[Cool Teen Sites]


[EDITOR:  We really thought we had seen it all until these articles began arriving in our email.  A woman unlawfully has sexual contact and intercourse with a male and is charged with statutory rape.  The union of the two produce a child. 

The VICTIM -- the male -- *MUST* pay child support!]


CALIFORNIA: San Luis Obispo County v. Nathaniel J., ___ Cal. App. 4th ___, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843 (1996).

The policy of California's courts regarding defenses to child support may best be summed up as,
"Be quiet and pay your child support." In addition to rejecting concealment of the child as a defense
where the concealment ends during minority, California has also rejected as a defense to child
support the fact that the father was a victim of statutory rape. Reasoning that the father and mother
had consensual sex, the court saw no reason to excuse the father from the consequences of his
actions. Statutory rape cannot be used as a financial shield. San Luis Obispo County v. Nathaniel
J., ___ Cal. App. 4th ___, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843 (1996).

Editor's Note: Recent decisions from other states agree that the fact that the father was the victim of
statutory rape does not provide a defense to child support. S.F. v. Alabama ex rel. T.M., 23 Fam. L.
Rep. (BNA) 1082 (Ala. Civ. App. Nov. 22, 1996); State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer, 252 Kan. 646,
847 P.2d 1273 (1993); Jevning v. Chicos, 499 N.W.2d 515 (Minn. 1993); Mercer County v. Alf M.,
155 Misc. 2d 703, 589 N.Y.S.2d 288 (Fam. Ct. 1992).  From: (


Current Cases
From:  (

California: A case went up the appellate route, until it reached the U.S. Supreme Court, and they refused to review it. No
explanation of why they refused to review it was offered. I read the man's argument in this case, and in my opinion the
arguments for legalizing choice for men were weak. The man in this case wants to avoid publicity.

Kansas: In the state which forced a boy who'd essentially been statutorially raped into legal parenthood, another case is before
the Kansas Court of Appeals, and it's been requested to be transferred to the Kansas Supreme Court. See: Spease, et al v.
Rooney. I haven't read the case.

Tennessee: A third case has been submitted to the Court of Appeals for the western section of Tennessee, home of the Davis v. Davis case, which said that the party wishing to avoid procreating should normally prevail (that's good). The man's argument in this case looks pretty good to me.

More Boys Forced into Parenthood by Statutory Rape More raped boys forced into fatherhood

Kentucky: Harlan County prosecutor Alan Wagers said his office would help a 27 year old woman appeal a trial court's denial
of her lawsuit to get the father of her child to pay support. The father was 14 at the time, essentially making him a victim of
statutory rape because he was too young to consent. Rush was never prosecuted. [Bowling Green Daily News-AP, 5-3-96]

Colorado: The Rocky Mountain News reported on August 2, 1996 that Adams County is attempting to recover AFDC
payments from a man who was about 12 when he was forced into parenthood, essentially by statutory rape.


She Sued For Support of Baby She Says Is His
FROM:  (

February 12th St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
By Nordeka English of the Post-Dispatch Staff

A former baby sitter in St. Charles County has been charged with raping a 13-year-old boy she cared for in 1992. The incident
came to light late last year when the woman sued the boy for support of the baby she says resulted from the union.

The St. Charles County prosecutor has charged the woman, Regina L. Vaughan, now 20 and living in Mill Shoals, Ill., with
eight counts of rape and one count of sodomy. Each count is a felony that carries a maximum penalty of life in prison.

The charge, filed Jan. 30, says the incidents took place between March 1992 and Aug. 12, 1992, three days after Vaughan
turned 18. Vaughan and the boy had lived in Portage des Sioux. The boy, now 16, has moved to St. Louis County.

The boy's mother apparently learned of the sexual relationship after her son was served noticed of a paternity suit by Illinois on
Vaughan's behalf. The boy's mother asked the St. Charles County Sheriff's Department to investigate.

The state filed the paternity suit after Vaughan applied to the Illinois Department of Public Aid for welfare, said a spokesman
for the Sherrif's Department.

A spokeswoman for the Illinois welfare department said the state's policy is to require an applicant for public aid to name the
father of a child and then seek child support from the parent before collecting welfare payments.

The state has no lower age limit when it comes to requiring child support payments from a parent.

The boy's attorney, Byron Cohen of St. Louis County, said that Illinois had withdrawn the suit, probably after finding out that
the boy had been under age and legally unable to consent to having sex with Vaughan. That could not be confirmed because the suit has been sealed.

A St. Charles County judge has set Vaughan's bail at $20,000. She had not been arrested as of Friday.

Date: Tue Sep 12 00:37:16 1995

update on the story:

I'm familiar with [this] case, and have spoken with the boy's attorney. The babysitter who raped the boy had the unmittigated
gall to sue the boy for child support, after which the boy's mother asked the DA to investigate for statutory rape. The DA
subsequently charged the babysitter with statutory rape, and the boy's attorney was under the impression that the
BABYSITTER WITHDREW the suit seeking child support in hopes of avoiding prosecution for statutory rape. (Perhaps she
withdrew her application for AFDC in hopes of avoiding rape charges.) In any event, the boy's lawyer claims that the child
support suit could be resurrected at any point under Missouri law. After my discussion with the boy's attorney, I was under the
impression that Missouri's laws did NOT protect boys, and that the only reason that this particular boy wasn't being sued for
child support is that his rapist caused the charges to "go away" in hopes of avoiding rape charges, and indeed those charges
have now been levied.


STATE of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen HERMESMANN, Appellee,
v. Shane SEYER, a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants.
No. 67,978.   Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.  Syllabus by the Court
Not archived.  Read full text:  (
Colleen Hermesmann routinely provided care for Shane Seyer as a baby sitter or day care provider during 1987 and
1988. The two began a sexual relationship at a time when Colleen was 16 years old and Shane was only 12. The
relationship continued over a period of several months and the parties engaged in sexual intercourse on an average of a
couple of times a week. As a result, a daughter, Melanie, was born to Colleen on May 30, 1989. At the time of the
conception of the child, Shane was 13 years old and Colleen was 17. Colleen applied for and received financial
assistance through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (ADC) from SRS.

On January 15, 1991, the district attorney's office of Shawnee County filed a petition requesting that Colleen
Hermesmann be adjudicated as a juvenile offender for engaging in the act of sexual intercourse with a child under the age
of 16, Shanandoah (Shane) Seyer, to whom she was not married, in violation of K.S.A.1992 Supp. 21-3503.
Thereafter, Colleen Hermesmann entered into a plea agreement with the district attorney's office, wherein she agreed to
stipulate to the lesser offense of contributing to a child's misconduct, K.S.A.1992 Supp. 21-3612. On September 11,
1991, the juvenile court accepted the stipulation, and adjudicated Colleen Hermesmann to be a juvenile offender.

Shane's argument on appeal is based on three basic premises.

1.Shane Seyer, as a minor under the age of 16, was unable to consent to sexual intercourse.
2.Because he was unable to consent to sexual intercourse, he cannot be held responsible for the birth of his child.
3.Because he cannot be held responsible for the birth, he cannot be held jointly and severally liable for the child's


Family Law Update
FROM:  (

Statutory Rape Is Statutory Rape, unless you're willing, sometimes
by Lester Cohen, MFCC, JD

In County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J., the California Court of Appeals stated that although a 15 year old boy who was
seduced by a 34 year old woman, was a victim of the 34 year old (she was prosecuted for statutory rape), the 15 year old
father is obligated to pay child support to the child.
The 34 year old mother was prosecuted and convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. According to the criminal
court, the 15 year old was a victim. The willingness or lack of willingness of a 15 year old having intercourse with a 34 year old,
was not an issue. Statutory rape is statutory rape with those age differences.
The father admitted paternity. The courts switched over to the family law component. There, the same District Attorney's office
which said he was a victim of statutory rape, contended that the new born child should not become a further victim by allowing
a parent (15 year old) to avoid the responsibility of supporting the child when and as he is able. Father's attorney argued that
the California Constitution states that "all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to
restitution from the persons convicted of the crime for losses they suffer."
The clincher for the court, as it turned out, was that the 15 year old admitted that he was a willing participant in the intercourse.
Although not relevant for the criminal action against the mother, the court found that the willingness of the father did allow them
to differentiate between a minor who has been the victim of willing statutory rape and one who was not a willing participant.
There is also a strong history of case law precedents in California and other states, where courts have found that for purposes
of child support, voluntary intercourse resulting in voluntary parenthood, allows the minor parent to be liable for the financial
support of the minor infant.

NOTE FROM THE EDITOR:   Copyright holders:  We are not trying to assert any rights to your article.  We operate as a repository with a virtually unlimited storage capacity.  We capture and store articles to prevent loss due to system crashes and the space limitations that most sites operate under.  We will remove your article if you wish.  This is a non-profit site. is a repository of both legal and commentary information on laws relating to sexual activity.  We do not, and can not offer any legal advice or provide any legal counsel.  Do not write to us requesting our advice or suggestions -- your email will be ignored.  This web site and its contents are in no way affiliated, funded, or regulated by any Local, State, Federal or International government agency or governing body.  Information contained on this site has been provided by readers and/or has been discovered through the research of volunteers.  Other than cursory review, no efforts have been made to independently verify the current status of the legal statutes contained in these page nor whether any cases used as examples are still precedent.   Do not rely on this information to make legal decisions.  You should contact a legal advisor in your area for a proper determination of law on any questions you might have.  Any emails and other user comments and opinions included on this site are the opinions of the creator of the message and are not necessarily those of this site, its editors, advertisers or other affiliated entities.