It's in the "child's" best interest (in this case, the child is the teenage boy boy) NOT to be involved in sexual relations. To decide otherwise is to say that sex with a child is okay unless a baby is conceived in which case we have to act in a way to build a solid relationship between mom, dad, and baby ... even if one or both of the parents are children themselves.
Nope. Children should NOT be having sex. And they should NOT be having babies. And frankly, it may NOT be in the best interest of the child for the child to be in a home with a teenage or young adult parents. If government sought the best interest of the soon-to-be-born child in all instances, we would see government inspectors checking out ALL parents.
In this case you have a child produced by a technically unlawful act.
And in CA some of our laws seemingly encourage these illegal acts. And it's odd ... since a nurse (school nurse or hospital nurse) cannot give medication or a band-aid without a parent's consent, yet birth control pills and in many cases abortions can be performed on minor children without the parent's knowledge ... inarguably MUCH more invasive procedures than a band-aid or over-the-counter medication.
But, currently, sexual relations with a minor is a criminal act. The original poster can be secure in the fact that the chance of her being prosecuted are slim to none so long as the boys' parents do not make an issue out of it, and the county does not have a dedicated prosecution unit for underage sex. And most of the grant funding for underage sex prosecutions has recently run out, so chances are it has become a back-burner issue for a while.
Carl