 |
| ||||
Child Support/Enforcement/Statutory Rape
© 1997 National Legal Research Group, Inc.
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).
Go to: Child Support Enforcement Category
Go to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page
| The information contained on this page is not to be considered legal advice. A lawyer should always be consulted in regards to any legal matters. Divorce Source, Inc. is also not a referral service and does not endorse or recommend any third party individuals, companies, and/or services. Divorce Source, Inc. has made no judgment as to the qualifications, expertise or credentials of any participating professionals. Read our Terms & Conditions. |