Judge orders couple not to have children. OK?

[beagledave]

From CNN

A couple has been ordered not to conceive any more children until the ones they already have are no longer in foster care.

<snip>

Monroe County Family Court Judge Marilyn O’Connor ruled March 31 that both parents “should not have yet another child which must be cared for at public expense.”

“The facts of this case and the reality of parenthood cry out for family planning education,” she ruled. “This court believes the constitutional right to have children is overcome when society must bear the financial and everyday burden of care.”

<snip>

Neither parent attended the proceeding or secured legal representation. The mother waived her right to a lawyer, and the father never showed up in court.

The mother was found to have neglected her four children, ages 1, 2, 4 and 5. All three children who were tested for cocaine tested positive, according to court papers. Both parents had a history of drug abuse. It was not immediately clear if the father had other children.

A case worker testified that the parents ignored an order to get mental health treatment and attend parenting classes after the 1-year-old was born.

The mother was still in the hospital after giving birth to her fourth child in March 2003 when authorities took the infant, according to court papers. Investigators said the mother was unprepared to care for the infant.

Obvious reaction from the ACLU contained in story.

Local coverage of story, FWIW, here.

In researching her ruling, O’Connor and her law clerk, Patricia Gallaher, could find no other reported case in the nation in which a judge ordered a couple to stop producing children.

Thoughts?

[clairobscur]

I suspect that in a fight between biology and law, biology is going to win.

[Blalron]

The same Supreme Court precedents that prevent the State from forcing a woman to have a child also cover any attempts to order you not to have children.

[emacknight]

@beagledave

From

Obvious reaction from the ACLU contained in story.

In researching her ruling, O’Connor and her law clerk, Patricia Gallaher, could find no other reported case in the nation in which a judge ordered a couple to stop producing children.

Thoughts?

I can remember a case a few years ago where a man was ordered to not concieve any more children. In his case he had a bunch of kids with a bunch of different women and wasn’t paying child support to any of them. I’ll see if I can dig up the article.

Personally I applaud the ruling. Any idiot can have a child and everyone of them seem to, repeatedly.

Giving birth is a big deal and people need to be held accountable for that choice.

[Master_Wang-Ka]

Personally I applaud the ruling. Any idiot can have a child and everyone of them seem to, repeatedly.

Giving birth is a big deal and people need to be held accountable for that choice.

I agree totally, but durned if I can think of any way that a law could be written that prevents the irresponsible from breeding without interfering with the rights of the rest of us.

Man, I can think of any number of people I wish I could keep from breeding…

[Marley23]

I’m of the same opinion as the commentator at the end of the article- it’s unenforceable and the judge is just trying to make a point. I always tell people I don’t think parents should have to pass a test or some other similar crap, but stupid people who keep having kids they can’t take care of don’t bolster my argument. :rolleyes:

[Qadgop_the_Mercotan]

Well, what do you think of this approach? (Caveat: Case mainly theoretical)

A judge could sentence a guy to 5 years in prison for his chronic nonpayment of support. But he tells the guy that the sentence will be suspended, IF the guy gets a vasectomy.

Perfectly legitimate prison sentence, within sentencing guidelines. An alternative to prison that the convictee can choose, but does not have to. Others are being sent to prison regularly for the same crime, without being given this particular option.

Fair? Constitutional?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@emacknight

I can remember a case a few years ago where a man was ordered to not concieve any more children. In his case he had a bunch of kids with a bunch of different women and wasn’t paying child support to any of them. I’ll see if I can dig up the article.

There was a thread about this a while back, either in GD or the Pit, and it included one of the most devastating megatonnage witticisms I’ve ever seen (and it wasn’t mine).

Try searching for variants on “I wonder how his wife is taking it”.

[Abbie_Carmichael]

It’s a great ruling that will never hold up, unfortunately. These people are probably working as we speak to get pregnant with their next crack baby.

[Blalron]

@Qadgop the Mercotan

Well, what do you think of this approach? (Caveat: Case mainly theoretical)

A judge could sentence a guy to 5 years in prison for his chronic nonpayment of support. But he tells the guy that the sentence will be suspended, IF the guy gets a vasectomy.

Perfectly legitimate prison sentence, within sentencing guidelines. An alternative to prison that the convictee can choose, but does not have to. Others are being sent to prison regularly for the same crime, without being given this particular option.

Fair? Constitutional?

It’s definitely fair. But Constitutional? I’m not so sure if there’s any precedents on the constitutionality of getting someone to “voluntarily” wave their constitutional rights to avoid substantial prison time.

[Blalron]

Qadgop’s idea seems to make sense now that I think about it. The State definitely has the right to throw you in prison for chronic failure to support your children. I don’t see any reason why the State can’t graciously choose to grant you mercy if you follow certain conditions. If they can suspend the sentence of a drunken driver on the condition that they enter a rehab clinic, why not suspend deadbeat parents punishment in exchange for sterilization?

[AHunter3]

It’s what they should have done to that brother-sister incestuous couple of ~2 years back instead of incarcerating them.

[sqweels]

I’m not so sure if there’s any precedents on the constitutionality of getting someone to “voluntarily” wave their constitutional rights to avoid substantial prison time.

I would have thought this was a daily occurance in setting conditions for probation.

[doreen]

The problem I see with the case in the OP, is that unlike the probationer or parolee who voluntarily gives up some of his or her rights to either avoid incarceration or be released, the couple who was ordered not to have children was not convicted of any crime. Had one or both of them been convicted of “endangering the welfare of a child” in a criminal court and sentenced to probation with one of the conditions being that there were no more children, I’d say fine, if they don’t like the sentence, they are free to take the alternative sentence- which would also involve not procreating for a period of time. But the couple wasn’t convicted of a crime in Family Court- the mother was found to have neglected the children by a much lower standard of proof than is used in criminal court. And Judge O’Connor does not have the authority to send the mother to jail for that neglect itself, so it’s different from the deadbeat who faces a prison sentence for being a deadbeat, but can avoid it by being sterilized ( or simply by not having children).

[Martin_Hyde]

You aren’t really “waving” any right if you agree to have a vasectomy. There is no inherent right to have your connected vas deferens. And it is a completely optional choice here.

There are different punishments and consequences for the same crimes across the 50 states (that is federalism) so no, it isn’t unfair that just because in one place you can be punished by X but in another by Y. There have been many cases of convicted child molesters undergoing voluntary chemical castration, most of the time without any “offer” from the state, they just do it and then offer that as “proof” during their parole hearings that they are sincere about their desire to reform their ways.

[MidnightRadio]

@Qadgop the Mercotan

Well, what do you think of this approach? (Caveat: Case mainly theoretical)

A judge could sentence a guy to 5 years in prison for his chronic nonpayment of support. But he tells the guy that the sentence will be suspended, IF the guy gets a vasectomy.

Perfectly legitimate prison sentence, within sentencing guidelines. An alternative to prison that the convictee can choose, but does not have to. Others are being sent to prison regularly for the same crime, without being given this particular option.

Fair? Constitutional?

Reminds me of the movie Citizen Ruth, in which a judge agrees to not sentence a woman for endangerment of a fetus if she’ll agree to have an abortion. Wackiness ensues. Great movie.

[Mtgman]

@Qadgop the Mercotan

Well, what do you think of this approach? (Caveat: Case mainly theoretical)

A judge could sentence a guy to 5 years in prison for his chronic nonpayment of support. But he tells the guy that the sentence will be suspended, IF the guy gets a vasectomy.

Perfectly legitimate prison sentence, within sentencing guidelines. An alternative to prison that the convictee can choose, but does not have to. Others are being sent to prison regularly for the same crime, without being given this particular option.

Fair? Constitutional?

Here’s a question in return. The constitution forbids “cruel and unusual punishment”. I think we can all agree that forced sterilization would fall under this umbrella. So, here’s my question. Is it ever appropriate, as part of a condition or not, to mete out cruel and unusual punishment? The whole dilemma nature of this “choice” seems to be doing nothing more than absolving the state of responsibility for their actions, saying that he “chose” to be forcibly sterilized. Is the state limited to only offering choices between various non cruel and unusual punishments? Or can they offer a dilemma like the one Qadgop mentioned? Take this cruel and unusual punishment, or take this slightly more humane and more usual punishment. I’d personally rather the state not be allowed to mete out cruel and unusual punishments at all, no matter what it is dressed up as.

Enjoy,
Steven

[kung_fu_lola]

I am here to agree with Mgtman.

As for this:

@Martin Hyde

You aren’t really “waving” any right if you agree to have a vasectomy. There is no inherent right to have your connected vas deferens.

But you do have a right to not be coerced or otherwise forced into undergoing a medical procedure. What goes on in the doctor’s office is between you and the MD. Period, full stop. I shudder to think what would happen if the courts changed that.

[wonky]

@kung fu lola

But you do have a right to not be coerced or otherwise forced into undergoing a medical procedure. What goes on in the doctor’s office is between you and the MD. Period, full stop. I shudder to think what would happen if the courts changed that.

Well, that’s not really true already. Doctors can’t give any treatment they want.

Coercion? Depends on your definition. Hubby was once told that if he didn’t have triple bypass surgery immediately, he was going to drop dead. It was a lie. Is that coercion?

[Green_Cymbeline]

I posted this thread in the Pit (“Pay up or zip up:” Deadbeat dad told to avoid having more kids)which also mentions at length the New York couple. It was a pretty heated debate, and I am exhausted or else I would be adding my two cents here. Anyway, I totally agree with the judge.