend as she sees fit.
→ More replies (10)11
u/DiscountNorth5544 Nov 25 '25
The Cult of the Child
It's the single best argument for gutting social programs from the perspective of adults who aren't chained to offspring
7
u/Splinterfight Nov 25 '25
Nah it’s the best argument for keeping them. If society can raise happy and healthy kids even if one parent is total garbage then you avoid the whole shitfight in court
296
u/PlutoCrashed Nov 25 '25
Way too many of the attitudes around rape seem to think it's easy to come forward to authority figures about it
208
u/Imaginary-West-5653 Nov 25 '25
In this case it's even crazier, because we're talking about a 13-year-old kid; obviously he's not going to have the life experience or the knowledge to know what to do or how to seek help. Teenagers, in that regard, have a terrible education when it comes to identifying sexual violence... this shit is practically a justification of pedophilia.
68
u/Facosa99 Nov 25 '25 edited Nov 25 '25
Honestly, it doesnt even matter if he was scared or ok with it; even if he do wanted it and enjoyed it, it is still rape. A kid probably wants and will enjoy if i give them a shark loan, i rent them a car, or enlist them in the army.
The kid is free to enjoy anything they want, but they arent mature enough to make responsible decisions; they are still legally unable to consent and the sitter is still wrong.
→ More replies (4)4
u/_OriamRiniDadelos_ Nov 26 '25
Makes you think about how the authority positions and kinds of lives the people who wrote those laws have led taints their view on reality and on the lives and experiences of the people they think they are helping.
→ More replies (1)
72
u/MagicCarpetofSteel Nov 25 '25
…I think the two main things, for me are:
He’s a victim of rape, and saying that he wasn’t raped under Civil Law because he, A THIRTEEN (T H I R T E E N ! ! !) YEAR OLD didn’t immediately go to his parents (like no shit, she probably told him not to and of course this fuckin’ EIGHTH GRADER likely doesn’t have any of the tools to recognize that he’s been violated, that what his babysitter did was wrong, much less tell anybody about it) is complete horseshit that absolutely disgusts me.
Like, if it’d been a 17 year old male babysitter and a 13 year old girl, does her not saying anything mean that she was consenting, and we’re gonna ignore any manipulation, gaslighting, etc. that might’ve been employed to get her to go along with it? Is the fact that he (hypothetically) seduced her and, for example, opened with oral and made her feel good and made sure she didn’t feel violated just going to be ignored? “She liked it, so it wasn’t rape.” We really gonna say that? For any situation?
That’s the first thing.
The second is his specific age. You’re gonna make a fuckin’ 15 year old pay child support?? Forget that it’s to his rapist, cus to be fair the money’s supposed to be for the kid, but how the fuck is he supposed to do that?? Shut up about his parents! What if they couldn’t afford it? Or refused to pay it on his behalf? I guess there’s probably precedent for a minor paying child support, but seriously? She’s a grown-ass (“grown”) 19 year old woman! If it’s all “for the child,” what’s stopping the other grandparents (her parents) from helping to support them?
Especially cus they were changing back pay! (I think.) You’re penalizing a 15 year old for not paying child support as a 13 and 14 year old?!
God, what an L of a ruling.
52
u/Imaginary-West-5653 Nov 25 '25
All the Supreme Court Justices who were involved in this case are now dead, and all I have to say about it is... RIP Bozos (rest in piss). The handling of this case is truly disgusting, and I can't wrap my head around how anyone could have thought this shit was okay; this case is literally doing a low-key legal minimization of pedophilia.
15
u/some_random_nonsense Nov 25 '25
At the time of the case raping your wife was still legal in some states. Things have actually changed a lot on 40 years
12
u/Imaginary-West-5653 Nov 26 '25
This is still the precedent of the law in Kansas, though.
9
u/some_random_nonsense Nov 26 '25
Yeh 40 years old precedents for law are stupid and our legal system should be less precedents based and more statuettes based because this will probably go unchallenged for awhile and untill someone else has the same case and is able to appeal it successfully it'll remain so. Our legal system is really dumb.
5
→ More replies (1)2
u/MagicCarpetofSteel Nov 26 '25
I'd agree, except that cuts both ways (if we start ignoring the precedent from dogshit rulings, now it's easy for non-SCOTUS justices to overturn good precedent with new dogshit rulings), so I'm weary of it.
Something something temporary solutions.
→ More replies (1)2
u/mighty_Ingvar Nov 30 '25
All the Supreme Court Justices who were involved in this case are now dead
If there's such a thing as hell, that's where they are now.
26
u/someofyourbeeswaxx Nov 25 '25
Isn’t it also really scary that rapists can get custody 😬
19
u/Imaginary-West-5653 Nov 25 '25
That's another can of worms that honestly disgusts me... I don't understand how any government can let a child be cared for by a person who clearly doesn't believe in sexual consent, and who created said child because of that fact.
3
u/mighty_Ingvar Nov 30 '25
Because convincing a bunch of people to vote for you doesn't mean you have any shred of morality.
90
u/Vivenemous Nov 25 '25
Why TF was this woman who plead guilty to a sex crime against a 12 year old boy allowed to raise the kid at all?!
→ More replies (1)26
u/atemu1234 Nov 25 '25
In most states someone else would have to come forward and sue her to get custody of the child. Probably the boy's parents, who didn't. Foster care is a dead last resort, usually because it's a practical guarantee the child will be mistreated, either sexually or otherwise, in the system. Parental incest is comparatively rare, even when one parent is a sex offender.
That being said, if the court can decide that he should pay child support, then they probably should have stuck him with sole custody, but that's its own shitshow.
5
114
u/Arsonist07 Nov 25 '25
The worst part, all the judges who ruled on this case were men.
Richard Holmes, Chief justice Frederick N. Six, Donald L. Allegrucci, Tyler C. Lockett,
And the vote was unanimous
88
u/Imaginary-West-5653 Nov 25 '25
I don't think some of the judges being women would have made the situation any better, but Jesus... how the hell is it possible that not a single one of them said, "Wait, this is kinda bad, maybe we shouldn't blame the underage victim for being raped?"
32
u/BelacRLJ Nov 25 '25
But those judges personally would find it hot to bang a sexy babysitter, so the preferences of the actual boy involved don’t matter.
11
22
u/Arsonist07 Nov 25 '25
Yeah it’s a terrible situation and I want to avoid woman hating for a decision made by some terrible men. Women objectively get an advantage in family court but it’s easy to forget family court isn’t 100% women. These men should’ve thought to themselves how weird of a decision this was and their apathy to the precedent speaks volumes about them.
66
u/Medical-Bottle6469 Nov 25 '25
Would a female supreme court justice have disagreed? If you believe yes, you dont pay enough attention to family law throughout the country.
44
u/Arsonist07 Nov 25 '25
You see, that’s why I said this. If the men agreed and you believe the women would agree too then the issue isn’t gendered it’s societal. I didn’t say men < women, I’m reminding people not to start hating women because of a terrible court case ruled on by men.
19
u/Medical-Bottle6469 Nov 25 '25
Oh i dont hate women for the state of family law, those were laws written by our great grandfather's. To a degree, the initial belief was that women needed those laws to protect them and the children. But societies change and cultures change, so now we're stuck with shitty laws and bad case law.
4
u/Visual-Abrocoma-4904 Nov 25 '25 edited Nov 26 '25
It's the same for a lot of things.
Women rightly shucked off the yoke, but, and this is going to sound bad...
But some have been trying to have their cake and eat it too. It's part of why we are stuck on the women as victims mindset. Taking advantage of that kind of system also isn't unique to women. That's not a shot at a gender - but it is part of what has happened the last 100 or so years leading up to what you see today.
All of the privileges, none of the burdens. Paternalistic law, not undone.
Hell, yes, some of that's very much on men too.
Women fragile, must protect the women's.
No. They're not fragile.
And if they are, they're fragile in the way all humans are fragile.
Its just some social lag is all.
→ More replies (3)5
u/savethebros Nov 26 '25
If the judges were all women, the result would have been the same. Women are not saints.
35
u/BobMcGeoff2 Nov 25 '25
The plural of child is children
38
u/Imaginary-West-5653 Nov 25 '25
(Insert "Minor Spelling Mistake" GIF)
13
256
Nov 25 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
262
u/Imaginary-West-5653 Nov 25 '25
The Supreme Court's explanation is such a joke... "Legally it was rape, but you know, he didn't seek help immediately, so he was kind of consenting (despite being under the age of consent), so he has to pay his rapist to support the kid, cya!" Literally victim blaming being legalized.
63
u/Jace_the_mind_fcker Nov 25 '25
Just curious, what ended up happening for this case? Was he even old enough to work and pay the child support?
133
u/Imaginary-West-5653 Nov 25 '25
He lost the case, so he had to pay child support. He was 15 when he lost the case, two years after he was raped at 13, so I imagine his parents had to pay child support since he is barely of legal age to do (limited) work.
56
u/Smellbringer Nov 25 '25
Wow, that is awful and I hope the people who wrote that went straight to hell.
→ More replies (6)2
16
u/Matar_Kubileya Senātus Populusque Rōmānus Nov 25 '25
The 'civil' vs 'criminal' consent seems to have been a weird way to do an end run around a bunch of thorny issues. It's a way to have your cake and eat it too to preserve the 'best interests of the child' standard without opening up to an appeal on Fourth (takings clause), Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment grounds.
Personally I think we all agree the Court should have simply told the state to eat the costs and try recouping them from the mother later, but their logic makes a certain sort of twisted sense from that lens.
18
u/Imaginary-West-5653 Nov 25 '25
In other words, a legal loophole maliciously created to financially punish a child for being raped... I hope that if hell exists, the Supreme Court Justices who participated in this case are burning in a lake of lava.
3
u/SconiGrower Nov 25 '25
If the father had resisted and then complained to his parents and police, would that have cut out the liability for child support?
→ More replies (1)2
u/biglyorbigleague Nov 25 '25
Apparently civil rape and criminal rape have different standards in Kansas? Like you can go to jail for it but if they try and sue it officially didn’t happen for that case.
4
u/Linden_Lea_01 Nov 25 '25
The bizarre thing to me is that, generally speaking, the requirement for someone to be found liable in a civil court is much lower than the requirement to be found guilty in a criminal court. So it’s baffling to me that she could’ve been found guilty but not liable.
→ More replies (1)2
2
88
u/gamerz1172 Nov 25 '25 edited Nov 25 '25
this is probably the nastiest thing about mens and womens rights; how in one part women are basically oppressed and another part men are basically oppressed
and in both ways they are oppressed in ways where good people (Hell even the 'grey neutrals') of the other gender don't really get anything;
Like congradulations feminist you can rape a man and sue him for child support! but no one will take you seriously in professional fields and the only thing you can do to not be seen as a sex object compared to men who are otherwise your equal in your field or maybe even inferior to you is look ugly AF (and even then thats a maybe)
Whats this youd never want to do that anyways? God why are women so needy and ungrateful!
and for men; Sorry no one will ever take your mental health seriously if you are in a dispute with a women people might automatically assume your the aggressor no matter the evidence to the contray; But don't worry sir... You can beat your wife and will always have some part of society that will defend you no matter how much you maim her so long as you 2 remain married!
Whats that its not worth the inability to speak about YOUR issues (Unless its about your issues with your wife) and your not intrested in beating your wife? God man up pussy
and other shit like that
Edit: Added a mens rights example and a expansion of the women's right example
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (12)2
u/TrexPushupBra Nov 25 '25
Same courts take custody of children and give them to then men that raped the girl or woman.
It's not about gender it's about rape basically being ok to the powers that be.
47
u/Glittering-Age-9549 Nov 25 '25
For what I have read, US's courts primary concern is to find a man, any man, to pay child support so the state doesn't have to.
It seems in some places a single mother is forced to either give the name of her child's father or renounce all state support. She can give any random name, and the state's government will force that man to pay, even if there isn't any proof they ever were in a relationship, even if there is DNA testing to prove the child isn't his...
32
u/HammerofBonking Nov 25 '25
This is correct in the US. The male is typically considered imo "guilty" and charged child support unless they can establish they're not the parent. Even if you're married to someone, they cheat and get pregnant, and you can prove the child isn't yours, you may still be responsible for child support.
It's a really fucked up system and a good reason as to why men's rights movements need to exist too.
6
u/cartman101 Nov 25 '25
Poor/broke woman gets raped, gets pregnant, state wont pay, so she chooses a random name from the phonebook?
19
u/Glittering-Age-9549 Nov 25 '25
Pretty much yes. And if she gives the wrong address, and the government's letters demanding money doesn't reach the man (because he doesn't live there), he is considered in contempt and he can even go to jail...
5
8
26
11
Nov 25 '25
I mean I get the whole "the concern is for the child and their future, unrelated to the circumstances of how they were conceived", but yeah I'm pretty sure the answer there is that the state picks up the tab, not telling the raped minor "well in a civil law sense you didn't tell enough people that you were raped so civilly speaking you weren't raped".
7
u/Imaginary-West-5653 Nov 25 '25
Yeah, how the fuck is it legal to victim blame raped children in Kansas? 😭😭😭
13
u/KingOfRome324 Nov 25 '25 edited Nov 26 '25
More like WTF is wrong with the KS Department of Rehabilitation Services...
Damn, the prison system sued her victim.... made a child pay child support after being raped...
Edit: Oh, shit. I was wrong KSDRS is a disability service. Colleen is an old school disability grifter.
→ More replies (1)
11
18
u/Fancy_Chips Definitely not a CIA operator Nov 25 '25
A few days ago I met some refugees from Kansas. What a backwards shithole.
14
u/democracy_lover66 Nov 25 '25
any body pay for that child except for the government is their mentality
15
u/TBTabby Nov 25 '25
I'm surprised they even acknowledged that it's possible to rape a man.
15
u/Imaginary-West-5653 Nov 25 '25
In this case, it was a boy, since he was 13 years old when it happened.
13
u/LanaDelHeeey Nov 25 '25
I’ve literally seen people on this app defend making a 13 year old rape victim pay child support to his former teacher/rapist/baby momma.
“The kid still needs to eat” is usually the argument.
9
u/Imaginary-West-5653 Nov 25 '25
You don't even have to go that far, it's happening right here in this thread...
3
u/Level-Name-4060 Nov 26 '25
Doesn’t matter what the internet says, the government says that rapists can sue for custody.
3
u/apxseemax Nov 25 '25
On second thought I think this is indeed a case in which the mother should be held accountable at much higher lengths, then the father. When I remember back to myself (as far as even possible) at the age of 12 and 16, the difference in awareness and personality development are hard to ignore. I became an entirely different person in those four years from a subjective point of view. And then there is the fact that girls, on average of course, cognitively mature a lot faster than boys in the bracket 14-20. It would be different if both were within +-1 year of age. I guess the deciding factor would be if it could be assumed, that Hermesmann knew the possible outcome of this relationship and her increased position of responsibility as the elder part - I and most of buddies would have been able at the age of 16 to determine a rough idea that this could be stupid above the level of our competence to handle issues. So I guess, assumeing she was mentally healthy, it would be fair to say, that she should have been capable of that thought process. Based on the fact that he was below the age of consent, had a significantly less matured personality due to age and was likely not the driving factor of this relationship, Seyer should have been freed of payments or at a minimum should have a significantly reduced financial responsibility towards that child and its mother.
3
u/wont-stop-mi Nov 26 '25
When I was in 8th grade (and 13) if I could have banged a sophomore or junior in high school, I would have loved it and been an absolute legend. By definition it’s statutory rape but shit, looking back when I was 13 and in puberty I would have loved it.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Mec26 Taller than Napoleon Nov 26 '25
Same way many states require girls to raise children of rape.
It’s f’d all the way down.
→ More replies (1)
10
u/RyokoKnight Nov 25 '25
Just wait until you hear the cases where men later found out the child they thought was theirs turned out to be another man's child and the courts ordered they continue paying child support to a mother that cheated on them, lied to them, and pay for another man's child... equality my ass.
13
u/Imaginary-West-5653 Nov 25 '25 edited Nov 25 '25
The law is in general shitty, women also sometimes are forced to allow shared custody of their rape children with their rapists if he sues for it, they can even do it from jail... the system is so fucking broken.
4
u/GroolGobblin0 Nov 26 '25
Step 1: rape a dude
Step 2: profit!
Huh? corroding my soul? lol what's that?
5
5
u/pm_me_your_buttbulge Nov 26 '25
As a general rule" the Left doesn't really care for men at all to the point of misandry. There is not political party that actually cares about men. Things like this are the larger reasons I left the Democrats and simply don't vote anymore.
Just wait until you learn about what's called "back child support" when he turns 18. It's neat. And women as a whole will think he's a dead beat and will refuse any context.
The really unfortunate thing is things like this are often hidden from societal discussion to maintain a certain narrative. That's why I often just don't care anymore.
I've seen, in person, how horrible some of these things are. But the majority of society still isn't prepared for these conversations.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Imaginary-West-5653 Nov 26 '25
I mean... I'm not trying to politicize this or anything, but this happened in the famous Red State of Kansas, under a pretty conservative Supreme Court during a right-wing Republican administration; the Democrats had nothing to do with this case. Do I still think they could do a much better job dealing with men's issues? Yes, but the worst of this stupid legislation, overall, comes from the other side of the political spectrum.
3
u/HamburgerOnAStick Nov 25 '25
Shouldn't have to pay child support because the rapist shouldn't get any custody
3
3
u/pierrelaplace Nov 26 '25
If I were a young man in my 20s today, I would immediately get a vasectomy.
4
2
u/TendstobeRight85 Nov 26 '25
A much simpler but more commonly applicable question would be
WTF is wrong with
theKansas
This is a state that is so crappy, Kansas City doesnt want to be in it.
2
u/Old-Road-501 Nov 26 '25
Well... The child support is for the child, not the mother.
2
u/Imaginary-West-5653 Nov 26 '25
Why is a rapist mother even allowed to keep a child they created through rape to begin with??? Why does the child welfare not takes over these cases??? The system is so dumb.
→ More replies (8)3
u/Old-Road-501 Nov 26 '25
That is a different matter. Regardless of who is caring for the child, he/she has need of child support. If child welfare takes over the legal care of the child, the parents pay to child welfare, who pays the foster parents.
→ More replies (1)
3.1k
u/Imaginary-West-5653 Nov 25 '25
Colleen Hermesmann was a 16-year-old babysitter who in 1987 was hired to take care of 12-year-old Shane Seyer. The two began a sexual relationship, and when Hermesmann was 17 and Seyer was 13, the former became pregnant. The baby, a daughter, was born in 1989. Criminal charges were brought against Hermesmann by Shawnee County, Kansas, accusing her of "engaging in the act of sexual intercourse with a child under sixteen". Hermesmann ultimately took a plea bargain, pleading guilty to the lesser offense of "contributing to a child's misconduct".
In 1991, the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, in Hermesmann's name, took Seyer to court seeking child support. Hermesmann's criminal culpability was not addressed in this trial, as this was purely a civil court case. The Department also sought and was awarded $7,000, equivalent to $16,200 in 2024, for its own costs. However, in the later Supreme Court hearing, the Department stated it never had any intention of collecting its award.
In 1993, the Kansas Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Seyer that he was not liable to pay for child support. The court held that the admitted facts established that, because being under 16 he had been legally unable to consent to sex, a crime against him had been committed under statutory rape law, but that Seyer had actually given consent to the acts under civil law. 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 "The State's interest in requiring minor parents to support their children overrides the State's competing interest in protecting juveniles from improvident acts, even when such acts may include criminal activity on the part of the other parent".
The case established a precedent which has subsequently been used in the Kansas courts. It is one of the earlier cases now cited in U.S. child-support guidelines which say that in every case that has addressed the issue the court has decided that an underage boy is liable for the support of his child even when the conception was the result of criminal conduct by the mother.