This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Statutory rape victim forced to pay child support
PHOENIX — Nick Olivas became a father at 14, a fact he wouldn't learn for eight years.
While in high school, Olivas had sex with a 20-year-old woman. As he sees it now, she took advantage of a lonely kid going through a rough patch at home.
State law says a child younger than 15 cannot consent with an adult under any circumstance, making Olivas a rape victim. But Olivas didn't press charges and says he didn't realize at the time that it was even something to consider.
The two went their separate ways. Olivas, now 24 and living in Phoenix, graduated from high school, went to college and became a medical assistant.
Then two years ago, the state served him with papers demanding child support. That's how he found out he had a then-6-year-old daughter.
"It was a shock," he said. "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."
He said he panicked, ignored the legal documents and never got the required paternity test. The state eventually tracked him down.
Olivas said he now owes about $15,000 in back child support and medical bills going back to the child's birth, plus 10 percent interest. The state seized money from his bank account and is now garnisheeing his wages at $380 a month.
He has become one of the state's 153,000 active child-support cases, according to the Arizona Department of Economic Security division of Child Support Services.
In May alone, payments were not made in 49 percent of those cases, according to the agency.
Olivas' fear has turned to frustration.
He wants to be in his daughter's life and is willing to pay child support going forward. But he doesn't think it's right for the state to charge him for fees incurred when he was still a child himself or for the years he didn't know the girl existed.
"Anything I do as an adult, I should be responsible for," he said. "But as a teenager? I don't think so."
Situations such as Olivas' are rare, according to fathers-rights advocates. But cases in several states have garnered attention. And while there has been some public outcry over charging a crime victim with child support, the courts have consistently said states have every right to do so.
The most well-known case was of a Kansas boy who, at age 13, impregnated his 17-year-old baby-sitter. Under Kansas law, a child under the age of 15 is legally unable to consent to sex. The Kansas Supreme Court in 1993 ruled that he was liable for child support.
California issued a similar state court ruling a few years later in the case of a 15-year-old boy who had sex with a 34-year-old neighbor. In that case, the woman had been convicted of statutory rape.
In both cases, it was the state social-services agency that pursued the case after the mother sought public assistance.
"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.
In Arizona, the Department of Economic Security oversees child--support enforcement. Its written policy is not to exempt situations like Olivas' from child-support responsibilities, unless the parent seeking child support has been found guilty of sexual assault with a minor or sexual assault.
"We don't see those cases very often, and we're really glad for that," said attorney Janet Sell, chief counsel with the Attorney General's Office's Child and Family Protection Division.
But DES officials said the intent of the rule is to ensure that the child, who had no control over the situation, is cared for.
Feit said if the roles were reversed and the woman was the victim, the scenario would be unthinkable.
"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."
Feit said the basic legal premise of a rape is that the victim can't be held responsible. And with statutory rape, even if the victim participates, he or she can't be held responsible.
"We're not going to hold him responsible for the sex act, so to then turn around and say we're going to hold him responsible for the child that resulted from that act is off-the-charts ridiculous," he said. "It makes no sense."
Arizona also has no exemption for children born to children, although the state cannot get a court order for child support against the non-custodial parent until that parent becomes an adult.
It also doesn't matter to the state whether the non-custodial parent knows about the child or not. Child support is a separate legal issue from custody.
The state requires parents seeking public assistance under the state's welfare programs to first pursue child support. The child-support payments then are used to help reimburse the state for assistance payments.
"They have to comply with us," said Scott Lekan, DES child support operations administrator. "We're trying to keep them off the cash assistance, and we're trying to get back some of the cash assistance money. It benefits everybody at the end of the day."
The state has more routes than the courts to acquire money from a parent. It can garnishee wages up to 50 percent of disposable income. It can take a tax refund. It can put a lien on a home or a vehicle. It can suspend driver's licenses or revoke passports. And it can seize money out of bank accounts.
"Our biggest source of income is from income-withholding orders to employers," Lekan said.
Under Arizona's child-support formula, non-custodial parents may keep their first $903 to cover their own living expenses. A child-support payment amount is then set based on the remaining money.
Olivas is trying to fight some of the child-support costs, but says he can't afford a lawyer.
He also is trying to see his daughter.
"I lost my mom at a young age. I know what it's like to only have one parent," he said. "I can't leave her out there. She deserves a dad."
While in high school, Olivas had sex with a 20-year-old woman. As he sees it now, she took advantage of a lonely kid going through a rough patch at home.
State law says a child younger than 15 cannot consent with an adult under any circumstance, making Olivas a rape victim. But Olivas didn't press charges and says he didn't realize at the time that it was even something to consider.
The two went their separate ways. Olivas, now 24 and living in Phoenix, graduated from high school, went to college and became a medical assistant.
Then two years ago, the state served him with papers demanding child support. That's how he found out he had a then-6-year-old daughter.
"It was a shock," he said. "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."
He said he panicked, ignored the legal documents and never got the required paternity test. The state eventually tracked him down.
Olivas said he now owes about $15,000 in back child support and medical bills going back to the child's birth, plus 10 percent interest. The state seized money from his bank account and is now garnisheeing his wages at $380 a month.
He has become one of the state's 153,000 active child-support cases, according to the Arizona Department of Economic Security division of Child Support Services.
In May alone, payments were not made in 49 percent of those cases, according to the agency.
Olivas' fear has turned to frustration.
He wants to be in his daughter's life and is willing to pay child support going forward. But he doesn't think it's right for the state to charge him for fees incurred when he was still a child himself or for the years he didn't know the girl existed.
"Anything I do as an adult, I should be responsible for," he said. "But as a teenager? I don't think so."
Situations such as Olivas' are rare, according to fathers-rights advocates. But cases in several states have garnered attention. And while there has been some public outcry over charging a crime victim with child support, the courts have consistently said states have every right to do so.
The most well-known case was of a Kansas boy who, at age 13, impregnated his 17-year-old baby-sitter. Under Kansas law, a child under the age of 15 is legally unable to consent to sex. The Kansas Supreme Court in 1993 ruled that he was liable for child support.
California issued a similar state court ruling a few years later in the case of a 15-year-old boy who had sex with a 34-year-old neighbor. In that case, the woman had been convicted of statutory rape.
In both cases, it was the state social-services agency that pursued the case after the mother sought public assistance.
"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.
In Arizona, the Department of Economic Security oversees child--support enforcement. Its written policy is not to exempt situations like Olivas' from child-support responsibilities, unless the parent seeking child support has been found guilty of sexual assault with a minor or sexual assault.
"We don't see those cases very often, and we're really glad for that," said attorney Janet Sell, chief counsel with the Attorney General's Office's Child and Family Protection Division.
But DES officials said the intent of the rule is to ensure that the child, who had no control over the situation, is cared for.
Feit said if the roles were reversed and the woman was the victim, the scenario would be unthinkable.
"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."
Feit said the basic legal premise of a rape is that the victim can't be held responsible. And with statutory rape, even if the victim participates, he or she can't be held responsible.
"We're not going to hold him responsible for the sex act, so to then turn around and say we're going to hold him responsible for the child that resulted from that act is off-the-charts ridiculous," he said. "It makes no sense."
Arizona also has no exemption for children born to children, although the state cannot get a court order for child support against the non-custodial parent until that parent becomes an adult.
It also doesn't matter to the state whether the non-custodial parent knows about the child or not. Child support is a separate legal issue from custody.
The state requires parents seeking public assistance under the state's welfare programs to first pursue child support. The child-support payments then are used to help reimburse the state for assistance payments.
"They have to comply with us," said Scott Lekan, DES child support operations administrator. "We're trying to keep them off the cash assistance, and we're trying to get back some of the cash assistance money. It benefits everybody at the end of the day."
The state has more routes than the courts to acquire money from a parent. It can garnishee wages up to 50 percent of disposable income. It can take a tax refund. It can put a lien on a home or a vehicle. It can suspend driver's licenses or revoke passports. And it can seize money out of bank accounts.
"Our biggest source of income is from income-withholding orders to employers," Lekan said.
Under Arizona's child-support formula, non-custodial parents may keep their first $903 to cover their own living expenses. A child-support payment amount is then set based on the remaining money.
Olivas is trying to fight some of the child-support costs, but says he can't afford a lawyer.
He also is trying to see his daughter.
"I lost my mom at a young age. I know what it's like to only have one parent," he said. "I can't leave her out there. She deserves a dad."
Source:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/
What are TSR's views of this story?
Scroll to see replies
are you kidding me right now? this can't be serious
why didn't *she* get an abortion? why did *she* sleep with a minor?
how on earth does this (then) child deserve to have this imposed upon him when this, in the state's eyes, is rape?
a rape victim? paying for the abuser's crime? are you ****ing joking?
and I bet, when she told the court that she slept with a 15 year old, they let her off scot-free too - "justice", apparently
why didn't *she* get an abortion? why did *she* sleep with a minor?
how on earth does this (then) child deserve to have this imposed upon him when this, in the state's eyes, is rape?
a rape victim? paying for the abuser's crime? are you ****ing joking?
and I bet, when she told the court that she slept with a 15 year old, they let her off scot-free too - "justice", apparently
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by zippity.doodah
are you kidding me right now? this can't be serious
why didn't *she* get an abortion? why did *she* sleep with a minor?
how on earth does this (then) child deserve to have this imposed upon him when this, in the state's eyes, is rape?
a rape victim? paying for the abuser's crime? are you ****ing joking?
and I bet, when she told the court that she slept with a 15 year old, they let her off scot-free too - "justice", apparently
why didn't *she* get an abortion? why did *she* sleep with a minor?
how on earth does this (then) child deserve to have this imposed upon him when this, in the state's eyes, is rape?
a rape victim? paying for the abuser's crime? are you ****ing joking?
and I bet, when she told the court that she slept with a 15 year old, they let her off scot-free too - "justice", apparently
This.
Posted from TSR Mobile
That's tragic. No way he should pay. No ****ing way.
She's a manipulative bitch who has escaped the justice system.
She's a manipulative bitch who has escaped the justice system.
Original post by zippity.doodah
I bet, when she told the court that she slept with a 15 year old, they let her off scot-free too - "justice", apparently
I bet, when she told the court that she slept with a 15 year old, they let her off scot-free too - "justice", apparently
1. He was younger than 15
2. He didn't report the rape
Original post by x_x
1. He was younger than 15
2. He didn't report the rape
2. He didn't report the rape
but she admitted the offence!
does this mean that jimmy saville shouldn't have been charged due to a time-lapse as well?
Original post by Truths
It's a tricky one. Paying for decisions that you were to young at the time to understand later in life sucks. But that's life I guess. And he IS still the father.
so, as far as men and children go, having unprotected sex is consenting to having a child? wow. so a man's consent in terms of pregnancy (as opposed to sex, as abortions and pills are everywhere these days) is not necessary whatsoever? so why is he anchored to her decision through child support? surely a legal relations-based decision like pregnancy calls for the potential mother-to-be to inform the father of it and to call for his consent, or else he shouldn't be forced to pay for something he does not volunteer to have (a child)?
Original post by zippity.doodah
a rape victim? paying for the abuser's crime? are you ****ing joking?
a rape victim? paying for the abuser's crime? are you ****ing joking?
I mostly agree. All the same, I can sort of see their logic. It isn't just a crime that has been perpetrated, for which justice should be sought - there's also a child involved, who needs supporting whoever's to blame. In this case, the state has certainly made a mistake in approaching Olivas for the support money, but it has to come from somewhere.
Original post by zippity.doodah
so, as far as men and children go, having unprotected sex is consenting to having a child? wow. so a man's consent in terms of pregnancy (as opposed to sex, as abortions and pills are everywhere these days) is not necessary whatsoever? so why is he anchored to her decision through child support? surely a legal relations-based decision like pregnancy calls for the potential mother-to-be to inform the father of it and to call for his consent, or else he shouldn't be forced to pay for something he does not volunteer to have (a child)?
Consent doesn't really matter. When it comes to parental rights, the relationship between the parents seldom matter. It is the relationship between the parent and child that matters. And he IS the biological father whether he likes it or not.
And I'm not sure what you mean by abortion? Are you saying the woman should have been legally obliged to abort the baby?
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
but it has to come from somewhere.
surely it should come from the mother, who is the only person in the mix who could have consented legally to sex? how can you possibly pay for a child you legally couldn't have consented to have? is the law on the age of consent meaningless here? it seems as if it means nothing in terms of young males - imagine if this was a girl, and the father was wanting her to pay child support
Original post by zippity.doodah
surely it should come from the mother, who is the only person in the mix who could have consented legally to sex? how can you possibly pay for a child you legally couldn't have consented to have? is the law on the age of consent meaningless here? it seems as if it means nothing in terms of young males - imagine if this was a girl, and the father was wanting her to pay child support
I wholeheartedly agree that in this case and similar ones, the mother should pay for child support. I think the problem here is that the mother has proved herself incapable of producing enough money to support the child. I agree, having to pay for a child that you didn't legally consent to have is absurd, but somebody's got to do it. In this case, my suggestion would be that the state pays out.
Original post by Truths
Consent doesn't really matter. When it comes to parental rights, the relationship between the parents seldom matter. It is the relationship between the parent and child that matters. And he IS the biological father whether he likes it or not.
And I'm not sure what you mean by abortion? Are you saying the woman should have been legally obliged to abort the baby?
And I'm not sure what you mean by abortion? Are you saying the woman should have been legally obliged to abort the baby?
no, I am saying that she shouldn't be trying to get money from what was a child at the time of sex. she should, otherwise, pay for it herself (as she consented to having a child from a minor, e.g. meaning that she couldn't possibly get money from him as having sex with a minor in and of itself is an offence) if she doesn't want an abortion - the law is that the child could not consent, so although he is the father, he cannot possibly be expected to pay for something that he didn't consent to have - would a (legal) rape victim of the female variety be expected to go through this? of course not, and this whole story throws gender equality out of the window of our western democratic and apparently fair society
Original post by zippity.doodah
surely it should come from the mother, who is the only person in the mix who could have consented legally to sex? how can you possibly pay for a child you legally couldn't have consented to have? is the law on the age of consent meaningless here? it seems as if it means nothing in terms of young males - imagine if this was a girl, and the father was wanting her to pay child support
He didn't content to sex. Being a parent is not a choice or a matter of consent, it is biology. And he is biologically the father, this he pays child support as every other biological father must.
Original post by zippity.doodah
no, I am saying that she shouldn't be trying to get money from what was a child at the time of sex. she should, otherwise, pay for it herself (as she consented to having a child from a minor, e.g. meaning that she couldn't possibly get money from him as having sex with a minor in and of itself is an offence) if she doesn't want an abortion - the law is that the child could not consent, so although he is the father, he cannot possibly be expected to pay for something that he didn't consent to have - would a (legal) rape victim of the female variety be expected to go through this? of course not, and this whole story throws gender equality out of the window of our western democratic and apparently fair society
You seem to be forgetting that the money for the child. Not for her.
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
I wholeheartedly agree that in this case and similar ones, the mother should pay for child support. I think the problem here is that the mother has proved herself incapable of producing enough money to support the child. I agree, having to pay for a child that you didn't legally consent to have is absurd, but somebody's got to do it. In this case, my suggestion would be that the state pays out.
I think if she's irresponsible enough to find herself incapable of paying for it herself after realising that being a single parent would be difficult, the child should be put into a ward/foster home and she should be charged for gross negligence
Original post by zippity.doodah
I think if she's irresponsible enough to find herself incapable of paying for it herself after realising that being a single parent would be difficult, the child should be put into a ward/foster home and she should be charged for gross negligence
Then we are in agreement.
Original post by Truths
You seem to be forgetting that the money for the child. Not for her.
but the "father" (the child of 15) didn't legally consent, so how can he be part of legal relations based on something that requires consent? let's imagine if a woman stole the sperm of a 13/14/15 year old boy and put it into her vagina - is the unsuspecting child expected to pay for it then after *not* consenting *whatsoever* for this child she is going to have? it is not about the child, it is about legal accountability, of which the 15 year old legally bears none - if the age of consent was lowered I'd be arguing otherwise, but the state (or the agents of the state, the judiciary) cannot just argue two mutually exclusive things, namely both *this* and the age of consent law.
And Feminists say there is no point of male right activists.
Um... **** YOU.
p.s I am a female and I am disgusted by how men are treated in this world.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Um... **** YOU.
p.s I am a female and I am disgusted by how men are treated in this world.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
