Lewd Conduct with a minor laws and time limit?

[Scooterdog]

My parents did not consent for me to move in with him. And I was still not of legal age to consent myself.

As I have said repeatedly, unless the case was sound, I wouldn't even pursue it. I came to see what was needed.

If you want me to look at cases, then fucking give me some to look at. All you've given me is code as well.

All I came here for was details of what I would need. Not for some asshole to jump down my throat.

Your parents never gave consent? Do you have a police report that they filed when you ran away?

You think I'm an asshole, wait until you file a criminal charge and the judge get ahold of you.

If you want me to look at cases, then fucking give me some to look at. All you've given me is code as well.

Sure, for $150/hour, min. 5 hours research, to be paid upfront, I will do it. :angel

 

[CdwJava]

While we never had sex before I was 18, my ex (who has now stolen over $500 of property from me) did do other sexual acts before I was 18, when he was 22 and I was 15, and also when he was 24 and I was 17. I am now 21, so its been 4 years, is that too long to charge him with if he doesn't return my property?

Oh, we lived in California at the time.

Edited to clarify: I do not intend to blackmail him, but am simply wondering if the charges are still valid and how I would go about that.

Okay ... as the supervisor of my agency's investigations unit. and having been a juvenile crimes investigator for years, I'll give you the short skinny ...

These "other sexual acts" may no longer be able to be charged. It depends entirely upon WHAT they were (oral copulation, sodomy, penetration by object or digit, etc.). The time frame could be from one to ten years depending upon the specific act alleged. And, PC 261.5 is for sexual intercourse - since you state you did not have "sex" before age 18 this would no apply. Had the two of you had intercourse, he would have been guilty of a felony.

Note, also, that without corroboration or proof, this allegation will never see the inside of a courtroom. If he says it never happened, the case is pretty much done absent other proof.

The other complication you will have is this impression of payback for the theft. A prosecutor (and later a defense attorney) will rightfully ask, "Why now?" when you had 4 years (6 if you count the first contact - whatever it was) to come forward. The underlying inquiry will have to involve the theft, and this will potentially taint your testimony regarding the events of years past. And if he comes forward and claims that you threatened to pursue these charges or, alleges you threatened to make them up, if he did not pay you some money, you COULD be charged with blackmail under the right circumstances.

If you really want to do this, then forget the money issue entirely, and go to the police with your statement. Chances are it will go nowhere unless he confesses, but you never know. The moving in together - if done before age 18 - will go a long way to show sexual activity, but it is still only conjecture. While common sense would say that sex of some kind occurred, proving it if he denies it can be tough - he will have reasonable doubt built in. However, the fact that you were living together while you were underage does NOTHING to provide him a lawful defense to the charges ... since you are underage, consent is not a question ... hence the reason sex in violation of statutory law is often referred to as "statutory rape".

- Carl

 

[Scooterdog]

However, the fact that you were living together while you were underage does NOTHING to provide him a lawful defense to the charges ... since you are underage, consent is not a question

What a f-up state. In Montana, that is a air tight defense.

If anyone should be charged, it should be this chicks parents for neglect and child endangerment. This chick should be brought up on blackmail and attempt charges, min., as well as a mental evaluation to see if she is even playing with a full deck(which I doubt).

All over a stupid 500 bucks, god what is the world comming to?

And what of the 500?? She can't prove it, she admits that. Is it really 500/value, or what she THINKS it's worth? Did he steal it, or did she leave it and didn't retrieve it? Is this bratt all uptight because he got sick of her(wonder why) and got rid of her, so this is her way to "get even"?

This is not a victim complaining here, but rather a vindictive snot nosed bratt that didn't get her way, and is going to "make him pay" come hell or high water.

I believe this girl needs an extensive mental evaluation, with perhaps long term care in supervised conditions. She is clearly a danger to society, wanting to throw a fit, have people charged for crimes that can't/won't be proven, attempting to find a lawyer to do her "dirty work". What a crock of shit.

 

[CdwJava]

What a f-up state. In Montana, that is a air tight defense.

Then I guess the age of consent laws in MT are meaningless then.

I doubt it, friend.

If anyone should be charged, it should be this chicks parents for neglect and child endangerment.

Maybe they should ... provided they had any control over her. Parents in most states can sometimes be in a quandary - lock her up, go to jail ... let her run loose, go to jail ... it can be tough to find a middle ground if a child is out of control because the STATE cannot lock them up for what are effectively "status" offenses (at least not in most states, anyway).

This chick should be brought up on blackmail and attempt charges, min., as well as a mental evaluation to see if she is even playing with a full deck(which I doubt).

A tad bit melodramatic, ain't it?

If the elements for the crime of extortion (aka 'blackmail') are met, then maybe she could be. I doubt the state would prosecute, but if the attempt and threat to get the money were egregious enough, sure.

A mental health evaluation would not even play into it.

Is this bratt all uptight because he got sick of her(wonder why) and got rid of her, so this is her way to "get even"?

Sadly, he probably found another "kid" to play with. Guys like that tend to like 'em young.

This is not a victim complaining here, but rather a vindictive snot nosed bratt that didn't get her way, and is going to "make him pay" come hell or high water.

Wow! So, what burr got into your britches today? Seems like YOU are the one with the attitude.

Tone it down, cowboy, or your account may not be here in the morning.

I believe this girl needs an extensive mental evaluation, with perhaps long term care in supervised conditions. She is clearly a danger to society,

And your experience in mental health is ... ???

Have you thought of counseling for YOUR anger issues?

- Carl

 

[Scooterdog]

First of all "Carl", I dont' take kindly to threats.

Then I guess the age of consent laws in MT are meaningless then.

They do apply, age of concent is sixteen. I guess we mature faster in Montana.

Wow! So, what burr got into your britches today? Seems like YOU are the one with the attitude. Have you thought of counseling for YOUR anger issues

Let me ask you "Carl": Do you like being called an "asshole" like I was called by this person? I doubt it.

She's the one thats angry, trying to pull off a fraud like this. Again, not a victim, but someone crying to be heard because she didn't get her way.

I personally don't care, as she will never get anything done with this.

Yes, to your false accusation of MY aledged anger problems. There has never been a problem, ever. (Had it done for custody reasons, free and clear on my end, evalutated in two states).

And your experience in mental health is ... ???

More than yours to be sure. Perhaps you should help her, you two seem to be on the same page.

 

[CdwJava]

First of all "Carl", I dont' take kindly to threats.

Neither do I.

What threat did I make?

If you refer to my comment about toning it down, you might consider re-reading the TOS for this site and then look back at a few of your posts here and elsewhere on this site - some are walking the line or crossing it.

But, then, I am not one of the moderators ... though I am close to one of them.

They do apply, age of concent is sixteen. I guess we mature faster in Montana.

Or they just like to breed 'em younger there. Probably a throwback to the frontier days, because it certainly has nothing to do with maturity.

Let me ask you "Carl": Do you like being called an "asshole" like I was called by this person? I doubt it.

Well, who started calling who names in this thread? You did start referring to her as a mental case, I recall.

Note that I never said that her calling YOU names was appropriate.

She's the one thats angry, trying to pull off a fraud like this. Again, not a victim, but someone crying to be heard because she didn't get her way.

Maybe, maybe not. But, your interpretation of some of California's codes was slightly off, and the elements to be met for a prosecution of extortion can be rather high. I agree that she is considering this report out of spite, but that does not necessarily equate to extortion. The question is arguable, and one that I doubt a prosecutor in CA would pursue unless her attempts and threats have been particularly egregious.

Yes, to your false accusation of MY aledged anger problems. There has never been a problem, ever. (Had it done for custody reasons, free and clear on my end, evalutated in two states).

Couldn't tell by the vitriol you have posted here this morning.

More than yours to be sure.

Maybe.

Then again, probably not.

Perhaps you should help her, you two seem to be on the same page.

I posted my two cents worth. The difference between us is that I know CA state law on this subject.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

261.6. In prosecutions under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289, in which consent is at issue, "consent" shall be defined to mean positive cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will. The person must act freely and voluntarily and have knowledge of the nature of the act or transaction involved.

Consent was given when you moved in.

The issue of "consent" concerns the crimes articulated and when freely given "consent" is an issue (i.e. when force, coersion, or incapacitation may be an issue). However, by statute, a minor can NOT grant consent, thus consent is not an issue when the act involves a minor. A minor in CA cannot make a sexual relation lawful by moving in with the person as they cannot legally give consent. The only common exception to this rule is when the minor is the spouse of the other party.

- Carl

 

[Scooterdog]

You ever looked at internet laws, and hear do freedom of expression?

I never interpretated the law for her, as she woulnd't understand it.

Or they just like to breed 'em younger there. Probably a throwback to the frontier days, because it certainly has nothing to do with maturity.

This comming from a state with the highest homosexual rate in the US?

No substance, complete speculation, and a blattent out and out lie. It has EVERYTHING TO do with muturity. Look at our teen preg. rate to yours. Hell, look at everything we have compaired to the land of, well, Cal.

So, by the rediculouse comment quoted above, because Cal doesn't for whatever reason believe young adults should be having sex, and the majority of the states have age of consent laws like Montana, we are all wrong, but the high and mighty state of California is right? Whatever.

Seems like the majority of crime committed in Montana is being cause by all of the California transplants flocking in, thinking you are going to make us Cal 2, which is never, ever going to happen. Drugs, prostitution, kidnapping, molestation, just to name a few. Thanks california, than you soooo much.

 

[Scooterdog]

The issue of "consent" concerns the crimes articulated and when freely given "consent" is an issue (i.e. when force, coersion, or incapacitation may be an issue). However, by statute, a minor can NOT grant consent, thus consent is not an issue when the act involves a minor. A minor in CA cannot make a sexual relation lawful by moving in with the person as they cannot legally give consent. The only common exception to this rule is when the minor is the spouse of the other party.
- Carl

Wow. Carl, point out, hell, explain what you mean by consent. It has nothing to do with the young adult, but the parents. It is PARENTAL CONSENT, other than if you were forcing a young male/female into sex, with is completely different than what this thread is about.

For the red: I see. That makes no sense whatsoever. "they can't give consent, yet they can". Cant have sex, but can get married. Whatever.

 

[CdwJava]

You ever looked at internet laws, and hear do freedom of expression?

Sure I have. But this is a private forum. Ergo, please mind your P's and Q's.

I never interpretated the law for her, as she woulnd't understand it.

Mighty arrogant of you, don't you think?

This comming from a state with the highest homosexual rate in the US?

What's this got to do with anything.

Oh, and the percentages are pretty steady nationwide. But, you're right - as the most populous state, we likely DO have the highest number of homsexuals. So?

No substance, complete speculation, and a blattent out and out lie.

If you say so.

It has EVERYTHING TO do with muturity. Look at our teen preg. rate to yours. Hell, look at everything we have compaired to the land of, well, Cal.

Heck, even 18 year olds aren't mature, but 16 year olds sure as heck are not. I'm happy that you think your state is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Bully for you. I'm certainly not here to demean your state or cheerllead for mine. As a legal site, I AM here to try and provide what assistance I can to posters ... why are YOU here?

So, by the rediculouse comment quoted above, because Cal doesn't for whatever reason believe young adults should be having sex, and the majority of the states have age of consent laws like Montana, we are all wrong, but the high and mighty state of California is right? Whatever.

Where did I ever say anything like that?? You certainly read a lot into something that wasn't written. It's a simple matter of biology as well as psychological and emotional development, people are not very mature at the age of 16 - boys especially.

Seems like the majority of crime committed in Montana is being cause by all of the California transplants flocking in, thinking you are going to make us Cal 2, which is never, ever going to happen. Drugs, prostitution, kidnapping, molestation, just to name a few. Thanks california, than you soooo much.

I'm sure that's it ... yep.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Wow. Carl, point out, hell, explain what you mean by consent. It has nothing to do with the young adult, but the parents. It is PARENTAL CONSENT, other than if you were forcing a young male/female into sex, with is completely different than what this thread is about.

Consent as it relates to this topic is permission freely and knowingly given - this is as opposed to force, incapacitation, or compulsion. However, under CA law having sexual relations of most any type with a minor child is illegal by statute - "consent" is entirely irrelevant to many elements of these sex crimes (PC 261.5, 288a 288(a), ad nauseum). Even if "consent" is freely given, the act is criminal per statute.

Most states hold this line - in fact, I believe that they all do. I am unaware of any state that waives their age of consent laws if a child moves in with an adult for the purposes of sex.

I do not see where the parents in this case forced her into a sexual relationship at all. If they had, then they could also be charged with a criminal act ... well, actually, that statute of limitations may have passed, so that may not be possible.

For the red: I see. That makes no sense whatsoever. "they can't give consent, yet they can". Cant have sex, but can get married. Whatever.

In short, the juvenile can say "yes" freely and openly, but sex with that juvenile is still a crime per statute ... they cannot grant legal consent because of their age and statute.

- Carl

 

[Scooterdog]

Consent is derived from the parents. We have our wires crossed. I understand what you are staying.

What I'm saying, is the parents can give permision, if the young adult wanted them to. I'm not saying, forcing the person to have sex, I thought I explained that, maybe not.

Anyway, I'm done with this topic and the person who started it.

 

[CdwJava]

What I'm saying, is the parents can give permision, if the young adult wanted them to. I'm not saying, forcing the person to have sex, I thought I explained that, maybe not.

In California (and every other state I know of) the parents cannot grant that consent and waive the minimum age requirement. They cannot effectively give permission for their minor child to be subject to unlawful activity ... if so, we could easily have child sex slavery legalized throughout the nation.

If the parents WERE to give their permission or acquiescence to the behavior (provided they had some control) then they COULD be liable for criminal charges including child endangerment, neglect, etc. I have made these cases numerous times ... it is especially easy when the minor child is shacked up with her honey in the same house as the parent - even easier when the child gets pregnant (and they far too often do).

- Carl

 

[Scooterdog]

AGE OF
SEXUAL
STATE CONSENT
ALABAMA 16

ALASKA 16

ARIZONA 18

ARKANSAS 16

CALIFORNIA 18

COLORADO 17

CONNECTICUT 16

DELAWARE 18

The age of sexual consent is 16 for adults who are under 30 years of age,
or if the adult that is 30 years of age or older is married to the minor.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 16

FLORIDA 18

The age of sexual consent is 16 for adults who are under 24 years of age,
or if the adult that is 24 years of age or older is married to the minor.

GEORGIA 16

HAWAII 16

It is illegal for minors age 14 and 15 to have consensual sex with adults
at least five years older, this law does not apply to married couples.

IDAHO 18

ILLINOIS 17

Illinois law makes 18 the minimum age at which teachers and their students
may legally have sex. Age 17 does not apply to teachers or any other school
employee in a "position of authority" over the minor.

INDIANA 16

It is illegal for adults in a supervisory position of a minor aged 16 and 17
to have consensual sex with them. The crime called "felony child seduction"
, a Class D felony, carries a maximum penalty of three years in prison and a
$10,000 fine.

IOWA 16

KANSAS 16

Kansas law prohibits various sexual scenarios, and has a special category
for sex with a person between 14 and 16. Adults breaching this criminal
sodomy section face harsh penalties, but Kansas lawmakers carved out some
breathing space for youthful miscreants, provided they are 18 or under, and
within four years of age of their consensual partner. Called the "Romeo and
Juliet" law, the provision limits the penalty for teen sex to 15 months in
jail, and does not require the perpetrator to register as a sex offender.
But the "Romeo and Juliet" law only applies to heterosexual teen-agers. Also
it is a felony for school employees to have consensual sexual contact with
students ages 16 or 17, even if it is only french-kissing.

KENTUCKY 16

LOUISIANA 17

Louisiana law allows prosecutors to seek the death penalty for people
convicted of having consensual sex with a person under 12 years old. The
Louisiana state Supreme Court declared the law constitutional in 1999
because of a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court ruling addressing the rape of an adult,
not a child. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1977 banned the death penalty for
raping adult women, but the justices did not say whether it could be applied
to child rapists. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the 1999 Louisiana
case, allowing the death penalty law to stand.

MAINE 16

MARYLAND 16

MASSACHUSETTS 16

If a minor 16 or 17 years of age is a virgin, sex is illegal (Chapter 272:
Section 4. Inducing person under 18 to have sexual intercourse).

MICHIGAN 16

MINNESOTA 16

MISSISSIPPI 16

MISSOURI 17

MONTANA 16

The homosexual age of sexual consent is higher at 18.

NEBRASKA 17

NEVADA 16

The homosexual age of sexual consent is higher at 18.

NEW HAMPSHIRE 16

The age of sexual consent is higher at 18 if the adult is in a position of
authority over the person and uses this authority to coerce the person to
submit, except if between legally married spouses. Also the homosexual age
of consent may be higher at 18?

NEW JERSEY 16

NEW MEXICO 17

The age of sexual consent for homosexuals may be lower at 13?

NEW YORK 17

NORTH CAROLINA 16

NORTH DAKOTA 18

OHIO 16

OKLAHOMA 16

OREGON 18

PENNSYLVANIA 16

RHODE ISLAND 16

SOUTH CAROLINA 16

People 18 or younger can have consensual sex with someone as young as 14.
South Carolina law allows prosecutors to seek the death penalty for people
twice convicted of having consensual sex with a person under 11 years old.

 

[Scooterdog]

SOUTH DAKOTA 16

TENNESSEE 18

39-13-506. Statutory rape. (a) Statutory rape is sexual penetration of a
victim by the defendant or of the defendant by the victim when the victim
is at least thirteen (13) but less than eighteen (18) years of age and the
defendant is at least four (4) years older than the victim. (b) If the
person accused of statutory rape is under eighteen (18) years of age, such
a defendant shall be tried as a juvenile and shall not be transferred for
trial as an adult. (c) Statutory rape is a Class E felony.

TEXAS 18

The age of consent in Texas is considered to be 17 years of age, however,
until the minor turns 18, he or she can only have sexual relations with
someone 2 years older.

UTAH 18

The age of sexual consent may be lower at 16 as long as it does not involve
force?

VERMONT 16

VIRGINIA 18

A person 18 and older having sex with a 13- or 14-year-old faces a felony
charge, which carries a punishment of two to 10 years in prison and up to a
$100,000 fine. A person 18 and older having sex with someone age 15, 16 or 17
faces a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine.

WASHINGTON 16

It is illegal for any school employee to have consensual sexual contact
with a student between age 16 and high school graduation, so age 16 does not
apply to school employees.

WEST VIRGINIA 16

The age of sexual consent for homosexuals may be higher at 18?

WISCONSIN 18

WYOMING 16*

 

[Scooterdog]

In California (and every other state I know of) the parents cannot grant that consent and waive the minimum age requirement

Well, now you have the facts. Parental consent is what is needed, and the ages above are those ages the parents can give consent for the young adult to have sex.

Now I will move on.

 

[CdwJava]

Well, now you have the facts. Parental consent is what is needed, and the ages above are those ages the parents can give consent for the young adult to have sex.

IF the child is over the age of consent or a legal adult, then the parent(s) CAN give their approval, a high five, a thumbs up, or whatever they choose to do. But, if the "young adult" is at or above the age of consent, parental permission is not going to be required anyway. However, OTHER matters CAN and often DO come into play ... contributing to the delinquency of a minor, encouraging a child to runaway, ad nauseum.

If the child is UNDER the age of consent (as was the case in the OP's original post) then the parent can NOT grant ANY consent and allow sexual relations to take place.

- Carl

 

[Scooterdog]

I never said if they were under the age of consent.
You have stated the age of consent is 18, everywhere. It appears to be in Cal, and a few others, but not all states.

Okay, say in WEST VIRGINIA, a 16 year old is having sex without parental consent with a 20 year old(just as an example) you would be guilty of sex without consent, or whatever they call it in WV.

Yet, if the same 20 year old had permision from the parents, it would then be legal.

I'm sorry if that doesn't fall into your idea of morality, but that's just the way it is. Again, it reverts to the parents, and the maturity of the person. Clearly some states 16 year olds are far more mature than, well, say Cal. who has to wait another two years to catch up.

 

[CdwJava]

I never said if they were under the age of consent.
You have stated the age of consent is 18, everywhere. It appears to be in Cal, and a few others, but not all states.

I never said it was 18 everywhere.

I'm not sure where you got THAT idea.

And MY sense of morality opposes any relations outside the covenant of marriage. But, I am considered by many to be a prude.

- Carl