Nick Olivas was justifiably a bit surprised when he received papers for $15,000 in back child support for a six-year-old child that he never knew that he had fathered. He was even more surprised that the demand and threat of jail was triggered by a woman who had had sex with him when he was 14. That would constitute statutory rape and make the woman a rapist but he never reported the crime to the police. Now he could go to jail at the behest of the woman.
The woman was 20 when she had sex with the 14 year old boy. He could not legally consent to such relations under state law.
Olivas wants to be part of his daughter’s life and balks at the notion of back payments, including while he was a minor. He is now 24. He is a high school graduate and went to college and became a medical assistant.
When he received the original notice, he ignored it and never got the required paternity test. The state finally tracked him down and demand $15,000 in back child support and medical bills going back to the child’s birth, plus 10 percent interest. His bank account was seized and now his wages are being garnished at $380 a month.
He is not the first such case, but there are distinctions. In 1993, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that a boy who impregnated his 17 year old baby sitter was liable of child support. She could consent to sex but not him. California also ruled that child support was due from a 15-year-old who was statutorily raped by a 34-year-old woman who was convicted of the crime. California Judge Arthur Gilbert (right) said that the boy was not entirely innocent in the matter despite the lack of legal consent:
California law provides that every child has a right to support from both parents. (Fam. Code, §§ 3900, 3901 [former Civ. Code, §§ 196, 196a, 242]; County of Shasta v. Caruthers (1995) 31 Cal. App. 4th 1838, 1841 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 18].) Family Code section 3900 provides that, subject to other statutes governing support, the father and mother of a child bear “equal responsibility” to support the child.
The law should not except Nathaniel J. from this responsibility because he is not an innocent victim of Jones’s criminal acts. After discussing the matter, he and Jones decided to have sexual relations. They had sexual intercourse approximately five times over a two-week period.
Here is that opinion: San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J.
Olivas now lives in Phoenix and Arizona has no exemption for children born to children.
Source: USA Today
Damn these judges!
@Annie
Amen! And he was probably bragging about it to his friends, too.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Edward, he has a right to be alarmed at the back pay he may be liable for. He should fight that. He should be willing to help support his child from this time forward and he should be allowed liberal visitation.The woman was in the wrong for taking advantage of a 14 year old, but it did take two to tango in that female/ male rape scenario. No erection, no rape? Can a male have an erection if he is afraid and unwilling to have sex? Perhaps.
annie – there are cases on record of men having erections while being frightened. Hanged men often have erections.
And Squeeky, I bet he didn’t get raped kicking and screaming. Something enjoyable must’ve happened for an ejaculation to have occurred.
annie – that is a very sexist meme to suppose that men cannot be rape unwillingly. However, what we are probably talking about here is the inability to give informed consent to have sexual intercourse. Still rape.
@Annie-I don’t think this guy is complaining about being a father and supporting his child. He appears to be alarmed (and in my opinion, rightfully so) at being on the hook for years of child support payments when he: (1) didn’t know he had a child; and (2) was raped.
Plus, may I add, in many states, a 14 year old can be treated and tried as an adult for committing a crime. Why not treat him as an adult for making a baby??? At age 14, he knew where babies come from, and it sure ain’t no cabbage patch.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
As far as a woman deciding to keep a child and not have an abortion, she is taking on the responsibility for the child, but this shouldn’t take the sperm donor off the hook. Men do not get to go depositing their genetic material in live women and have an expectation that their act will not have long term ramifications. Biology dictates that females get pregnant and carry and give birth to a child. Therefore they alone get to decide if they will carry on with the pregnancy. If and until a male human can get pregnant it won’t be their decision to make and they will still need to help bare the financial burden for the child their sperm made. As for this guy, I don’t think he should have to pay child support for his child made when he was 14, but he should WANT to.
Annie – what I was talking about was the anonymous sperm donor from the sperm bank, not the over night depositor.
Well, I bet that Nick was very happy when he was having his fun, despite his age. Which, this “statutory rape” stuff is a theoretical mess to begin with. A 16 year old has sex with a 15 year old, and it isn’t statutory rape. But, if an 18 year old or older has sex with a 14 year old, then it is statutory rape, Depending on the state’s laws. Plus, you have to pretend that boys are NOT different from girls when it comes to sex.
The whole point of child support is to provide for the child. Poor Little Nick played, so now let him pay!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
This case is soooo ridiculous, it is NOT even funny….
Personally, I think we should revisit Statutory Rape Laws and Age of Consent …. That aside…. 14 and 20 is a bit too much of an age difference….
We have no problem as a society charging 15 year olds as adults, Yet, we REFUSE to allow them to consent to having sex….
That just seems odd to me….
IN Sweden, the Age of Consent is 15… PERIOD….
One that teen is 15 years of age, they can have sex with anybody…
and what is funny, we do NOT have 30 & 40 year old men sitting in their cars outside of High Schools waiting to prey upon 15 and 16 year olds….
we are also NOT subjecting 18 year olds to being labeled as Sex Offenders for life, over dating their High school sweetheart….
Can a lawyer here explain to me how a child who is not the age of legal consent can be held liable? Isn’t that like saying “Well, yeah, he was too young to sign that contract. But he did sign it, so he is held to the terms of the contract?” I’m sure there must be some legal explanation of this, but I don’t know it, since IAMAL.
Here’s how I look at this:
If a 14 year old girl was the victim of statutory rape by a 20 year old guy, who then got custody of her child and sued her for child support, I would be shocked and horrified.
I have heard of cases where violent rapists sued for custody of the children produced by their crime. They also wanted child support from their victim if they got custody.
I view this situation the same. I do not believe that family law has caught up with the times. I view boys as victims just the same as girls in statutory rape and violent rape.
Why, then, does she have custody of the child? Should he, or his parents, be given the chance to adopt the child? I do not think he should be liable for child support, ever. But that, in essence punishes the child. I do not have an answer yet for that one. The poor child. I feel so sorry for the kid and this young man.
I think he should press charges (hopefully there is no statute of limitations) and send her to jail, and then take custody of his child. He should be financially responsible for the child from that point onward, IF he chooses custody. Since he wants to be in his child’s life, I hope he wants custody. People used to get married at 18 years old, and go on to live completely independent, responsible lives, never going back home to live in their parents’ basement. So he can do it.
If minors can be sued for child support, wouldn’t that mean that his parents would have had to pay support to his rapist?
On another note, I think the statutory rape law needs to change, so that a 17 year old sleeping with her 18 year old boyfriend no longer falls under that charge. But 14 is way too young.
Karen – it appears he did not know about the child and CPS has been footing the bill and they do try to get the fathers to pick up their tab. I can see that part. Women are required to name the father if they know.
Now the victim knows about the child and certainly should have the option of custody.
In Arizona, if the age difference is two years or less, no statutory rape charges are applicable, if both of them are over a certain age.
I don’t see how a victim can be compelled to pay damages related to the crime of statutory rape.
JAG, Stop using common sense! This is a culture that rejects common sense and depends upon arbitrary rules and laws.
Athena, I agree. Feminists are in no way solely responsible. ALL people are responsible. I think more men need to stand up against their fellow man being sexual predators. But, Feminists have righteously taken on the issue of sexual assault and they need to be righteous in taking on female predators, a growing demographic.
OK… I am NOT so sure I would call her a CHILD rapist….
NOR is she a pedophile…..
However, that aside…..
I do think that if a woman has sex with a guy, man or what have you…..
That if she ALONE decides that she wants to keep the baby, that she has NO RIGHT to go after the guy…..
This is TERRIBLY unfair…..
The Woman has taken the SOLE DECISION to have the baby, then it should be HER responsibility…..
she also has the sole decision to have an abortion, and RIGHTFULLY so…..
So, I do NOT think it is fair to make men pay Child support for a child, they did NOT decide to bring into the world……
justagurl – I agree with you on if the woman makes the sole decision to keep the child, the expenses should be on her. Personally, I think abortion should be a mutual consent decision. Both parties have to agree. And none of this “I was raped” stuff. If the woman was raped, then she has had to report it.
It’s a public safety issue when a child rapist is not only on the loose to strike the next victim without notice, but this particular child rapist has sole custody and access to a child. My biggest concern is whether or not that child is safe?
Above and beyond the State sponsored financial misconduct that is rife in this case, I’m very sorry for what has happened to Mr. Olivas as a sex assault victim, but I have to wonder if he shares my concerns about his child? Why does the State care more about collecting child support for its’ own coffers than it does about that kids’ safety and the public safety risk that is apparent in this case?
And Nick, I don’t think feminists bear the sole responsibility of standing up against sexual assault and injustice. Rape is a crime that would happen far less frequently if EVERYONE stood up to the injustice that occurs when rapists are allowed to go free.
Child support is the right of the child and has little to do with the parents in CA. However, since he wants to be in his daughters life, he has the excellent opportunity now to pursue the statutory rape prosecution, using the mothers child support filings as her admissions against interest of guilt, send her off for a few years and enjoy some exclusive parenting time with his daughter (while she would then be liable for paying support from a percentage of her prison wages).
In the alternative, I am sure and reasonably competent attorney who was jealously and aggressively representing and prospecting the interests of his client (the father) could reach a mutually beneficial compromise – say child support from this point forward and f!u very much on that back support claim.
I think what is most worrying (besides this) is that sperm donors are now being liable for child support.
There is an obvious double standard when males are rape victims of women. Feminists SHOULD be leading the protest against this injustice.