Back in the News: Debra Lafave Violates Probation by Talking to 17 Year Old Waitress (Update: Back to Court)


Look who is back in the news. Debra Lafave, the former teacher who is serving house arrest for having sex with a 14-year-old student was arrested on charges of violating her probation. Isn’t this ironic, she violates her probation by this time talking to a teenage girl.


According to a Department of Corrections report, Debra Lafave discussed her personal life and other subjects with a teenage waitress at a restaurant where both worked. One of the terms of her probation was that she was not allowed to have unsupervised contact with minors without permission. According to a police report, Lafave spoke with her teenage co-worker numerous times about family problems, friends, high school, boyfriends and sex.

Then there is of course the typical defense attorney spin trying to down play the event by stating, “It was lafave 4a workplace friendship — no more, no less.” No Mr. Defense attorney … its called terms of your parole … NO MORE, NO LESS!!! You BS’d the court to have your client not serve time because “she was too attractive”. No double standard here, imagine if she were male.

Defense attorney John Fitzgibbons said he was disappointed that Lafave’s probation officer ordered her arrest for what he called an “insignificant” violation. He said Lafave and the 17-year-old girl had a “typical workplace conversation that women have with their women colleagues.” “It was a workplace friendship — no more, no less,” he said.

Debra Lafave arrested for violating her probation

Lafave attributed her prior mistakes to bipolar disorder, which is associated with intense and irregular mood swings, and with hypersexuality and poor judgment during manic episodes. Lafave is currently serving three years house arrest and seven years probation after pleading guilty to charges in 2004.

UPDATE I: Debra Lafave to Appear in Court to Face Probation Violation ChargeDebra Lafave has a hearing Tuesday for a charge of violating her probation.

According to a Department of Corrections report, Debra Lafave discussed her personal life and other subjects with a teenage waitress at a restaurant where both worked. One of the terms of her probation was that she was not allowed to have unsupervised contact with minors without permission.

According to a police report, Lafave spoke with her teenage co-worker numerous times about family problems, friends, high school, boyfriends and sex.

If you liked this post, you may also like these:

  • Debra Lafave pleads Guilty in Sex Case and Gets a slap on the wrist
  • Debra LaFave; Charges Dropped in Marion County
  • Debra Lafave; Teacher-student sex plea deal rejected by Judge Hale Stancil
  • Ohio Teacher Gives 14 & 15 Year Olds Homework on Internet Porn
  • Casey Anthony Ordered Back to Florida to Serve Probabtion for Her Check Fraud Case … Will She or Won’t She?

  • Comments

    45 Responses to “Back in the News: Debra Lafave Violates Probation by Talking to 17 Year Old Waitress (Update: Back to Court)”

    1. John Staton on December 5th, 2007 9:59 am

      This is of course the “Mike Nifong” effect. Sanity, and commom sense does not exist only the chance to grab the big pub by being an A-hole. Look out someone wants to run for office!

    2. Dan on December 5th, 2007 10:15 am

      well my thoughts are, she is hot no doubt, and the 14 year old had a great piece it seems. the lucky Kidd., lol. I know it was wrong, but how many to be honest, wish we had the chance with a teacher we thought was so hot? lol, I would do it no hands down……..
      Its a boy/man thing we all fantasize about, and I don’t think its wrong. Im speaking from a mans point of view tho, and a boy’s as well…

    3. minnesota dad on December 5th, 2007 10:26 am

      Who cares…she’s hot. Where were teachers like this when I was a teenager?


    4. Richard on December 5th, 2007 10:27 am

      I wonder, though, how realistic it can be to demand that someone not exchange words with a co-worker in a place of employment? That to me seems different from seeking someone out.

    5. Pat in Alabama on December 5th, 2007 10:42 am

      Maybe now she will go to jail where she belongs. That’s where she would be now if she had been a man with a 14 year old girl (and rightfully so).

      If I managed to avoid jail I would like to think I would have enough sense to hold strickly to my probation conditions. Apparently she did not take it very seriously. I’ll bet the 5 year old chimp has got better sense.

    6. flippy on December 5th, 2007 11:14 am

      Your headline says “13 year old waitress”. I read it was a 17 year old waitress. There is obviously a big difference there.

    7. Scott on December 5th, 2007 11:35 am

      Exactly flippy! The waitress was 17 not 13 and there is no doubt that her probation officer has it out for her or doesn’t like her and any of us who have had a probation officer knows what I’m talking about. These people hold your freedom in their hands. So what she was talking to a 17 YEAR OLD about her life? Is she not to talk to anyone? This is lame!

    8. jh on December 5th, 2007 11:38 am

      Yet again, you intentionally bend the truth.

      I agree, terms of probation (not parole, probation) are terms of probation, and technically, she did violate them.

      But you do your site a grave disservice when you like about the age of the complaintant.

      The girl she talked to was 17. Not 13. 17. It’s on the probation violation form, the PO’s report, and on the arrest record.

      The complaintant apparently came from an anonymous tip called in from someone completely outside the scene. The 17 year old girl turns 18 (and thus it would have been legal to speak to her) in a month.

      Please. Get it right or don’t publish it.

    9. John Staton on December 5th, 2007 11:41 am

      This entire area of Law is a mess. This “crime” did not exist until the 20th Century. In most States it is legal for concentual sex between someone 17 and someone 15 but not 18 and 15. 16 and 18 but not 16 and 19. The male and the female are not the same but are treated as if they are. An example of the past: a great hero Le Marquis de LaFayette, friend of Washington etc was married at 16, his bride was 14. Hay Pat, let’s put everyone in jail???

    10. Dana on December 5th, 2007 11:48 am

      Should be a 17 year old waitress
      SM: Yep, I’ve corrected it (klaasend)

    11. Mike on December 5th, 2007 12:16 pm

      John….does that mean you condone sexual relationships between teachers and their students?

      She is in her 20′s and he was 14…thats appropiate to you?

      I know many say the boy was lucky…but would you want that same boy to date your 14 year old daughter now that he has been trained by his 20 some year old teacher?

      She got off easy, a smack on the hand, she knew the conditions but still decided to have sex talk with another minor….if she was pretty, she would be in prison right now.

    12. Pat in Alabama on December 5th, 2007 12:16 pm


      Lafave is 27 now, which would have made her about 25 when she did her “crime”. 25 and 14 is not the same as 15 amd 18. She probably needs mental help more than jail, but what do we have laws for if we let all the criminals go free?

      How many times have we seen sex offenders reoffend when out of jail? That includes the most extreme who become murderers to the females who can’t keep there hands off their students – we have seen many repeat offenders!

      By the way, it’s 2007, and Le Marquis de LaFayette is dead. We don’t arrange marriages for children anymore.

    13. Mike on December 5th, 2007 12:17 pm

      Make that “wasn’t pretty”

    14. da_wench on December 5th, 2007 12:42 pm

      What a load of crap. If they’re going to treat her like a sex offender, then she shouldn’t be allowed to work where minors work. I personally do not think she should be treated like a sex offender. #2 is right, that kid got a great POA and it was only his mother who was offended. What a freakin joke.

    15. Vicki on December 5th, 2007 1:04 pm

      #14- da wench…I agree, however when I was 14 I had a HUGE crush on my History teacher and would have done anything he asked…but he was mature enough with morals not to take advantage of my innocense…I met him years later when I was 22 and he was late 30′s early 40s and wanted to “get together” and he wasnt as attractive anymore. Morals are morals..Adults shouldnt take advantage of childrens innocense or deflowerment…even if it was a guy..[and I know it was probably the best POA he will ever get..]

    16. John Staton on December 5th, 2007 1:07 pm

      Actually arranged marrage is the norm in the majority of the world. It does take place in the US among some groups. I worked with someone who’s marrage was arranged. Our entire legal system and action in this area is nuts. People want to hand out condums at high schools, then say “don’t use them” or “only with your fellow students”. The age of concent is muddled. The idea that male and female are the same means that no one took a class in Biology. We are using a sledge hammer where a small tool is needed. I know of a case where a 19 year old male was seduced by a 16 year old female and is now registered until 35. She was the aggressor. It is all nuts!!!

    17. Sharon Chicago on December 5th, 2007 1:21 pm

      She confides in her 14 year old co-worker about her sexual life….

      Someone lock her up…she does not get it….

      Just another pedifile behavior… someone should handcuff her and take her away…

    18. nurturer on December 5th, 2007 1:29 pm

      I think there are bigger and badder criminals out there that the cops could be pursuing, instead of using resources to jail somebody on probation for having a conversation.

      This is just somebody trying to put a feather in their cap in the court of public opinion.

    19. Mike on December 5th, 2007 1:40 pm

      #14…does that mean you would want your 12,13,14 year old soon hooking up with his 25 or whatever teacher….your ok with that?

      I would think most moms if not all would be angry about that.

      They say girls mature faster then boys but if lafave was a man she would be doing 10 years min in prison now.

      It’s simple you follow the laws or don’t. She got off easy and still broke her probation.

    20. Miss-Underestimated on December 5th, 2007 2:46 pm

      19. I agree 100%, lets face what is wrong with this woman? Can’t she handle a man her own age?
      This is a total power and control issue for her.

      If she were a he and did that to a girl student, they’d want to lock em up and throw out the key.

      Being human seperates us or is suppose to seperate us from animals. Urges at maturity can be controlled.

      I don’t care how hot she is, what she did was breaking the law.

    21. Firefly on December 5th, 2007 3:05 pm

      It irks me that the reponses are either a) shes hot or b) lock her up.

      Yes, she is a very attractive woman, but she is not mentally well. She needs help with her bi-polar disorder; whether it be through more medication, therapy, or a combination of both.

      Too often we lock up mentally unsound people, leave them there for 5 years and then let them out. This does not make the sick well; they will reoffend.

      We need to learn how to treat the illness, not just a band-aid solution.

    22. John Staton on December 5th, 2007 3:07 pm

      Condone; want; etc these are personal designations not corporate or legal. Most societies do understand that there is a decided difference in conduct expected of a male than conduct expected of a female. What I condone and or want of conduct from an offspring of mine does not determine what the law should state for all individuals. The historical age of consent was 14, the age of becoming an apprentice. Legal responsibility for actions followed at that age. 18 came to pass as that was the age of becoming a squire, 21 because that was the age of Knighthood. Adolescent age is a Modern concept. The action in direct discussion appears to be capricious indeed in that it follows usual human action of an innocent kind.

    23. Firefly on December 5th, 2007 3:31 pm

      John Staton.

      Your logic follows a straight path and I can see how it would make sense to you; except for one thing…it is an absolutely corrupt way of thinking.

      Although MOST societies understanding that there is a difference in conduct between men and women, modern western civilization should NOT. It is oppinions like yours that uphold old-fashioned values about gender differences.

      Your timeline of historical age of consent is just that; HISTORIC. Sure, adolescent age is a modern concept, and has adapted to such for a reason. We can’t base what is right and wrong on whether or not it has ALWAYS been that way. Evolution happens for a reason.

    24. brenda on December 5th, 2007 3:50 pm

      She’s not “ill”..she’s a pervert. Please!! Why the hell can’t anyone admit that sexual perversion is a CHOICE??

      What’s next…Joran has a “sickness” and couldn’t help himself in regard to what he did to Natalee? Child rapists only “sick” after that!?

      Wake up! She likes little boys because she wants to. Agree 100% with Sharon…it’s a control issue because she cannot control grown men as she does these young boys.

      sorry to rant, but this lady disgusts me beyond anything I can even discuss on this board and not get my words audited.

      And for the men who think it would be great. Shame on you. Where are your morals? Do you even have them?

    25. Miss-Underestimated on December 5th, 2007 3:57 pm

      Urges are urges whether male or female.

      What is statutory rape? Why is there the law?

    26. Miss-Underestimated on December 5th, 2007 4:01 pm


      I am waiting for the day that a defending lawyer of a man convicted of the same will challenge the law based on LaFave. You know that will eventually happen, then what?

    27. da_wench on December 5th, 2007 11:34 pm

      There are a few posts I could respond to, but #24 really stands out for me. ARE YOU EFFING KIDDING ME? You have a lot to learn if you think sexual perversion is a choice. If that were true, we wouldn’t have predators on every corner. I suppose you think gays are sexually perverted as well. Some urges are uncontrollable. I am not saying that what LaFave shouldn’t be punished for her inappropriate conduct with a student. I’m just saying she shouldn’t be labeled a MOLESTER. Having sex with a child 14 or older is called sex with a minor, not child molest. If it is a violation of her parole to talk to co-workers, she shouldn’t be allowed to work there. And about the boy she did have sex with, do you think he will be unable to have a meaningful sexual relationship with a woman when the time comes because he has been psychologically damaged by LaFave? I seriously doubt it. He’s probably still masturbating to her picture, just like every other 14 year old boy in his town. Ooops, I used the word masturbation. Do you think I’m a deviant too? LOL

    28. da_wench on December 5th, 2007 11:36 pm

      #25 I don’t believe it’s called statutory rape in most states these days. It’s called sex with a minor.

    29. brenda on December 6th, 2007 9:25 am

      Da_wench…no, the thought your are a pervert or molester NEVER crossed my mind…but I find it extremely interesting it crossed yours.

    30. brenda on December 6th, 2007 9:29 am

      Oh yeah! As for the young man she molested (don’t care what anyone else thinks…she molested that kid), the mother of the boy made it very, clear in what I read back then the kid was very, troubled by the whole thing and had serious guilt feelings.

      I am happy to say MY own son hasn’t messed around yet and he is 17. His father and I taught him to RESPECT girls and that love and sex are not the same thing. If he truly loves a girl, he will not take advantage of her.

      For those who don’t agree, tell it to God on judgement day….

    31. George Castanza on December 6th, 2007 10:11 am

      she is a predator, if she was teaching 10 year olds, she would be raping them. lock her up

    32. Firefly on December 6th, 2007 10:45 am

      #29 – I think it’s called sarcasm

    33. Firefly on December 6th, 2007 10:49 am

      “Wake up! She likes little boys because she wants to. …it’s a control issue because she cannot control grown men as she does these young boys.”

      I’m not sure how you can say that this doesn’t equate mental illness. Illness isn’t an “excuse” to the problem, the problem is still that; a problem. The point I was making was that skewed thinking starts in the brain; and there are more successful methods for dealing with mental inconsistencies then locking someone up.

    34. brenda on December 6th, 2007 12:49 pm

      I know that FireFly, but it was based on the thinking that everything is a predisposed condition.

      I am a firm believe 99% of people’s emotional conditioning is either self-inflicted, or comes from “programming” in childhood. Nothing whatsoever genetic or chemical there.

      If it were so, how could be justify some molested children becoming molesters themselves, and others not?? Or, some children of alcoholics becoming abusers of it when some never drink a drop?

      That said, it is certainly one of those mysteries of life. Since I actually believe we humans have a soul, it goes back to which road we choose…all about choice.

      Thanks for trying to point that out anyway :>)

    35. brenda on December 6th, 2007 12:58 pm

      Hello again firefly…we are typing at the same time, so I missed your last post.

      I agree with you 50%…emotional mess DOES start in the mind. But, if we are human and have souls (as I believe) then what drives the mind? It is not the chemical reactions…it is the soul that does the true thinking for us. Our brains are simply the machine we have on this earth to cause the rest of the body to function…the “Intel Processor of the body” so to speak.

      If not…how the hell would we be able to even HAVE a thought in the after life? Know what I mean?

      I have done quite a bit of research on pychosomatics. It is well, known amoungst the doctors and scientists involved that when we allow emotions drive our thinking rather than reason, the brain responds from different areas. Also, any type of emotional stress or pleasure then DOES produce chemical responses. Has also been proven that if a person can change the way they react to those thoughts, the chemestry and physical “paths” in the brain actually change and do not act the same as before.

      Either way, she’s sick because she is not fighting those feelings but accepting them. It’s like trying to stop any bad habit. Some can because they truly want to. Others are too weak or reluctant and prefer to hang onto that as it is a comfortable crutch. (I say that from experience as well…some habits I was able to quit easily while a few others I seem to not want to give up.)

    36. John Staton on December 6th, 2007 2:13 pm

      My last words on the subject:

      First off in sexual encounters both consensual and non, the male is the aggressor nearly 100 percent of the time. It is physically impossible for a female to commit 1st degree sexual assault (forcible rape). Because of this, societies have always protected the female but protection of any kind for the male has been rare. The assumption has always been that the male knows what he is doing when he becomes sexually able. By observation this is indeed true.

      Clinical depression is a female condition (90%). Through out history prior to the 20th Century the female was considered the victim in these cases. The exception was adultery and that had other implications not associated.

      In our new egalitarian world, where it has been pointed out too me that history does not count, 2000 years of human experience and legal precedent has been thrown out we now have the system where reason and the understanding of human kind has been thrown out.

    37. Firefly on December 6th, 2007 2:24 pm


      I think what we have here is a classic case of “nature vs. nurture”; where you tend towards the nurture side of the argument, I obviously tend towards the nature side. Believe it or not, we are not the first two humans to come to this crossroad! :)

      At the same time I think that we are both saying some of the same things in different ways. So agreeing to disagree is essential, but under the understanding that we don’t disagree about everything.

      My main bones of contention with your argument have to do with differences in our belief systems so there is no point in berating you for your values; it is refreshing to see someone believe in ANYTHING, so I am happy for that.

      I am hesitant in touching the issues of the “brain vs. the soul”; or issues of the afterlife at all, because we would obviously never agree. So no, I don’t see what you mean, but I don’t hold it against you (and certainly don’t expect you to know what I mean…)

      I do have a piece of advice; I would be hesitant throwing around words like “Psychosomatics”; because I do not think that is the word that you intended to use. Since you have done endless research on the topic, you would then know then that Somataform disorder (or “psychosomatics”) refers to the bodies physical reaction to mental patterning; for example incessant thoughts that cause the body to feel nausea, dizziness, pain, etc. Psychosomatics is a very specific thing and has absolutely nothing to do with this particular case (or what you said following your claim to lots research on the topic); as Lafave’s reaction to her mental patterning was to act on urges, not withholding them and therefore causing physical symptoms/ailments.

      What I do agree on is this: “Has also been proven that if a person can change the way they react to those thoughts, the chemestry and physical “paths” in the brain actually change and do not act the same as before.” EXACTLY. This is the very basis of my argument that with proper treatment, mental illness can be treated. Instead of locking someone up, it is much more important to help her change the way she reacts to thought, and that can be done through therapy; specifically Psychoanalysis.

      What I CAN’T agree with is your oppinion that the human is an intregal player in “fighting those feelings”, and if they cannot they are weak; because it is just not that easy. The human is a very intricate being and our bodies (brain, body and “soul”) allow us to become capable of all kinds of things. In many cases with sexual deviance the brain blocks out and represses deviant thought until the urge becomes too much to handle; at which point the human acts out to satisfy those urges. Just because she can’t fight it herself doesn’t make her “weak”; she needs the help of a psyoanalyst to uncover the repressed thought and deal with the problem directly; not be locked up without deviant stimulus for 5 years only to be released into the world unprepared to deal with her mental tendancies.

      In no way is this an EXCUSE; a problem is a problem like I said. What this teacher did shows a lack of control over her deviant urges. I take offense to the standard temporary methods of treatment for individuals who would benefit from permanent forms of treatment.

      One point of confusion: in #24 you said there is no way that she is sick, and in #35 you said she is sick…….?

    38. Firefly on December 6th, 2007 2:41 pm

      John Staton; stats are stats, and good on you for being knowledgable on them, even on the obscure ones that are based on your oppinion.

      In terms of the statement re: history, I do hope that was not in reference to my previous comments, because in no way have I suggested that history does not count.

    39. brenda on December 6th, 2007 2:43 pm

      I like your response. Thanks for being a thoughtful person regardless of whether we agree or disagree.

      I will say to clarify that I DID intend to use the word Psychosomatics. I am a very, progressive thinker on this subject. I agree that “the body’s physical reaction to mental patterning” is the main thing re: physical ailments, but I also believe that other mental issue are derived from the same source…including sexual problems and other deviant behavior. That said, this is why I included our dear teacher’s issue in my theories on the matter.

      Hey, I also believe gravity is a push from solar winds rather than a pull…but who the hell will listen to me? Would explain why light get back to its normal speed after slowing down through a prism. Perpetual motion would mean that the light would remain at its reduced speed…but it doesn’t!!! Look at it this way. Stand over a jet in a pool in the summer. Notice that although the water is clear, the “swirls” in the water cause the light to be blocked and you can see shadows on the bottom of the pool!! So cool! Those swirls are water that has been “pushed” by the jets. If water is clear, how on earth do we get the shadows? I believe the force of the “push” causes the molecules (and whatever else) to be forced closer together in that whirlpool motion. Anything too close to a whirlpool gets sucked because it is being pushed by what is around it. Does that make sense? (whether you agree or not that is :>)

      The mistake I made was using the word sick rather than depraved. One of those words used to freely and not applied in the correct context.

      Also agree she needs to get to the root of her problem. Unfortunately, not many good psych-doctors out there. So many just want to shove a pill down the throat and let the patient blabber rather than truly investigate and push for answers.

      I hope you have a good day. Not to many can agree to disagree and have fun with it these days.

      Brenda (who should be working)

    40. Firefly on December 6th, 2007 3:18 pm

      Brenda…wowww! Interesting theory! Of course that makes sense, and I love it.

      Gotcha on the psychosomatics issue as well…

      Isn’t it the truth about psych doctors. I COMPLETELY agree.

      I know what you mean about having fun with disagreeing; it’s a great way to learn. I take away all kinds of interesting tidbits debating with people who have a different oppinion…as I have certainly done with you as well!

      And…yes…I should also be working. hehe

    41. brenda on December 6th, 2007 4:00 pm

      I love it. My dad (when he was alive) had several friends that would come over and discuss Biblical matters. Seemed all they did was argue the entire time. He had a PHD in Theology. Anyway, I asked why he and his friends could never get along and he said “we always get along! Why do you think we can argue our points and continue to want to do so all the time?”

      Glad to have met you in cyber space….

    42. Erik on December 6th, 2007 7:05 pm

      My God, you are such a sorry lot of hypocrites.

    43. brenda on December 7th, 2007 9:34 am

      Dear Erik, why do you say that? In order to be a hypocrite, one has to be guilty of the same thing they are berating someone else of. Please explain where any of us have declared we have had sex with minors or have sexual feelings towards them???

    44. Firefly on December 7th, 2007 11:45 am

      Morning brenda!
      Erik – agreed with brenda on this one. Not sure what you mean; although if you were to explain and I WAS a hypocrite for one reason or another, I would be the first to admit you are right…just not sure at what point I was being hypocritical.

    45. brenda on December 7th, 2007 4:24 pm

      Doesn’t appear we are going to get an answer from Erik.

    Leave a Reply

    Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

    • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
    • Red (comments)
    • Dugga (technical issues)
    • Dana (radio show comments)
    • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
    E-mail It