please help!!!!!!

i am 17 an just had a baby,myboy friend,the father of my baby, we want to get married
he is 15, his mom dose not want us to gether,
what can we do??????????

my e-mail is
femalepimp2000@chatway.com

p.s we are in utah

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by magi:
[b]i am 17 an just had a baby,myboy friend,the father of my baby, we want to get married
he is 15, his mom dose not want us to gether,
what can we do??????????

my e-mail is
femalepimp2000@chatway.com

p.s we are in utah[/b]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My response:

You can cool your jets, for one thing. I don't know about Utah law, but the following is California case law and you might learn something, and ask an attorney in Utah about it. The 15 year old is a kid, and undoubtedly cannot, at this time, answer in Child Support. His mother doesn't have to allow her son to marry you, and you may wind up waiting until he's 18. All you can do is be patient and, in the meantime, allow father and grandmother to visit with the child:

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re T.A.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. T.A.J., Defendant and Appellant. A076464 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. J167658)

I.

Penal Code section 261.5, subdivision (b), makes it a misdemeanor for "any person" to have sexual intercourse with a minor who is no more than three years older or younger than the perpetrator. Does this statute infringe a constitutional privacy right of minors to engage in consensual sexual intercourse? Is the statute unconstitutional as applied to appellant who was a minor himself at the time of the alleged offense, and therefore, an individual within the class of persons protected by the statute? In affirming the finding of the trial court determining appellant to be a ward of the court, we answer both questions in the negative.

II.

A juvenile petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 was filed on April 22, 1996, charging appellant T.A.J. with misdemeanor statutory rape in violation of Penal Code section 261.5, subdivision (b). The petition alleged that 16-year-old T.A.J. engaged in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with another minor no more than three years older or younger than himself on February 9, 1996. On July 5, 1996, the petition was amended by adding one count of forcible rape under section 261.5, subdivision (a)(2). A jurisdictional hearing was held on September 30 and October 2, 1996, at the conclusion of which the court found true the statutory rape allegation (count1), and made no finding with regard to the forcible rape count (count2). As a result, appellant was granted probation. This timely appeal was filed on November 19, 1996.

The incident out of which this case arises was an admitted act of sexual intercourse which occurred at the home of the 14-year-old female victim, T.P. The evidence need not be recounted in detail here. The disputed factual issue before the court at the jurisdictional hearing was simply whether that act was consensual. If consensual, appellant was at worst guilty of misdemeanor statutory rape (count1, violation of §261.5, subd. (b)). If nonconsensual, appellant faced a true finding on the forcible rape charge (count2, violation of §261, subd. (a)(2)). As noted, the court found only count1 true, and therefore concluded the admitted act was consensual. Appellant does not contest this factual finding on appeal.

Instead, appellant contends that section 261.5 is unconstitutional both facially and as applied to him. His constitutional challenge to the statute rests on two arguments: first, that the statute violates his right to privacy guaranteed by the California Constitution, articleI, section 1, and second, that the statute may not be constitutionally applied to him since he is a member of the "protected class" as defined by the statute. (Cf. In re Meagan R. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 17.) As a "victim," he may not also be prosecuted under the statute as a "perpetrator." For reasons set forth below, we reject both contentions.

III.

A.

We begin with an area of agreement between the parties. Both agree that minors, as well as adults, enjoy a right of privacy protected by the California Constitution in article I, section 1. That provision, which was amended significantly by the voters of California in 1972, states simply: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

The parties diverge, however, in their respective views as to whether the right of privacy for minors is as extensive as it is for adults, and in particular whether minors' privacy rights include the right to engage in consensual sexual intercourse. Appellant claims consensual sexual conduct is a core right of personal "autonomy" which attaches to all persons and which may be infringed by the Legislature only in the presence of a compelling state interest. Under the applicable test of "strict scrutiny," appellant urges no such compelling state interest exists sufficient to deprive him of his right to engage freely in consensual sexual conduct. Respondent retorts that the right of privacy enjoyed by minors has not been defined as broadly as it has for adults, and in many instances has specifically been limited. Therefore, respondent argues that the right of privacy applicable to minors does not encompass the right of minors to engage in consensual sexual intercourse with each other. Alternatively, respondent asserts that even if a right to engage in sex falls within a minor's right of privacy, there are indeed state interests which outweigh the limitation on that right imposed by section 261.5, subdivision (b).

Undoubtedly, the most comprehensive analysis governing constitutional challenges under the state right of privacy is last year's Supreme Court opinion in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren (1997) 16 Cal.4th 307 (American Academy). The majority recited its view as to the proper methodology to be employed when evaluating claims of the type asserted in this appeal, citing from Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1 (Hill): "'[A] plaintiff alleging an invasion of privacy in violation of the state constitutional right to privacy must establish each of the following: (1)a legally protected privacy interest; (2)a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances; and (3)conduct by defendant constituting a serious invasion of privacy.' [Citation.] 'A defendant may prevail in a state constitutional privacy case by negating any of the three elements just discussed or by pleading and proving, as an affirmative defense, that the invasion of privacy is justified because it substantively furthers one or more countervailing interests.' [Citation.] The court [in Hill] further explained that '[t]he plaintiff, in turn, may rebut a defendant's assertion of countervailing interests by showing there are feasible and effective alternatives to defendant's conduct which have a lesser impact on privacy interests.' [Citation.]" (American Academy, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p.330, fn. omitted.)

The court took care to note its intention not to install new "hurdles" for claimants endeavoring to demonstrate a constitutional violation of the right to privacy. Instead, it simply articulated threshold elements which can be utilized by courts to screen out claims which otherwise do not implicate significant invasions of privacy rights. Once these elements are established, the court must then weigh and balance the justification for the interference against the severity of the intrusion. (American Academy, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp.330-331.)

The Hill decision also set the standards by which proffered justifications for alleged interferences with the right of privacy will be measured if the "threshold elements" are proved: "Some of our decisions following White use 'compelling interest' language; others appear to rely on balancing tests giving less intense scrutiny to nonprivacy interests. The particular context, i.e., the specific kind of pri

I understand how hard things are for you right now. So much responsibility, so much love for each other and the baby. All the work and feelings of an adult yet not old enough to do what you want.

My advice is that you and your boyfriend make the best of every day you have together and keep doing your very best to care for and love your child. Be each others best friend and pitch in together. If you show consistant good judgement, love and that you can handle the responsibility all good things can only follow. Maybe not marriage yet, but you do have a lifetime of love ahead of you to give to your child. Give that and before you know it everything else can fall into place. Show everyone that you can be great parents. Be very supportive of each other too! Make your friendship and love so strong that when 18 hits for your boyfriend your wedding will be a welcomed event! Good Luck!!!

you are both young, he especially, i have seen it more times than i can tell you. as you get older your interests will change and maybe not in the same way. as people grow up they grow apart. i hope, for your child's sake that does not happen, however it is pretty likely. no matter what happens never use your child as a tool to get back at eachother. you may not think you could do that, but believe me it could happen. even though you both want to be together now it may not always be that way, so you should prepare now. paternity test, or admission of paternity in writing from him (dated and signed)make a note of his birthday and social security number. you may never need these things, but then again you might and it will be easier if you already have them. three years is a long time for a kid of 15 years of age and a lot can happen in that time. not matter what alway try your best to be the best mom you can be. the child did not ask to come into the world, you all made that happen. i was 19 when i had my son and i can tell you i did not get to finish being a kid because i had to raise one. it was worth every moment and would trade it if i had the chance. good luck