the 13 year old father

this court case shows the justifiblicatons that they used in another case. Note that the court says he consented while also saying he was the victim of statutory rape - because of his age he could not consent!

here are several different scenarios in which the man was unwilling, but was still charged child support.

It is rare that someone will call it "rape", but here's one such article.

there is discussion here and here.

update

and check this out:

Quote: Esther M. v. Mary L., No. 94-33812 (1994.DE.19031), (mother of children did not have to pay child support for children conceived as a result of the rape/incest of her brother; intercourse was involuntary and nonconsensual).

Here are more cases:

http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtysix.htm

thanks to kraigshot

adding another case:

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/df7x7/here_is_one_for_you_mr_1996_14yr_old_boy_pays/

Adding two more links, thanks to dogbotherer

http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0303/mnd030311.htm

http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/04/punishing-the-v.html

So what you see here is gender double standard at it's finest. When females are involved, it's common sense, but when the one liable has a penis, then it's all about being draconian and making no compromises.

another anecdote

And another one

more:

If your son is statutorily raped by a woman, he will be liable for child support if the statutory rapist decides to have the baby (which means, you will have to pay for your son's child). In the case of County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J., 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843 (Ct. App. 1996), a thirty-four-year-old woman had sex with a fifteen-year-old boy and became pregnant. The woman was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor -- commonly called statutory rape. She decided to have the child, and after she gave birth to her daughter, she received Aid for Families with Dependent Children, and the county sought reimbursement for the AFDC payments from the father, the 15-year-old boy. The court held that the boy, a statutory rape victim, was financially liable for the child that resulted from his victimization.

This case is not alone: "Two state supreme courts and several state appellate courts have ruled that male statutory rape victims can be financially liable for supporting a child resulting from their criminal victimization." R. Jones, ARTICLE: INEQUALITY FROM GENDER-NEUTRAL LAWS: WHY MUST MALE VICTIMS OF STATUTORY RAPE PAY CHILD SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN RESULTING FROM THEIR VICTIMIZATION? 36 Ga. L. Rev. 411 (2002). There are no reported cases where female victims of statutory rape have been held to a similar support obligation.

source:

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/02/redefining-rape-much-ado-about-probably.html

another (2005): http://mensnewsdaily.com/2011/02/27/man-receives-oral-sex-ordered-to-pay-child-support/

also:

Hermesmann v. Seyer (Kansas, 1993)

Hermesmann was a routine child care provider for Shane Seyer as a babysitter during 1987 and 1988. Hermesmann, then 16, began a sexual relationship with Seyer when he was 12 years old. Subsequently, Hermesmann gave birth to a daughter on May 30, 1989. Hermesmann took the father to court for child support on March 8, 1991 and won. The court ruled that a mother's potential culpability under the criminal statutes was of no relevance in determining the father's child support liability under the civil statutes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer

and:

https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/lawreview/articles/volume152/issue6/London152U.Pa.L.Rev.1957\(2004\).pdf