In a narrow reading of B.A.M., 806 A.2d 893 (Pa. Super. 2002), panel holds that B.A.M. does not hold that a 13-year-old cannot be held criminally liable for initiating sexual activity; rather, it held that one child could not be held criminally liable for the acts of two 11-year-olds who consensually engaged in the conduct. This 13-year-old was exactly the kind of perp the IDSI statute was aimed at as he was much older and took advantage of a 9-year-old with mental deficiencies. The opinion suggests that consensual sex between those incapable of consent by age is only non-criminal so long as neither initiates the sexual activity. The initiator may be criminally liable.
The filing of an appeal did not remove jurisdiction for the juvenile court to change its dispositional order because of Rule 610 (Dispositional and Commitment Review).