Statutory rape victim owes more than $15,000 in child suppor

[doggie]

this is just crazy.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/02/s ... red-at-14/

An Arizona man owes more than $15,000 in child support payments for a daughter he fathered as a result of statutory rape.

Nick Olivas engaged in a sexual relationship with a 20-year-old woman while in high school, reported the Arizona Republic, but state law prohibits children younger than 15 to consent as an adult under any circumstances.

Olivas did not press charges at the time, saying he was unaware that was an option, and he lost touch with the woman – whom he believes took advantage of him.

The state served him with papers two years ago demanding child support for a 6-year-old daughter he fathered during the relationship.

“It was a shock,†said Olivas, who is now 24 and working as a medical assistant in Phoenix. “I was living my life and enjoying being young. To find out you have a 6-year-old? It’s unexplainable. It freaked me out.â€

He said he ignored the legal documents and never submitted to the required paternity test, but eventually authorities tracked him down.

A court determined he owed back child support and medical bills, plus 10 percent interest.

The state seized money from his bank account and now garnishes about $380 from his wages each month.

Olivas said he wants to be part of his daughter’s life and pay child support going forward, but he doesn’t think it’s fair to make him pay for years when he was unaware the girl existed.

“Anything I do as an adult, I should be responsible for, but as a teenager? I don’t think so,†he said.

Courts have consistently found that states may order statutory rape victims to pay child support in similar – but rare – cases.

The Kansas Supreme Court ruled in 1993 that a 13-year-old boy who had impregnated his 17-year-old babysitter was liable for child support – although state law prohibits children younger than 15 from consenting to sex.

“The Kansas court determined that the rape was irrelevant and that the child support was not owed to the rapist but rather to the child,†said Mel Feit, director of the New York-based advocacy group the National Center for Men.

A California court ruled several years later that a 15-year-old boy must pay support for a child conceived with a 34-year-old neighbor who was convicted of statutory rape in the case.

State social-services agencies pursued each of those cases after the mother sought public assistance.

[DGayle]

If a girl is raped, the biological father can usually get visitation. If a boy, even a minor, is raped, he's on the hook for support to his rapist. What is it going to take for our laws to stop helping rapists continue to hurt their victims?

In my very judgmental opinion, the rapist in this case should immediately lose custody. She admitted to raping a kid. If she was a man who admitted that, his ass would be heading to jail, not to the bank with a large payday.

[browncoatslytherin]

If a girl is raped, the biological father can usually get visitation. If a boy, even a minor, is raped, he's on the hook for support to his rapist. What is it going to take for our laws to stop helping rapists continue to hurt their victims?

In my very judgmental opinion, the rapist in this case should immediately lose custody. She admitted to raping a kid. If she was a man who admitted that, his ass would be heading to jail, not to the bank with a large payday.

qft.

i don't dispute that the child should be provided for, what i think is idiotic is that the rapist will benefit from it, basically benefitting from a crime. sure, the money is for the child, but who does the money go to? the mother. there is no guarantee that said funds will be used to benefit the child. this is actually a failing of child support in general that i wish could get addressed and improved upon, because once the money goes into the hands of the parent receiving it, there's no real guarantee as to its use.

[alba]

qft.

i don't dispute that the child should be provided for, what i think is idiotic is that the rapist will benefit from it, basically benefitting from a crime. sure, the money is for the child, but who does the money go to? the mother. there is no guarantee that said funds will be used to benefit the child. this is actually a failing of child support in general that i wish could get addressed and improved upon, because once the money goes into the hands of the parent receiving it, there's no real guarantee as to its use.

And even acknowledging the child must be provided for, I think there's a flaw in the system when that money has to come from the VICTIM. Yes, the child is innocent in all of this and deserves to be cared for, but not by a rapist and with the money from the rapist's victim.

[browncoatslytherin]

And even acknowledging the child must be provided for, I think there's a flaw in the system when that money has to come from the VICTIM. Yes, the child is innocent in all of this and deserves to be cared for, but not by a rapist and with the money from the rapist's victim.

apparently, per the article, this has happened before...statutory rape victims being forced to pony up child support. ridiculous. i feel sorry for the guy in this case, and i especially feel sorry for a child. who knows what the rapist has been telling the child this whole time regarding the father.

[2xx1xy1JD]

qft.

i don't dispute that the child should be provided for, what i think is idiotic is that the rapist will benefit from it, basically benefitting from a crime. sure, the money is for the child, but who does the money go to? the mother. there is no guarantee that said funds will be used to benefit the child. this is actually a failing of child support in general that i wish could get addressed and improved upon, because once the money goes into the hands of the parent receiving it, there's no real guarantee as to its use.

This complaint is a pet peeve of mine.

The total cost of raising a child is going to be a lot higher than the child support, unless the paying parent is really wealthy.

Now, if a parent was truly just in it for the money, and was grossly neglecting the child, there is an option. It's called filing for custody yourself, if you can honestly prove that it would be in the child's best interests. Beware that judges will be pissed off if they think that your claim is only based on wanting to get out of child support.

Best interests of the child sounds obvious and warm and fuzzy - but it really does mean that fairness or bad conduct unrelated to parenting doesn't count. This little girl has spent 6 years living and bonding with her mother. There's no evidence that her mother's conduct means that she would pose a threat of sexual abuse toward her daughter.

[Odd1Out]

Wait, if I'm reading correctly he's now 24 and the child is 6. He would have been 18 at the time, right?

[Odd1Out]

Wait, if I'm reading correctly he's now 24 and the child is 6. He would have been 18 at the time, right?

Well I guess maybe 17 at conception so still a minor.

[utter solitude]

Sounds like he consented to the relationship. I really take issue with statutory rape laws in general, and child support laws in general... all of it needs massive improvements....

[DGayle]

Well I guess maybe 17 at conception so still a minor.

He's 24 now, and found out two years ago, when he was 22, that he has a daughter who was 6, putting her at 8 years old now. She was born when he was 16.

[nelliebelle1197]

If a girl is raped, the biological father can usually get visitation. If a boy, even a minor, is raped, he's on the hook for support to his rapist. What is it going to take for our laws to stop helping rapists continue to hurt their victims?

In my very judgmental opinion, the rapist in this case should immediately lose custody. She admitted to raping a kid. If she was a man who admitted that, his ass would be heading to jail, not to the bank with a large payday.

I am temporarily changing the name of the Bitch Corner to the Judgement Corner and sitting there with you, DGayle.

[doggie]

he was 14 boy I doubt he was thinking with the most important part of his mind. a 20 year old women offers her body few would want to say no.

[Odd1Out]

He's 24 now, and found out two years ago, when he was 22, that he has a daughter who was 6, putting her at 8 years old now. She was born when he was 16.

Ah, okay. I didn't thoroughly enough. Thanks :)

[KnittingOwl]

Sounds like he consented to the relationship. I really take issue with statutory rape laws in general, and child support laws in general... all of it needs massive improvements....

Legally, he can't consent. He was 14 at the time of their "relationship" with a woman 6 years older. Sure, maybe a 14-year old boy isn't going to turn down sex with an older woman, but the onus is on the older woman to NOT do that to them. Same as pedophiles going after younger children.

[utter solitude]

Legally, he can't consent. He was 14 at the time of their "relationship" with a woman 6 years older. Sure, maybe a 14-year old boy isn't going to turn down sex with an older woman, but the onus is on the older woman to NOT do that to them. Same as pedophiles going after younger children.

I think you've misunderstood me. I was making a comment on the wider issue (at least imo) of child support and statutory rape laws. I wasn't saying or trying to imply that a 20 year old woman should be having sex with a 14 year old. (I hadn't even looked into the case completely at that time)

[2xx1xy1JD]

I think you've misunderstood me. I was making a comment on the wider issue (at least imo) of child support and statutory rape laws. I wasn't saying or trying to imply that a 20 year old woman should be having sex with a 14 year old. (I hadn't even looked into the case completely at that time)

What would you change?

Each state has its own laws, and they can be quite different from each other.

Re statutory rape: In Canada, the age of consent was only raised from 14 to 16 in 2008, so I had quite a bit of experience seeing the practical effects of a lower consent age. There were files of mine where kids were clearly being exploited and we had no power to do anything about it. I'm not really concerned with the close-in-age cases, but when you have a man in his 30s talking about his 14 yr old girlfriend - who had run away from foster care and turned tricks and was clearly vulnerable - we had to deal with the fact that it was perfectly legal at the time.

[utter solitude]

What would you change?

Each state has its own laws, and they can be quite different from each other.

Re statutory rape: In Canada, the age of consent was only raised from 14 to 16 in 2008, so I had quite a bit of experience seeing the practical effects of a lower consent age. There were files of mine where kids were clearly being exploited and we had no power to do anything about it. I'm not really concerned with the close-in-age cases, but when you have a man in his 30s talking about his 14 yr old girlfriend - who had run away from foster care and turned tricks and was clearly vulnerable - we had to deal with the fact that it was perfectly legal at the time.

You've just very well exemplified one of the two major issues I see with statutory rape laws: In some cases/states, it can be perfectly legal to exploit a young person. The other side, of course, is that parents can bring charges against young people for having consensual (by "consensual" I mean "S/he loves me and wanted to" type situation) sex with their child. Fact is, in some states, I could be 18 and my boyfriend a month shy of being 17 and legally, there could be charges brought against me.

These two situations, exploiting a young person and bringing charges to mutually consensual relationships, should not happen. Of course, the law is the law, and we are bound to follow, but the laws in some places are simply unfair and unduly harsh. If I'm in a state with an age of consent of 18, and I'm 22 and a man and in the club and a 16 year old has snuck in with a fake ID and tells me she's 18, and I have sex with her, she can bring charges on me and I may have no defense. She lied to me, but it's somehow on me to know she lied. That is unfair, just as it is unfair for a 30 year old man or a 20 year old woman to take advantage of a naive 14/15 year old.

Of course, the laws are the laws, and as they are they're very enforceable: "She was 16, you're 19, age of consent is 17 so you're going to jail and have to register as a sex offender" and I wouldn't know where to begin to fix the kinds of things I see as wrong. I guess a good start is better scaling of punishments in situations. Too often, that 19 year old with the 16 year old girlfriend has to become a registered sex offender. I find that outrageous, and needs to be changed.

[browncoatslytherin]

i actually had that happen to one of my friends, utter. he was 18 and his girlfriend was 16. her parents didn't like him so they pressed charges. he got thrown in jail and had to register as a sex offender. he's not a predator, he's not a pedophile, he just had sex with his girlfriend. and because the girlfriend's parents didn't like him, they ruined the rest of his life.

[utter solitude]

i actually had that happen to one of my friends, utter. he was 18 and his girlfriend was 16. her parents didn't like him so they pressed charges. he got thrown in jail and had to register as a sex offender. he's not a predator, he's not a pedophile, he just had sex with his girlfriend. and because the girlfriend's parents didn't like him, they ruined the rest of his life.

I am so sorry to hear that about your friend.

This is the kind of shit we need to be trying to prevent. The punishments are uniformly harsh, do not look at context, and have lifelong stigmas.

I also take issue with the "rape" in "statutory rape". We need a different term. Rape is a violent act, an act perpetrated against your will. If I'm 16 and I have sex with my 19 year old bf because I love him and want to have sex with him, that does not make him a rapist. The idea makes me twitch. He should not have to register as a sex offender, the same registry that holds violent rapists and pedophiles. It's ridiculous.

Related to this that just popped into my head: the same punishments can come from sending nude images, even of yourself.

Example: In my state, the age of consent is 16. However, I could be 17 with a 18 year old boyfriend and send him a nude photo of myself. We can BOTH go to jail, be fined, and need to register as sex offenders. For a photo of MYSELF. Just having it on my phone could be enough to charge me, even though I can consent to have sex. It's insane.

[browncoatslytherin]

i've also found it confusing that age of consent is different than the age of adulthood and that can also affect cases. so, even if, say, a 17 year old consents to have sex with a 19 year old...even though the 17 year old can legally consent, they are not of age, and the 19 year old can still get in trouble because they are of age. it's confusing and weird.

i actually volunteered for a period of time with pervertedjustice (the people who did the stings with chris hansen). they only focused on actual predators - not close age horny teens - but i remember there being a lot of rules to follow (although, note that i never volunteered for the chats, i only designed profiles for the a chatter to use). we had a forum we used and it was interesting to see all the diverse laws and idiosyncrasies of different states.

[utter solitude]

In my state, and others, even if a relationship doesn't violate age of consent law, parents/guardians can bring other charges. Like "interference with custody" or "contributing to the

unruliness or delinquency of a child". There's a trend of this happening. I myself was threatened with this when the parents of my 17 year old fiance (who never liked me) decided I was to blame for everything going wrong in his/their lives.

There's too many exploitable holes in the system in this regard.

[browncoatslytherin]

agreed. and, unfortunately, young lives are completely ruined because of it. :/

[DGayle]

This complaint is a pet peeve of mine.

The total cost of raising a child is going to be a lot higher than the child support, unless the paying parent is really wealthy.

Now, if a parent was truly just in it for the money, and was grossly neglecting the child, there is an option. It's called filing for custody yourself, if you can honestly prove that it would be in the child's best interests. Beware that judges will be pissed off if they think that your claim is only based on wanting to get out of child support.

Best interests of the child sounds obvious and warm and fuzzy - but it really does mean that fairness or bad conduct unrelated to parenting doesn't count. This little girl has spent 6 years living and bonding with her mother. There's no evidence that her mother's conduct means that she would pose a threat of sexual abuse toward her daughter.

The cost of raising a kid SHOULD be more than the child support. The custodial parent needs to be on the hook for some of the costs too. A lot of times people think that child support should cover 100%, or it's not enough.

A friend's ex lives in a house owned by her parents. Her parents provide all childcare, and since she doesn't work, she gets food stamps. The child support she gets doesn't go to the child.

I'd say my own kids add maybe $500 a month in expenses over my husband and I if we were living without kids. The kids want for nothing. If my husband and I split and I got majority custody at 51%, I'd get $1200 according to the dissomaster used to determine support. It's very easy for child support to exceed 100% of the cost of raising a kid. Since half the cost of that $500 should be mine, that's a net gain of $950 over my own obligation, even though they'd be with their dad a good chunk of the month.

[DGayle]

If I'm in a state with an age of consent of 18, and I'm 22 and a man and in the club and a 16 year old has snuck in with a fake ID and tells me she's 18, and I have sex with her, she can bring charges on me and I may have no defense. She lied to me, but it's somehow on me to know she lied.

This happened in real life to a friend of mine from high school. He had no reason to think a 16-year-old, in a state where the age of consent was 18 at the time, would be in a 21+ night club. Even though she did use a fake ID to get in, the club was off the hook because they didn't know it was a fake, but he was on the hook for statutory rape charges because he somehow should have known. Happy 21st to him.

[utter solitude]

This happened in real life to a friend of mine from high school. He had no reason to think a 16-year-old, in a state where the age of consent was 18 at the time, would be in a 21+ night club. Even though she did use a fake ID to get in, the club was off the hook because they didn't know it was a fake, but he was on the hook for statutory rape charges because he somehow should have known. Happy 21st to him.

Gah, that is awful! Poor guy!

The way these cases are done needs to be looked at, sincerely. Young people shouldn't be punished in ways that will stay with them forever and stigmatize them, nor should someone be punished for things they have no control over.