Nobody here is a twat for advising against helping out a statutory rapist who impregnated a child. That is absolutely absurd. Helping out the poor girl is quite nice, but letting her back into bed with the man who knocked her up is dubious help.

Actually 20 we don't know if he is a statutory rapist. Under age means simply under 18, but in some states (guessing this is the usa, forgot to check) the age of consent is 16. So she could be underage and their sex life could be very legal.

No. Underage means underage is in they are under the legal age to consent, be it drinking, sex, or buying ****. Underage doesn't mean under the age of 18 (unless of course that is the set age). That's the actual definition of the word and legal definition. Now in laymen terms one could say someone is underage if they assume the legal age is 18 because that's usually the set age. But we don't know that about OP and I would be more inclined to believe that when she says underage she is talking about the legal definition of it aka she is under the age of legal consent.

Oh and one other thing 26. OP says they are from Wisconsin where the age of legal consent is 18 not 16.

26: The post says this is in Wisconsin. The age of consent there is 18, so even if underage means under 18 like you claim, the dude's still a rapist. edit: oh wow how I see the post above me says this, I swear that wasn't there when I typed out mine.

We don't actually know the age of the husband, they could quite easily have got married young and he's only 19 himself. Statutory rape is all very well, but in some cases it is not clear cut. I'm not saying the ex is right, but I think by showing compassion, OP is

She's not a fantastic person she's a doormat. And for her sons sake she needs to kick them out asap. If the underage girls mom calls the cops then both the ex and OP can get arrested. Because knowingly letting a minor and her ex sleep together can be seen as accessory to rape. So I don't think that the son needs both parents in jail.

Plus couldn't OP get in trouble for letting them stay together?

This, this, this and this. He deserves everything he gets. And the fact he invited her round (how else would she knows where op lives.) shows how little he gives a crap about you AND his son.

I can see why he cheated on you op ydi

Not necessarily, it depends how old they both are. If he's 21 and she's 17 then it's legal. Same with 20 &16, 19&15

It's possible that she doesn't want to take her sons father away from him

#54 This is Wisconsin, age of consent is 18, and the way you stated is not the way legal consent works in any place in the USA, much less in this state. Since consent is 18, that means NO ONE 18+ can have relations with someone below 18. Unless with parental consent from the younger's parents. It doesn't even matter if it's 18 and 17. On a legal level that is still having sex with a minor and against the law (I'm not saying I agree, I'm just saying that's the way it works). So, with consent at 18, a 21yr old with a 17yr old, definitely not ok under the law, same with 20 & 16 and 19 &15. OP said this girl was underage, what I take that to mean is she is probably a teen under 18yrs. I'm guessing the husband is over 18, so what he is doing is statutory rape for having a relationship with this girl as she cannot consent being a minor. Also, given that the girl's parents kicked her out, I doubt they have given consent to this relationship.

He may not necessarily be breaking the law. If the sexual act happened in Wisconsin, where the FML was written, it's probably illegal (though only a misdemeanor if she's 16 or 17). They could have done it in another state where the age of consent is <16, or had a clause in the law that allows for two people of similar age to have sex, even if one is below the age of consent (some states allow for up to a 4 year age difference, which could be applicable in this scenario if she's 17 and he's no older than 21). In any case, if the girl's unwilling to testify against him, there's not much that can be done in the way of prosecution. If the victim of a crime says that the crime never happened, that's enough for any jury to have reasonable doubt (which equals a not guilty verdict)

There aren't any states with an age of consent lower than 16. There also are laws what protect couples that got together before they wore both 18. Unlike some say, if the relationship started as two 17 year olds or something and one turns 18, it's still perfectly legal in most, if not all states.

Well, there are states where the age of consent is lower than 16 if both parties are close to the same age. My state allows for people as young as 12 to legally have sex if the other person is within 2 years of them. Google told me that Wisconsin has pretty puritanical consent laws, where even an 18 year old with a 17 year old is illegal. Technically, two people aged 16 or 17 can both be prosecuted as having sexual contact with someone who's 16 or 17 is a misdemeanor, though I doubt that technicality is regularly enforced. But I guess the point is probably moot as based on the OP, I highly doubt the girl would testify against the dumbass.

This says Wisconsin, I'm just going to assume it took place there. Wisconsin does not allow for the 4 year age difference, age of consent is 18, that's it. Even an 18 yr old with a 17yr old can still get charged and face jail time and fines. I keep seeing "but it's only a misdemeanor," this is only if the kid is 16-17. If the child is younger 12, 13, 14, 15, it's a class B or C felony and can be a up to a 40-60yr sentence along with up to $100,000 fine. A misdemeanor might not be as serious as a felony, but keep in mind that it can still carry up to a 9 month jail sentence with a combination of up to a $10,000 dollar fine. Also, you still get a permanent record that labels you a sex offender. Also, he got this girl pregnant. At that point it doesn't matter if she doesn't want to cooperate, the baby is proof enough to bring charges. Along with the fact that the girl's parents knew about it and didn't seem happy about the situation either, and the OP did as well. You can subpoena all these people to testify if they don't want to cooperate, and you probably wouldn't even have to, because a DNA test on the baby would be enough to prove he committed the crime.

It's 2 years difference and only in some states. Once both parties are over the age of 18 the law doesn't care, but until then it is a two year difference and the clause is called the Romeo and Juliet clause

@#87 in Texas there is a "Romeo and Juliet law" that allows a 4 year age difference in relationships involving minors. #EducateYourself

Oh shut the **** up. No one deserves to be cheated on.

#139, that's in Texas, not Wisconsin, which doesn't have that law. Also, Romeo and Juliet Law, ONLY applies if you have a relationship BEFORE the older person turned 18, not after. Hence being called Romeo and Juliet. It means the relationship needs to have started when both people were underage minors, and the only thing that changed is the older person turned 18. Ex) a 15 and 17yr old have been dating for a year, the 17yr old turns 18 and the relationship continues, this falls under Romeo and Juliet. However, a 20yr old starts dating a 16yr old, not ok and isn't Romeo and Juliet. #EducateYourself

It depends, in some places the age of consent could be 16 or 17, but you are still under the age of majority until 18. Still sketchy as **** either way, even if it's not illegal there. Why you let these people even in your home, much less your bed is beyond me!