https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer
Hermesmann v. Seyer was a precedent-setting Kansas, United States, case in which Colleen Hermesmann successfully argued that a woman is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support even if conception occurred as a result of a criminal act committed by the woman.[2][3] The case was brought in her name by the then Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.
Colleen Hermesmann was a 16-year-old babysitter who in 1987 was hired to take care of 12-year-old Shane Seyer. The two began a sexual relationship, and when Hermesmann was 17 and Seyer was 13, the former became pregnant. The baby, a daughter, was born in 1989. Criminal charges were brought against Hermesmann by Shawnee County, Kansas, accusing her of "engaging in the act of sexual intercourse with a child under sixteen". Hermesmann ultimately took a plea bargain, pleading guilty to the lesser offense of "contributing to a child's misconduct".
In 1991, the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, in Hermesmann's name, took Seyer to court seeking child support. Hermesmann's criminal culpability was not addressed in this trial, as this was purely a civil court case. The Department also sought and was awarded $7,000, equivalent to $16,200 in 2024,[4] for its own costs.
And the ones mentioned here:
In 1996, the court heard the case of County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J in which a 34-year-old woman became pregnant after sexually exploiting a 15-year-old boy. He was also forced to pay child support, and then Deputy Attorney General Mary Roth alleged:
The key thing here is that the state is most interested in passing on its costs to somebody else, particularly when that someone else is a man, who they couldn't care less about. You'll see none of the usual claptrap about "revictimizing a crime victim" here, because the government has money at stake.
Ordinarily there are laws that prohibit you from financially benefiting from your crime, even if other laws would normally provide you compensation, but in this case I'm sure they argue that it's "FoR tHE cHiLD", even though the money is simply given to the adult guardian with absolutely no checks and balances to ensure that a single penny of it is spent on the intended recipient.