Statutory Rape Victim Forced To Pay Child Support

a reply to: Domo1

She would be. But he is also 24 now.

a reply to: kicked

My math hurts.

24-8=16. Beats me man.

a reply to: Domo1

Me too.

There is 150 comments on that article and not a single person decided the math didn't work? Good grief, this changes the whole story.

a reply to: kicked

Good eye. I'm a little embarrassed.

a reply to: Domo1
Definitely a huge story if it were true, so no harm in throwing it up here. This screams sensationalist to the point where there is a little fib in the math, theres no way something like this could actually happen.

a reply to: kicked

It apparently has before. Not sure if the math error is intentional or not. Could be. It wouldn't surprise me in todays new media age where clickbait and idiots who repost stories (ahem) are more important than facts.

a reply to: Domo1
The majority of the articles about this say that he is now 24. This one from the examiner says that it happened in 2006 which would mean he was born in 1992, but i think that that is just the author doing some faulty deductive math because none of the other articles give a date that it happened.

In 2006, 14-year-old Nick Olivas got a gift every teenage boy dreams of: sex with an older woman. What must have seemed like the best luck ever at the time came back to bite Olivas 6 years later when the state of Arizona demanded he be held liable for child support payments going back to the time of his daughter's birth. Now, Olivas is entrenched in a battle with the state's Division of Child Support Services.

There truly is bias towards men vs women rape; could you imagine if the first couple sentences of that were written in light of a female rape victim?

I don't think he should be liable for anything. Sounds like he wants to be part of her life, so that is good. Back child support. ABSOLUTELY not. He should not be liable at all, if she never notified him before he should not be responsible until notified. But in this case current support should be only voluntary.a reply to: Domo1

It should be simple. After a period of time, if a mother does not seek assistance, then it should be determined that she is capable of supporting her children and her ability to seek it in a court, forfeited. Regardless of the circumstances. No going back almost a decade to seek them. that is a joke, she is opportunistic at best.

On the other hand, and in most cases, if it is a man, they should just be a damn man and support their offspring. this was a young boy who was not in a position to do that. but .. now he has that option. being forced is wrong. he should want to. that is beside the point however.

She not only raped him, but now is forcing him to pay for it. she is a .. uuuugh.. bad words.. she needs to lose custody of that child, and someone who cares look after it, perhaps the boy now he is old enough. if he cares. and its sad if he doesnt, because no matter how they came to be, that child is his child.

what a mess. idiotic child assistance laws. god..

so he was what probably somewhere between 15 and 16 when the child was born??
can you expect a kid who I don't believe the law even allows to legally work to support the child?
kind of insane to me!
the lady was in her twenties far old enough to know what she was doing.
she didn't have enough common sense to keep from having a baby with someone so young they couldn't work a full time job?
sorry don't think he should pay the back child support.
and someone should raise the issue of his age at the time of conception in the hearing
kids are kids they make stupid mistakes and shouldn't have to pay for inexperience the rest of their lives..
she was the adult and should have acted like one.
my guess is she wanted a no strings attached baby and figured the kid would never know about it
till well something happened and she found herself unemployed and unable to support the child and had to ask for the gov't assistance and they went after the child support unaware of the age issue

a reply to: Domo1

Statutory rape is a legal definition, not a moral one. Morally, if any father is responsible for the rearing of their children, then every father should be. He did the deed willingly. The fact he was young, dumb and horny and she was slightly older is meaningless outside of the feel-good court of modern public opinion. How many 13 year old girls have been left pregnant by horny 20 year old boys manipulating their emotions across human history? Only recently have we in our infinite wisdom decided the best course of correction was criminalization of one of the most natural human activities. And calling it rape is an insult to every person who has ever been raped.

I'm a feminist and i have no idea why people think this is ok because he was a boy rather than a girl.
sex with a minor is illegal, you dont get to ignore that law because you're a woman.

any child support needs to go along with a rape conviction.

I have read to many cases of a 20 year old man going to jail for sleeping with a 17 year old female, this offends me..

She should lose custody at the very least ,(in a perfect world she would still go to jail) it seems like he wants to do right by the kid... which is great but that rapist shouldn't benefit by 1 single penny.

a reply to: Nechash

An adult having sex with a child is not natural.
peer to peer underage sex does not lead to criminal convictions if consensual.

There's a difference in the age of consent for males vs females. In most states the age of consent for males is 13. I admit though I don't know in this case.

a reply to: WilsonWilson

He wasn't a child. A ten year old is a child. He was an adult. Or as we refer to them in the US, "young adult." Teenager is a word we invented in the 1920s so that rich parents could feel justified in keeping their kids at home and babying them well into their adult years.

a reply to: WilsonWilson

Adult and child are somewhat arbitrary terms that differ culture to culture, language to language, person to person. Consent age varies country to country, state to state. Law is not the same thing as morality. They were talking about natural reproductive cycles and behaviour not culture and laws that you are thinking of. Culture changes times and locations as well as laws do. You cant base the concept of natural only on your limited cultural views and laws. Laws are not natural things, they are social constructs artificially created.

a reply to: damwel

States? The United States of America? I've never heard that before. I know some countries are like that though. I know some states have secondary consent ages lesser than the main ones with age gap rules but the main ages range from 16 to 18. I think some states might have a different consent age for homosexual sex though which is higher usually. There is no where in the US it is 13.

originally posted by: kicked
a reply to: Domo1

Me too.

There is 150 comments on that article and not a single person decided the math didn't work? Good grief, this changes the whole story.

Well 9 months for pregnancy, so say he was 15 when the child was born. If you also say that he was at the tail end of being 14 when they had sex and the baby was conceived (say 14 and 10 or 11 months) then after 9 months he'd be 15 and 7 or 8 months. Keep in mind the article says 8 years. They could have rounded the time frame. It could have been 8 years and 4 months, meaning he could have just turned 24 and all the math would work.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

If the child is six including the term of pregnancy the statute of limitations has expired. Probably why she waited until now to ask for support.