Maid and boy, 14, had sex after watching porn

A maid agreed to have sex with her employer's 14-year-old son after the pair watched pornographic films on the internet together, a court heard yesterday.

They continued having sex for five months after that, but when the boy wanted to end their sexual relationship, the maid, a 45-year-old divorcee and mother of two boys, refused. At her request, they had sex three more times over the next few weeks.

Eventually the boy, who had no previous sexual experience, sent the leader of a Christian group he attended a text message confessing to the relationship and asking what to do.

They met the next day, after which the Christian leader told the boy's mother what had happened.

Police were called in and the maid was arrested later the same day, prosecutor Alex Ng told the District Court.

The maid, Suwartin, who has worked for the boy's extended family for 11 years, pleaded guilty yesterday to five charges of committing an indecent act with an under-age child between August and January.

She pleaded not guilty to three similar charges, which Judge Andrew Chan Hing-wai ordered left on file after the prosecution decided not to proceed on them.

The Indonesian, through her lawyer, apologised to the boy and his family and said she would live with the shame of what she had done for the rest of her life.

She had acted out of loneliness, her lawyer said.

Suwartin began working for the boy's family in 2005, her lawyer said. The relationship between helper and boy was not very close, since he sometimes shouted at her, the lawyer said.

When she first discovered the boy surfing internet pornography sites, she had told him not to indulge himself in sex, the lawyer said.

She accepted that though she had not forced herself on the boy and he had consented to sex, he was too young for that consent to have legal force.

The judge adjourned sentencing for two weeks to allow reports to be compiled about the impact on the boy of Suwartin's crimes.

The boy lives with his divorced mother and two older brothers.

The judge ordered that their names and where they lived not be made public to avoid the boy's identity becoming known.

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7tK%2FMqWWcp51krrPAyJyjnmdmaIN2f5FopJqhlGKur7CMm6ayZWFpeqmtw2aqnrBdlrO1sdFmrpqsk522r7OMqaarpg%3D%3D