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
Karen, you can disagree with me ’till the cows come home, but you cannot misrepresent what said without me correcting you.
Nick – wise words. When will I learn? I keep thinking people are here to discuss pertinent issues. Silly me. . . A sense of humor comes in handy on the blog. 🙂
The government plays God or Mother Nature with statutory limits like 18. I haven’t seen that ellusive God lately so lets just say they are in violation of Mother Nature who turns boys into men and girls into women between 9 and 13. Interestingly, the Catholics have an Age of Reason set at 7. A lot of discrepancies here.
Annie:
“I’ll bet if some Republican guy said any of these comments about a girl victim, Annie would be very upset.
What I find fault with is the double standard.
***********************
Here ya go Karen, you don’t think you weren’t being insulting? It was insulting and it misrepresents how I feel. It’s YOUR OWN take of my political philosophy.”
Ummmmm, no, Annie, that is neither name calling nor insulting.
I specifically have a problem with the double standard of your comments as follows:
1) You make comments about boy victims (they were not kicking and screaming, etc) that I believe you would find abhorrent if you heard them spoken about girl victims. That is a double standard.
2) You blame the victim if he “enjoyed it”
3) Based on your earlier posts, I stated that I believe that you would have a problem if a Republican made similar statements about a female victim, and yet you made those same statements about a 14 year old boy victim of statutory rape.
This is not “intellectual dishonesty” or name calling. My specific problem is the double standard applied based on the gender of the victim, and the whole “one way for thee, another for me” mentality.
Would you care to address my issue with the double standard, or do you still find it unfair that I disagree with you?
Squeeky …. you are quite welcome.
@Aridog
You noted: “In the article even a Judge cited this phenomena: “… the boy was not entirely innocent in the matter despite the lack of legal consent .” I guess instead of the “unclean hands” doctrine, we now have an “Young man, you have come before the court with an unclean weenie” doctrine.
Plus, I am glad that it was you who mentioned the similarity between males, and the rear ends of horses! I have to admit that I have also noticed that phenomenon, but was hesitant to say it. Thanks!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I find it entertaining that none of the remarks so far on this thread have mentioned the similarity of this distinction, vis a vis when it is “rape rape”, somehow mitigated by potential male pleasure being raped when it is statutory under the law. “Statutory rape” is legislated for a reason. In the article even a Judge cited this phenomena: “… the boy was not entirely innocent in the matter despite the lack of legal consent .” Anybody ever hear of Rep Todd Akin? He lost his seat over a comment about “legitimate rape” and some physiological nonsense about the female sex system. This case makes the same silly assumptions about male sexuality. Young Nick should have responded to his initial legal notifications, and that is half of what caused his trouble. From what I read, he does want to be part of the child’s life. I gather (guessing) from that he’d be willing to pay child support in the future, based upon the date his rapist reported the event. I’d agree that his wanting to do so would be honorable. How can he, a “statutory victim” unaware of the pregnancy et al, be held liable for retroactive penalty on the grounds that he might have derived some pleasure from the tryst? Is it not “legitimate rape” or “rape rape” if the underage victim is a male?
Next, I am amused by the “debate” over how a male, especially a 14 year old one, derives pleasure from an erection and ejaculation. Without any credentials other than living my life I can saw unequivocally that a young male can be masturbated to ejaculation and the sensation therein without any sexual; consent or intent…it is a physical reaction, not a mental one. I’ve collected semen from enough horses off to know that all that snorting and huffing wasn’t intellectual but physiological.
Karen, You can prevent agita by simply putting together a “do not read/respond” list. Just sayn’!!
One is old enough to pork when one can pork. For a 14 year old to have to wait until 14 is a shame. When I was a human in my last life I got a job cleaning a cathouse in East Saint Louis, Illinois. I was 14. The very first evening I did a four hour shift or so and expected to get my Twelve Dollars ( @$1.50 an hour). But then three of the girls said I could take it out in trade with them. Well, I did not know what they meant but I soon learned. So I went home broke but satisfied and tickled too. By the time I got my drivers license they raised the hour rate and I could get home before the crack of dawn and not rely on a ride from a co worker. But my dad made me quit when he found out the job duties. To think that anyone would call that conduct statutory rape is ridiculous. My nickname at school was Lucky Dog. I was a human back then. My Senior Year one of the workers showed up on opening day at school and I saw her and yakked with her as she got out of her car. She had graduated from S.I.U. and was now a Home Economics teacher. “Don’t you tell a soul where we met!” “I wont”, I replied. “Here, let me carry your books.” I was teachers pet. I will fill you all in on that one in the next round. Her name was Sue’s Sweet Secret. That was because we named a “ringer” horse entry at Fairmont Racetrack after her and of course the horse one. He name went from Sweet Sue to Sue’s Sweet Secret. I never told her secrets and she never told mine. I fixed her car when it broke down and she offered to pay me cash but we decided to take it out in trade. She was about 24 and I was 17 by then.
I’m done discussing anything with you Karen until you decide that it’s wrong to get so personal. And yes you are being personally insulting.
on 1, September 4, 2014 at 4:50 pmKaren S
I’ll bet if some Republican guy said any of these comments about a girl victim, Annie would be very upset.
What I find fault with is the double standard.
***********************
Here ya go Karen, you don’t think you weren’t being insulting? It was insulting and it misrepresents how I feel. It’s YOUR OWN take of my political philosophy.
No I did not gloss over your saying that she was wrong to do it. I specifically said, “You did say that she was wrong to do it, but you stated many times that he was a willing participant who enjoyed the act, and “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 consequences.”
Again, you have made a false accusation.
What is intellectually dishonest, my saying that I disagree with your comments, and why, including linking published articles, or your refusing to discuss the issues and getting personal, yet again?
Annie:
“Karen you don’t get to throw out insults without the expectation that they may come back to you like a boomerang.”
Please provide evidence where I have simply insulted you. Saying you are wrong, or I was horrified by your statements, is not name-calling.
If you are still unwilling or unable to discuss the pertinent issues, and merely want to pointlessly quarrel, then I have zero interest in continuing this discussion with you specifically.
Female predators are a very real problem, as I witnessed first hand. This is a discussion that society needs to have. And family law needs to catch up.
Here is a little more info on the case, although they still haven’t said if there was any relationship of authority between them, such as teacher/student:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/09/02/arizona-statutory-rape-victim-forced-pay-child-support/14951737/
My favorite quote is, “The idea that a woman would have to send money to a man who raped her is absolutely off-the-charts ridiculous,” he said. “It wouldn’t be tolerated, and it shouldn’t be tolerated.”
THAT is one of the double standards.
Karen you don’t get to throw out insults without the expectation that they may come back to you like a boomerang. If you want an honest discussion we can have one, but I get to defend my statements when they are misrepresented. You get to do the same.
Karen you picked and chose the comments of mine that you could use in support of your argument, you CHOSE to ignore other pertinent comments of mine that refute what you have accused me of. That is intellectually dishonest.
Annie:
“Karen, I find that you are the epitome of a partisan commenter. I find your double standard amusing.”
Please explain where I have a double standard.
I have absolutely called out anyone, of any party, when they are wrong. That is the definition of non-partisan. You appear to be simply name calling and not addressing these very serious issues.
I specifically have a problem with the double standard applied to male victims of sexual predators. I have included 2 articles specifically detailing these issues, including the facts that male victims are not believed.
You appear to be fighting just to fight, when I am specifically addressing your statements that I believe to be grievously in error.
Annie:
I did not skip over any of your comments.
My problem is that you place some blame on the victim. I included comments that supported my concern. I quite obviously would not copy and paste every single comment you made on the blog.
I did not make anything up. I copied and pasted your relevant comments exactly. I still believe you are wrong. Many in society feel as you do, and they are wrong.
It is wrong to blame the victim, or judge him (or her) for enjoying any part of the act.
on 1, September 4, 2014 at 4:50 pmKaren S
I’ll bet if some Republican guy said any of these comments about a girl victim, Annie would be very upset.
What I find fault with is the double standard.
*************************
Karen, I find that you are the epitome of a partisan commenter. I find your double standard amusing.
Here’s another article with a sad fact, that 86% of victims of female sexual predators are not believed.
http://forge-forward.org/wp-content/docs/Female-perpetrators-and-male-victims-why-they-are-invisible_mjw.pdf