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
Barney, I don’t want to blame the victim. I want some reality injected into this discussion. How common is it for young teen boys to engage willingly in sex with females older than them? It is wrong to take advantage of a minor, but is it always physical rape?
Paul, probably so, however do these erections in frightened and dying men culminate in ejaculation? It takes ejaculation or seepage of seminal fluid containing live sperm to impregnate a female.
Annie – not to burst your bubble too much, but it is possible for men to have an erection and ejaculation without physical stimulation. Usually younger men.
Annie and Squeeky Fromm, you two dont knowhow a man body works so dont assume that he enjoyed it. As a man who was sexually molested from a young age (until it was discovered by my dad). You would be surprised @ how easy it is to get an erection and ejaculate. By you saying he enjoyed it you diminish the simple fact of that a crime occured. To be honest saying such things shows GREAt ignorance and victim blaming. If i remember how feminists say it “rape is rape”.
Feminists tend to only see themselves as victims, men can never be victims. I find it disturbing seeing all these needy, twisted female teachers raping boys. Maybe the teachers union needs a slush fund to buy vibrators for these loser women and leave their male students alone. On this topic, there is an interesting new documentary on HBO regarding Pamela Smart. The spin by defense attorneys is she was innocent. Bullshit, but still an interesting doc.
Kenneth, You made a very good analogy regarding an underage person not being able to sign a contract. You don’t need an attorney to verify your analysis. It was spot on. And yes, some people have a very difficult time w/ the shoe on the other foot.
For the people who can think logically and rationalize, and wish to engage others in civil exchanges of ideas:
In the law, there is a thing known as a duty to mitigate damages. (i.e. If I break your window, you can’t just decide not to do anything about the window and then hold me liable for damages to your carpet from a rain storm that took place a week later.)
How does the duty to mitigate damages come into play after a sexual encounter?
If a man and a women have sex, and the woman becomes pregnant, and the law permits an abortion; If the man (after being informed) states that he doesn’t want to become a father; his obligation under the law should be to pay for half the cost of an abortion (and maybe a doctor visit).
The alternative is to permit one of the parties to perpetually increase the damages.
Annie-Let’s change it around. An article in Popular Science from May of 2013 (I’d link it, but wordpress eats my comment when I do) entitled, “What science says about arousal during rape” cited a study that 4-5% of women achieve orgasm during rape. Would we say they weren’t really raped because they reached orgasm?
Jack, it will be my pleasure.
Annie,
It’s probably best that you skip over my comments. That way you won’t make the mistake of falsely attributing something to them again.
@Kenneth
I had to reconstruct this Irish Poem from memory:
Troll Ops???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
Though some people annoy you like midges
And help furrow your brow into ridges.
Exercise self control
And don’t call them a troll!!!
(Though they eat goats and live under bridges!)
Squeeky Fromm
Girl reporter
Jack I admit I barely read your comment. I often skip your comments entirely. 🙂
Annie,
I never stated that there are mitigating factors involving forced or invited when it comes to statutory rape. I can accept that you cannot develop an argument in opposition of what I present, but you should be able to read and comprehend what I do write instead of attributing to it something that was never stated.
Upthepress, perhaps you could enlighten us? I’m not above learning that I’m wrong about something. I would like to know from a male how common it is to culminate in an ejaculation (even if the erection can be maintained) in an encounter that was frightening and unwanted. My issue here is not really that it’s impossible physiologically, I know it is probably possible, BUT I also think that if the sexual act was not forced and actually invited by the 14 year old there ARE mitigating factors, as Jack mentioned.
Karen S
> I do not think he should be liable for child support, ever. But that, in essence punishes the child
The kid is a victim of the woman. If custody remains with her and the child needs food and medicine society’s safety net should pick up the tab, just as it does with other children and low income members who need aid.
Squeeky and Annie, you don’t know the first thing about physiology of male rape.
Kenneth, I don’t think Professor Turley approves of calling other commenters trolls. See the Climate Change thread, JT weighed in there about calling other commenters trolls.
I don’t normally post here, but I’m assuming that Annie and Squeeky are trolls, yes? I mean, you can’t seriously be that sexist, right?
Annie, In the law, there is a thing known as a duty to mitigate damages. (i.e. If I break your window, you can’t just decide not to do anything about the window and then hold me liable for damages to your carpet from a rain storm that took place a week later.)
How does the duty to mitigate damages come into play after a sexual encounter?
If a man and a women have sex, and the woman becomes pregnant, and the law permits an abortion; If the man (after being informed) states that he doesn’t want to become a father; his obligation under the law should be to pay for half the cost of an abortion (and maybe a doctor visit).
The alternative is to permit one of the parties to perpetually increase the damages.
And Jack if one is 30 years older than that 13 year old girl, one could say that that person is a pedophile too.
Speaking for myself Jack, I’m not saying it wasn’t wrong to take advantage of a 14 year old, it WAS. I do question some statuatory rape convictions though, especially in the cases of young men age 18 having sex with a willing 16 year old. I also think that the willingness of the ‘victim’ should be taken into consideration in sentencing.
Annie & Squeeky,
So, if I manage to stimulate the 13 y.o. little girl across the street…so that she gets pleasure from the encounter…that’s not rape? And that shouldn’t be against the law? Or does she have to brag about it to her friends?