Well, even a stupid person can support his/her children if they have a good work ethic, so stupidity isn’t really the key factor, but a sense of responsibility. This guy has demonstrated no sense of responsibility, nor is he likely to develop one anyitme soon. Since he’s already faced repeated charges of not paying his child support, I don’t have a problem with the “no reproducing” element of his probation.
I’d be a little concerned that he’ll visit one of the mothers of his children and she’ll be dumb enough to collaborate on producing number 10.
" . . . the fundamental right to bear and beget a child . . ." and " . . . the preservation of one’s bodily reproductive functions is a fundamental right . . ." Guardianship of Tulley, 83 Cal. App. 3d 698, Cal.C.A., 1978.
This isn’t about taking away a poor person’s right to have children. It is about a person with means who deliberately sires children and then refuses to pay support, and who appears to be highly likely to continue such behaviour despite long-term court imposition.
Now I don’t know much about American law, so take the following with a grain of salt.
In this matter, there is a high potential for further offences given the convict’s pattern of behaviour. The convict has sired nine children but has refused to support them despite having an ability to provide for support. He has ignored court orders for support, and has been convicted for intimidating witness, including one of his own children, in a child protection matter. One would reasonably conclude that such behaviour would continue should he have another child.
Is not a sentence (including conditions for probation) imposed for a variety of reasons, one of which is punishment and another of which is protection of the public from further offences? I don’t know about what goes on in Wisconsin, but I expect that this might be true.
Here there is a serious potential for the commission of further offences in two ways. First, there is the potential for further refusal to pay ongoing support for the existing children. Second, there is the potential for siring of further children and then not providing for them.
The court has required that before siring another child, the father should prove his ability to support it, and that the determinative indicia of such an ability be his providing of support for his existing children. If he violates these terms, then the goes to prison.
That seems very tailored toward protecting against further offences, but at the same time it is not so broad as to preclude the possibility that he will be able to meet such constraints and still have more children. He is not being placed in the position of having his right to procreation permanently impinged, or even impinged beyond what it would have been had he been incarcerated.
Is there a practicable but less restrictive condition that could have been imposed that would have offered protection against further offences? I can’t think of one. The dissenting judges pointed out methods of enforcing support arrears and ongoing support, but did not offer anything constructive concerning the probability of the convict committing a further offence, in as much as all previous efforts at enforcement short of incarceration had failed and the fellow still went on repeating and repeating and repeating.
