Legal Consequences of Teen Sexuality

The following question was posted here:

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-a-16-year-old-consent-to-sex-in-ma-to-a-29-yea-233319.html

Paraphrasing the question:

I am 16 and see a personal counselor. I told her I am in a relationship with a 29 year old man. She checked with her advisers and DCF to see if it was legal or not and said yes it is legal -- there's nothing anyone can do about it. Then a couple of months after that my counselor brought my mom in with us during a session to work on my relationship with her. My mom brought up her concerns of me possibly being with this man. I have always said to her I wasn't with him and he has told her the same. The next day tells me that it's illegal and she needs to tell the authorities. So, is it legal or not?

My answers:

The age of consent for sexual relations in Massachusetts is 16. I'll post more in a few minutes after searching to give you some citations.

Call me at 781-641-3472 if you would like a free, brief initial consultation about your rights.

The Massachusetts Trial Court Law Libraries have put together a great set of links on a page called "Massachusetts Law About Sex."

I suppose it could be argued that it might be "abuse" under DCF (formerly DSS)'s definition if the counselor had "reasonable cause to believe" that your relationship with this man "causes, or creates a substantial risk of physical or emotional injury," or if the man can be defined as a "caretaker" in relationship to you because "any sexual contact between a caretaker and a child under the care of that individual" also constitutes "abuse." I'll link the definition page below as well as the statutory link about what a counselor is "mandated" to "report."

On the other hand, a child in DCF custody is allowed to consent to her own "family planning services" which can include contraception. See §11.05 of the Medical Authorizations regulation linked below.

If the counselor is required to report under §51A, linked below, your right to privacy of your conversations with her is essentially voided. If she is wrong about her insistence on reporting and ignores your reasonable requests that she keep your confidences, you may have a claim against her.

DCF's Glossary regulation

Mandated reporting Law

DCF's Medical authorizations regulation

Untold Number of Things You Can Be Restrained from Doing to Anyone

Massachusetts will soon have an Harassment Prevention Order statute.

Chapter 23 of the Acts of 2010: AN ACT RELATIVE TO HARASSMENT PREVENTION ORDERS was enacted on February 9, 2010. By my calculation it will go into effect on May 10th. The act adds a new chapter, 258E, to the Mass. General Laws. It is not yet up in the official, online version of the General Laws, so for now you'll have to use the St. 2010, c. 23 link or, to eventually find it in its codified form, go to M.G.L. c. 258D, § 9 and click the "Next Section" button.

The actions that are restrainable under the new law are defined as follows:

“Abuse”, attempting to cause or causing physical harm to another or placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm.

“Harassment”, (i) 3 or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that does in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property; or (ii) an act that: (A) by force, threat or duress causes another to involuntarily engage in sexual relations; or (B) constitutes a violation of section 13B, 13F, 13H, 22, 22A, 23, 24, 24B, 26C, 43 or 43A of chapter 265 or section 3 of chapter 272. (M.G.L. c. 258D, § 1.)

In contrast to Abuse Prevention Orders (Mass. Gen. Laws chapter 209A), the plaintiff and defendant in a complaint for protection from harassment do not need to have had any family, living or substantial dating relationship. (Cf. M.G.L. c. 209A, § 1.) But similarly to chapter 209A: Violations of chapter 258D orders are criminal offenses, there are no filing fees, the orders can be entered without advance notice, initial orders are valid for 10 court business days after which there is to be an extension hearing and there do not need to have been violations of the order for the order to be extended after its original expiration date.

The relief available to "A person suffering from harassment" is to "order that the defendant:"

(i) refrain from abusing or harassing the plaintiff, whether the defendant is an adult or minor;
(ii) refrain from contacting the plaintiff, unless authorized by the court, whether the defendant is an adult or minor;
(iii) remain away from the plaintiff’s household or workplace, whether the defendant is an adult or minor; and

(iv) pay the plaintiff monetary compensation for the losses suffered as a direct result of the harassment; provided, however, that compensatory damages shall include, but shall not be limited to, loss of earnings, out-of-pocket losses for injuries sustained or property damaged, cost of replacement of locks, medical expenses, cost for obtaining an unlisted phone number and reasonable attorney’s fees. (G.L. c. 258B, § 3(a).)

Violations of the orders are criminal offenses with potential penalties of:

[A] fine of not more than $5,000, or by imprisonment for not more than 2½ years in a house of correction, or both. In addition to, but not in lieu of, the foregoing penalties and any other sentence, fee or assessment, including the victim witness assessment in section 8 of chapter 258B, the court shall order persons convicted of a violation of such an order to pay a fine of $25 that shall be transmitted to the treasurer for deposit into the General Fund. For any violation of such order, the court may order the defendant to complete an appropriate treatment program based on the offense.

In each instance in which there is a violation of a harassment prevention order or a protection order issued by another jurisdiction, the court may order the defendant to pay the plaintiff for all damages including, but not limited to, loss of earnings, out-of-pocket losses for injuries sustained or property damaged, cost of replacement locks, medical expenses, cost for obtaining an unlisted telephone number and reasonable attorney’s fees. (M.G.L. c. 258D, § 9.)

The orders may be sought in the district, superior, Boston Municipal or, if both the plaintiff and defendant are below the age of 17, in the juvenile courts where the plaintiffs reside. (M.G.L. c. 258A, § 2.)

To discuss obtaining or defending against such an order, read my Initial Consultation Policies and contact The Law Office of Michael L. Rich.

Boston Mooninite Charges Dropped

Berdovsky and Stevens (pictured at left) were arrested on the day of the incident (1/31/07) and charged with placing a hoax device to incite panic, a felony charge that carries a five-year maximum sentence, and one count of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor.[17] At their arraignment on 2/1/07 Both pleaded not guilty to the two charges and were later released on a $2,500 cash bond.[2]

At the arraignment Assistant Attorney General John Grossman claimed that the two were trying to "get attention by causing fear and unrest that there was a bomb in that location."[20] Michael Rich, the lawyer representing both men at the time, disputed Grossman's claim, asserting that even a VCR could be found to fit the description of a bomb-like device.[20] Judge Leary said that it will be necessary for the prosecution to demonstrate an intent on the part of the suspects to cause a panic. The judge continued "It appears the suspects had no such intent, …but the question should be discussed in a later hearing." [20]

A small crowd of supporters gathered outside of the courthouse that day to protest the perceived overreaction by authorities. At a press conference held outside of the courthouse following their release on bail, Berdovsky, Rich and Stevens refused to comment on the case. Berdovsky and Stevens instead insisted on discussing only hairstyles of the 1970s, prompting annoyed comments and accusations of apathy from the press.[8]

Rich and Berdovsky had Attorney Walter Prince and his associate Attorney Jeffrey Pyle of Prince, Lobel, Glovsky & Tye join the defense team on behalf of Berdovsky and negotiations ensued with the Massachusetts Attorney General's office. Between subsequent court appearances on March 7 and 30, 2007, Rich introduced the concept of Restorative Justice (see http://www.macucc.org/emj/restorative_justice.htm) to the negotiations. Bersdovsky and Stevens voluntarily performed data entry, clean up, graphic design and video editing work for Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital between March 30th and May 10th.

On May 11, 2007, the prosecutors dropped the charges after the men completed 60 and 80 hours of community service and read apologies in court. (See http://www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=986&id=1889 and http://www.ago.state.ma.us/filelibrary/Nolle%20Prosque.MP3) [22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_Mooninite_Scare