Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, September 04, 2014

An Arizona man who was the victim of statutory rape at age 14 with a woman six years older has been ordered by pay years of back child support after learning that a child resulted from the sexual relationship. Nick Olivas said he's willing to pay child support going forward for his now six-year-old daughter, but objects to the state charging him past support. Mel Feit, director of the advocacy group National Center for Men, said if the genders were reversed no state would go after child support in this situation. "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."


Liberal Blog Advertising Network




Author Info








Part of the four sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse... who needs marriage?


Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

If they have indisputable proof of rape, why isn't the mother being charged now?

#1 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2014-09-02 09:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

#1 Because she's a woman. It seems like an over-simplified answer, but we all know it's true.

#2 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-09-03 09:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

10 years ago? Ah-nold's fault. He was fathering his own bastages back then too.

As for this case? Charge the mother with rape then sue her for custody and damages. Make this gunch pay through her nose.

#3 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-09-03 09:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

If they have indisputable proof of rape, why isn't the mother being charged now?

By whom the DA?? The state demands its flesh..... everything else is irrelevant.

My only question is did the kid have a paternity test, that would be the first thing I would do in a case like this.

#4 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-09-03 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

#1 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2014-09-02 09:54 PM

This should be the case. Unfortunately the judge probably never did the math to figure out his age at the time the case was in his/her court so it was never made an issue of.

Either way I think he could get this overturned on appeal. Just because it has been ordered and the judge has closed the case doesn't mean he can't file to have the case reviewed and appealed.

#5 | Posted by moomanfl at 2014-09-03 06:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

The whole point of statutory rape charges is that a person under a certain age can't legally consent. How can you be legally incapable of consent and legally responsible for support?

It seems like this guy's willingness to pay child support going forward is a reasonable (and admirable) solution.

#6 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-04 08:37 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"How can you be legally incapable of consent and legally responsible for support?"

Be a male and go to family court.

#7 | Posted by Sully at 2014-09-04 10:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

He should sue her for assault and claim damages.
The damages are the back child support.

#8 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-09-04 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

no one who is a victim of rape should have to give a penny to the rapist.

The fact that this is "For the child" is absurd, as he was a child at the time.

#9 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2014-09-04 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

They don't care about the child, which is their official cover story. They want Federal matching funds, which Clinton put in place, creating a cash flow for attorneys equal to whatever child support is actually collected. This has created a perverse incentive to collect the skies the limit child support awards, such as $15,000 a month, as if that amount has anything to do with supporting a child.

#10 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-09-04 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nut is exactly right. I've had employees hit for outrageous ammounts of child support when measured against thier salaries. Add to that that the money never seems to go to the child. I had an employee who for years payed 1/2 his salary (garnished) and still ended up with his little girl living with him over 1/2 the time. All the while he ended up picking up the tab when the kid needed anything. The mother never worked and instead got knocked up at least three more times but never married, else she would have had an adjustment to the child support. Now the little girl is grown and in Nursing School and will probably end up working next to her dad.

#11 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2014-09-04 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

An unintended consequence of the war on welfare. Make those "baby daddys" pay up so the state doesn't have to. Put in an incentive to make the states pursue the no-good SOB's. People will always pursue a monetary incentive without regard to whether it makes sense in a particular case. This creates all kinds of perverse outcomes when dealing with governmental agencies like Human Services, tax collection and criminal justice. Just human beings pursuing their own interests. Private enterprise is not immune to this, either.

#12 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-09-04 09:01 PM | Reply | Flag:


#13 | Posted by Tor at 2014-09-05 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

It gets worse. Welfare is not paid to single mothers unless they name the Father. If you have a common name, such as Jose Lopez and you are served but are the wrong Jose Lopez or not actually served because you moved, it makes no difference to the Courts. You will be convicted in absentia and ordered to pay. No evidence overturning the mistaken order will change the order, including DNA proof positive that you are not the Father will or can change that order. It will follow you for the rest of your life.

Its all about collecting the Federal matching funds for an army of Lawyers and their minions working in gigantic State Child Support Enforcement agencies. Everything is a business. Justice has nothing to do with what they are doing.

#14 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-09-05 03:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

It seems like this guy's willingness to pay child support going forward is a reasonable (and admirable) solution.

#6 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-04 08:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

What if he didn't want the baby? Why is it reasonable for him to pay child support for a child he didn't want and was forced to become the father of? His money, his choice? Like her body her choice?

If the situation was reversed, would you say it was reasonable for the mother? I think not.

Admirable yes, reasonable - absolutely not.

#15 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-09-05 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

We all know that Rape Babies are Gods Gift. You are never supposed to refuse God's Gifts.

Even if you have to pay and pay and pay for them.

#16 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-09-05 04:56 PM | Reply | Flag:


Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable



Drudge Retort