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:
On the one hand, it's not the kid's fault his mother is a predator.
On the other hand, because "child support" is a nebulous demand that somehow doesn't deserve line-item invoices, it's pretty obvious that same family court system would fuck this kid a second time.
Even if "child support" came with line by line itemized receipts, it would not matter.
She buys the kid $50 of groceries. Now she can spend her own $50 on Manhattans with the girls.
She buys the baby clothes and shoes. She can return them for a refund and spend the money any way she wants.
She can't get a refund? She can sell it all for half price and pocket the money.
Have you ever seen how drug addicts use food stamps? These exploits are well known. There is no fool-proof way to turn money into good parenting.
The mother is a child rapist. She should not have custody in the first place. So any support should never go to her.