Female privilege

[KeepTalking]

The person raped in the OP is a him.

Since you seem to have difficulty in remembering, or reading, your own posts, here is the relevant portion of your post to which I was responding:

I don't need a conviction to state with certainty that a 12 year old girl with a newborn did not consent to the sex that caused her pregnancy.

How does your certainty with regard to the case described in the OP in any way help the male in this case? Your certainty is not in any way a legal standing, so the State cannot base any legal action on that certainty, no matter how certain you are. Certainly you can understand that.

What are you talking about? The State is using force to extract financial resources from a child who was raped, because the rape produced a child. It seems to me the onus is on the State to prove the person it is extracting financial resources from is responsible for the child that they are using to justify the coercion.

I am talking about the fact that your certainty with regard to anything has no bearing on how or why the State makes legal decisions.

 

[KeepTalking]

Because in the vast majority of disputed paternity cases it is the identified father who can prove or disprove the paternity.

The paternity is not in dispute.

And that is the sole reason the State demanded child support from the father.

What you are suggesting is that if the (male) victim of rape, who is victim because he is a child, has an adult responsibility to prove he was a minor, else the State can assume whatever it wants and re-victimise the victim, this time with State power?

Yes, the State made certain assumptions that were never challenged by the father. It was his responsibility to challenge those assumptions if he did not wish to assume the further responsibility of paying child support. Please note that at the time he should have been challenging those assumptions, he was a legal adult.

- - - Updated - - -

Let's say there is a provision in the law in Arizona that says a male who is below the age of consent fathers a child with a female who is able to consent. Chances are that such a law would require the male to provide proof of his date of birth by providing his birth certificate within 90 days once notified that there is a paternity suit against him. The male in question did absolutely nothing when presented with this suit by the State. He didn't provide his birth certificate, or even attempt to, he just ignored the notification. If there were a provision in the law on his side, he would still be in the same boat, because of his own inaction.

Do you think it is appropriate to serve legal papers on minors?

Did that happen in this case?

Since it did not, I see no reason to answer the rest of your post.

 

[KeepTalking]

My comments regarding the male's responsibility to report the crime has always been with regard to the legal aspects of this specific case. If he expects to be legally absolved of any responsibility, then he has the responsibility to report the crime within the time period proscribed by law. Further, in this specific case, if he was initially unaware of any legal responsibility, he certainly became aware when the State first informed him of the situation.

At that point they also informed him that he had 90 days to contest the paternity, and by that time he was apparently 20 years old, a legal adult. Instead of taking the responsibility, he chose to ignore the situation. Legally speaking, he is now on the hook for child support. Had he taken any responsible action at any point, my take on this specific case would be quite different.

Morally speaking, I do not think the State should be going after rape victims for child support. I would be fully behind any initiative that would correct such a moral failing in the law. Even were such a provision enacted, however, there would need to be a conviction for rape against the female in this case for the State to take action in furtherance of that provision.

At this this juncture, let me be as clear as a judge: I do not care about right and wrong. I care only about what is legal and what is not. Specifically, I'm interested in knowing whether he had a legal responsibility to report the crime, and the reason I want to know that is because that will tell me whether or not his inaction was or was not some kind of failure on his part.

You said, "Further, in this specific case, if he was initially unaware of any legal responsibility, he certainly became aware when the State first informed him of the situation." I don't care about whether or not he was aware of the purported responsibility. If he did in fact have a responsibility to report the crime, then that is so regardless of whether he was aware that he had a responsibility to report the crime. What you say implies he had a responsibility, but I'm still hesitant to bite.

You also said, "If he expects to be legally absolved of any responsibility, then he has the responsibility to report the crime within the time period proscribed by law". Statements like that make me cringe with uncertainty.

He may have had 90 days to contest the paternity, and there may very well be legal consequences for not contesting it, but in no way shape or form did he therefore have a responsibility to contest the paternity. The potential for legal consequences doesn't in and of itself bestow responsibility. If we are legally required to do something then don't do it, then you have a basis to claim a failure to live up to a legal responsibility, but there being legal consequences for not acting is insufficient to claim there was a responsibility.

If he taken the responsible action? Don't confuse being responsible with responsibility. We have a responsibility to show up for jury duty when called upon, but we don't have a responsibility to exercise our right to vote, but if we choose to vote, we should do so responsibly. He could have chosen to report the crime, and he could have done so responsibly--perhaps by reporting the facts as accurately and honestly as possible, but to suggest there was some legally bound duty or legally dictated obligation (hence, an actual legally required responsibility) doesn't portray a situation that accurately reflects the facts of the matter--at least not so far as I can tell.

After spending at least several minutes Googling, it would appear that for your average citizen in Arizona, there is no legal responsibility to report a crime, but this varies by state. In Ohio, for example, it is illegal to fail to report a felony (statutory rape is a felony).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm wondering if this isn't just a simple bureaucratic screw up. Mother applies for assistance, state gets father's name, sends out the notification to the (alleged) father and pays no attention to how old he is. Every step simply rubber stamped with no regard for details. Olivas didn't help himself when he could have (90 day notice). I hope for his sake he can still fight this.

I'm not sure I would call it a screw-up as that's their normal mode of operation. They're interested in collections, not justice. I had a coworker who had a run-in with those goons--there was no question he was in the right but they didn't care. They knew that it would be cheaper for him to settle than fight so they would get the money even though he didn't owe anything.

 

[Emily Lake]

What evidence do you have for yours? You didn't offer any.

I didn't make a claim. I stipulated that it was the case. You however, claimed that my stipulation was outright wrong, then proceeded to claim absolute knowledge of the reason for child support laws. Thus the onus of proof is on you.

If a 15 year old raped a 20 year old in a non-statutory fashion, would you then be amendable to that person being held financially liable for child support?

Before I answer this (which I'm not going to do quickly, since it's morally complex), why can't you answer the simpler moral question posed by the OP? Or do you imagine my answer to the above is somehow necessary for you to answer?

Is it morally right for a statutorily raped 14 year old boy to have to pay (State forced) for the child resulting from his rape, ever?

I did answer that question, and quite clearly at that:

So although it may appear unjust on the surface to allow a scenario in which man is sued for child support by a woman who engaged in statutory rape with him when he was a minor... it seems like an eminently more pragmatic solution.

And since the purpose of child support is to provide for the well-being of the child, I don't think that it is unethical to pursue this course of action.

 

[Emily Lake]

Emily's claim was that the purpose was to benefit the child. I claimed that the purpose was to prevent the State losing money. My view is more cynical but I also see more evidence for it. e.g.: when a single parent applies for welfare in the US, the amount that the State forked out for the child is (attempted) to be recovered by the State against the other parent. So, the State is trying to cover its losses by finding someone to pin the welfare costs on.

I disagree. If this were the case, then I would expect to see the state pursuing child support suits on it's own, regardless of the wishes of the custodial parent. To my knowledge (which may of course be wrong), this is not the case. The the best of my current knowledge, the state only pursues child support claims at the behest of the custodial parent, and they do so regardless of whether welfare is requested or not. Welfare appears to be irrelevant. If the custodial parent is wealthy, the state will still pursue child support at the behest of the custodial parent; If the custodial parent is poor and receiving welfare but does not seek child support, the state does not obligate them to do so, nor does the state seek redress for that welfare cost from the non-custodial parent. So it seems to me that your assumption is in error.

But, it doesn't matter. The purpose of the law (actual or stated) isn't really relevant. It's the effect of the law that matters.

It matters to the extent that you dismiss my stipulation of the purpose as being incorrect. It matters in that you used that errant assumption of inaccuracy to dismiss the entirety of my argument. From that perspective, I personally, think that it matters a great deal.

I am however, a bit biased on this, as it is my argument that is being dismissed out of hand on the basis of an errant and unsupported assumption.

 

[Emily Lake]

For clarity, it is unfortunate that these child support laws place this particular man in this particular position.

But since the intent of the law has nothing at all to do with the rights of him as a victim of statutory rape, then it is not unethical or even immoral that he be subject to the same laws that any other non-custodial parent be subject to with respect to the financial burden of his offspring.

His age at the time of conception is not enough to disqualify from him from responsibility, as it has already been established that if both parents are underage at the time of conception then the responsibility stands.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So although it may appear unjust on the surface to allow a scenario in which man is sued for child support by a woman who engaged in statutory rape with him when he was a minor... it seems like an eminently more pragmatic solution.

And since the purpose of child support is to provide for the well-being of the child, I don't think that it is unethical to pursue this course of action.

You seem to posit a false dichotomy. This isn't the raped father's rights vs the child's rights. Nobody here has said the child should not be supported. This is about who should support the child. Why should the rape victim father support the child instead of the rapist mother paying for the entire support for the child? Why should the rape victim father support the child instead of the public purse doing so, all of us taking a much smaller financial hit since it is diffused between all of us.

 

[KeepTalking]

If the custodial parent is poor and receiving welfare but does not seek child support, the state does not obligate them to do so, nor does the state seek redress for that welfare cost from the non-custodial parent. So it seems to me that your assumption is in error.

According to the article linked in the OP, it is actually your assumption that is in error:

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.

While reviewing the article, I also found this:

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.

So, if Olivas had reported the rape, and the mother had been convicted, he would not be on the hook for child support.

 

[Emily Lake]

I stand corrected, and withdraw my argument.

 

[Metaphor]

The paternity is not in dispute.

And that is the sole reason the State demanded child support from the father.

What you are suggesting is that if the (male) victim of rape, who is victim because he is a child, has an adult responsibility to prove he was a minor, else the State can assume whatever it wants and re-victimise the victim, this time with State power?

Yes, the State made certain assumptions that were never challenged by the father. It was his responsibility to challenge those assumptions if he did not wish to assume the further responsibility of paying child support. Please note that at the time he should have been challenging those assumptions, he was a legal adult.

- - - Updated - - -

Let's say there is a provision in the law in Arizona that says a male who is below the age of consent fathers a child with a female who is able to consent. Chances are that such a law would require the male to provide proof of his date of birth by providing his birth certificate within 90 days once notified that there is a paternity suit against him. The male in question did absolutely nothing when presented with this suit by the State. He didn't provide his birth certificate, or even attempt to, he just ignored the notification. If there were a provision in the law on his side, he would still be in the same boat, because of his own inaction.

Do you think it is appropriate to serve legal papers on minors?

Did that happen in this case?

Since it did not, I see no reason to answer the rest of your post.

It doesn't matter if it happened or not, I'm building an argument. Do you think it's appropriate to serve legal papers on minors?

 

[Metaphor]

Those that think it makes a moral difference that he did not contest the paternity (which would have been irrelevant anyway since he is indeed the biological father)

If the State had pursued the statutory rape at the time, he would not now have any obligation to file papers or pay money. Yet, because of the State's own mismanagement and corruption, a new obligation has been created for the father AND if he doesn't respond, you think he deserves his fate.

I'm afraid of the kind of moral universe you inhabit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree. If this were the case, then I would expect to see the state pursuing child support suits on it's own, regardless of the wishes of the custodial parent. To my knowledge (which may of course be wrong), this is not the case. The the best of my current knowledge, the state only pursues child support claims at the behest of the custodial parent, and they do so regardless of whether welfare is requested or not. Welfare appears to be irrelevant. If the custodial parent is wealthy, the state will still pursue child support at the behest of the custodial parent; If the custodial parent is poor and receiving welfare but does not seek child support, the state does not obligate them to do so, nor does the state seek redress for that welfare cost from the non-custodial parent. So it seems to me that your assumption is in error.

I disagree. The coworker that I have mentioned previously got in trouble because his ex filed for welfare without mentioning the child support she was receiving. (Had she listed it she wouldn't have been eligible in the first place.) The state turned around and collected the money from him--never mind that he didn't actually owe it.

 

[KeepTalking]

And that is the sole reason the State demanded child support from the father.

What you are suggesting is that if the (male) victim of rape, who is victim because he is a child, has an adult responsibility to prove he was a minor, else the State can assume whatever it wants and re-victimise the victim, this time with State power?

Yes, the State made certain assumptions that were never challenged by the father. It was his responsibility to challenge those assumptions if he did not wish to assume the further responsibility of paying child support. Please note that at the time he should have been challenging those assumptions, he was a legal adult.

- - - Updated - - -

Let's say there is a provision in the law in Arizona that says a male who is below the age of consent fathers a child with a female who is able to consent. Chances are that such a law would require the male to provide proof of his date of birth by providing his birth certificate within 90 days once notified that there is a paternity suit against him. The male in question did absolutely nothing when presented with this suit by the State. He didn't provide his birth certificate, or even attempt to, he just ignored the notification. If there were a provision in the law on his side, he would still be in the same boat, because of his own inaction.

Do you think it is appropriate to serve legal papers on minors?

Did that happen in this case?

Since it did not, I see no reason to answer the rest of your post.

It doesn't matter if it happened or not, I'm building an argument. Do you think it's appropriate to serve legal papers on minors?

It is irrelevant. Minors can be charged with crimes, can accuse others of crimes, and can be witnesses in court.

 

[KeepTalking]

Those that think it makes a moral difference that he did not contest the paternity (which would have been irrelevant anyway since he is indeed the biological father)

It would not have been irrelevant, as they would not have gone after him for Child support if the mother had been convicted of statutorily raping him:

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.

If the State had pursued the statutory rape at the time, he would not now have any obligation to file papers or pay money.

How would they do that if Olivas never informed anyone that he had been statutorily raped?

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm wondering if this isn't just a simple bureaucratic screw up. Mother applies for assistance, state gets father's name, sends out the notification to the (alleged) father and pays no attention to how old he is. Every step simply rubber stamped with no regard for details. Olivas didn't help himself when he could have (90 day notice). I hope for his sake he can still fight this.

I'm not sure I would call it a screw-up as that's their normal mode of operation. They're interested in collections, not justice. I had a coworker who had a run-in with those goons--there was no question he was in the right but they didn't care. They knew that it would be cheaper for him to settle than fight so they would get the money even though he didn't owe anything.

Yeah, I can agree with that, except maybe the goons part.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How would they do that if Olivas never informed anyone that he had been statutorily raped?

By using their superhuman abilities to perform some trivially basic math.

 

[KeepTalking]

How would they do that if Olivas never informed anyone that he had been statutorily raped?

By using their superhuman abilities to perform some trivially basic math.

How do you know they did not do the trivially basic math, noticed that Olivas was a minor at the time, and then checked the mother's record for a conviction for statutory rape, which they did not find because Olivas never reported the crime?

 

[Metaphor]

By using their superhuman abilities to perform some trivially basic math.

How do you know they did not do the trivially basic math, noticed that Olivas was a minor at the time, and then checked the mother's record for a conviction for statutory rape, which they did not find because Olivas never reported the crime?

If they discovered the evidence for the crime and did nothing, it's the State that's been negligent.

 

[Bronzeage]

By using their superhuman abilities to perform some trivially basic math.

How do you know they did not do the trivially basic math, noticed that Olivas was a minor at the time, and then checked the mother's record for a conviction for statutory rape, which they did not find because Olivas never reported the crime?

I'm willing to bet a month's child support check that the state statute which deals with locating the father's of children on public assistance and suing for child support makes no mention of the age of the father at the time of the child's birth and the state workers in charge of this case were just happy to find the man. The success rate on these cases is dismal.