"Pay up or zip up:" Deadbeat dad told to avoid having more kids

The BBQ Pit
41

No, you can’t win, you are right. So we should either embrace more Libertarian(not the poster) ideals, or embrace more socialistic ideals. One will support the masses and the other won’t support shit. Neither will work, so we’d better get used to the way things are currently. What also won’t work is the crushing, punishing enforcement of child support, with an uneven hand, and with lackluster results.

I don’t see you railing off at old people on medicare and medicaid and state assistance in this thread. They are by far a more community-draining group of people. They are and will continue to sap our resources at a far greater rate than single moms and kids with dads who don’t pay.

This is obviously not the topic, however I’ll respond:

With our current Federal administration, you should be prepared for more unwanted pregnancies to more people who can’t support them, not less. We have less education in the ways of sex and reproduction and protection than ever before, and I don’t see it bouncing back for some time.

Well, you’ll pardon the question, but with the vitriol you’ve spewed, painting “delinquent dads” and the smaller group of “deadbeat dads” with the same, broad brush, it was almost logical. Your haughtiness and ever-increasing self-righteousness are insulting. “People in MY family are better than that”. Please.

Stuffy- I feel your pain and so do many of the people we represent, despite the attitude shown here. Those who truly know what goes on in the DCSS and other agencies that support Child Support enforcement, and don’t just look at the welfare numbers will obviously empathize. The numbers can’t truly paint a picture of how the state makes it nearly impossible for those who owe to repay their debt in earnest and function in society.

Good luck.

Sam

42

It seems to me that the judge(s) are giving these people a choice: take the punishment (jail time) that they’ve already EARNED through their behavior, or take “reasonable precautions” to not have any more kids.

We’re not talking about not having sex, we’re talking about taking precautions. We’re also not even talking about* forcing* someone to not reproduce anymore (as in sterilizing them or something like that). They sure can reproduce, like bunnies, if they like. But then they’ll have to take that punishment that they’ve already EARNED (i.e. jail time).

It seems like the people cited here on this thread are particularly hard cases. There’s a difference between a guy who has a few kids that he can’t quite keep up the support on (I have a friend like this—it doesn’t help that his ex-wife is a hellfire bitch who lies to the courts). The people cited here are pretty blatantly irresponsible. I have no problem with the judge making the decision that he (she?) did under these circumstances. They DESERVE jail time, and they can either take the jail time, or take “reasonable precautions.” Their choice.

43

I’m probably being a bit too subtle here. So here we go.

Make me. And be sure you don’t infringe on my right to liberty under the Due Process Clause [which] gives [me] the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention.

So, who can ensure this? Bill Gates can’t ensure nothing will happen so that his children don’t end up on public assistance. Society already provides this assurance. It means that all of us contribute for the good of those of us who need help. It’s what seperates us from the animals.

I don’t have any objections, in theory, to ideals like the ones in the SciFi books, but the implementations are bound to be full of holes. Holes which become injustices. A cut off date of 25 would be unfair to those who are mature and stable enough to be good parents before that age. In SciFi it is easy to just make the system perfect and all the guidelines are perfect and all the tests never provide false positives or false negatives. Reality is a completely different ballgame. I’d rather let people have the freedom to pursue their lives as they see fit and set up safety nets for those who fall while chasing their dreams than set up obstacle courses between people and their dreams.

Enjoy,
Steven

44

I am absolutely speechless after having read what some of you have written. Procreation is one of the most basic human rights.

In 1948, the UN met to develop the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Here’s the relevant section:

See that? The right to “found a family”, i.e. procreate. When China’s “voluntary” one child policy crosses the line into coercion, human rights groups like Amnesty International get pissed off, and demand that China abide by the 1948 declaration.

The international community believes that punishing someone for having kids is a human rights violation. The judge in Ohio decreed that if Mr. Talty has another child, he goes to jail. There is no way in Hell that absurd pieces of creative sentencing like this can be constitutional when they come so close to being human rights violations under international law.

45

Is not allowing someone to associate with their friends a human rights violation? Is not allowing someone to walk freely on the streets at any hour of the day or night a human rights violation?

Both these things are often conditions of parole. Right? Or am I missing something here?

If not having any more kids is a condition of parole, how is that any different than putting the expectation of not hanging around with deadbeat friends or not staying out after a certain hour (or house arrest, etc.)? This isn’t the same as forcing someone to not do something—not exactly. This is giving them an ultimatum: “if you want us to let you off the hook for the jail time that you have EARNED and that you DESERVE, then you can get out of it if you abide by these restrictions. If you don’t want to do that, fine. Just go and do the jail time that you’ve EARNED.”

But doesn’t he already deserve to go to jail? Or am I getting the details all wrong? If he already deserves to go to jail, then I think that the judge is giving this guy a choice: jail (he earned it) or not having kids. Or would it be better if he just had jail time, with no other options?

46

Really, wouldn’t it be easier if, instead of trying to force this guy to wear a condom, we just force any further women he impregnates to have an abortion?

47

yosemite- What makes you think some of us don’t have a problem with the rights restrictions of parolees?

48

Crystal. And, in six months, you will meet the product of a condom failure.

49

This clown has founded repeatedly, but every time someone needs child support, he gets losted.

50

I hear you, yosemite, but my earlier post about human rights was not in response to your discussion of parole. I should have made that clearer. Rather, it was in response to the immoral arguments of Libertarian and nyctea scandiaca. What casued my jaw to drop was statements like these:

Unbelieveable. Lib and Nyctea seem to be arguing that procreation is not a right, but merely a priveledge subject to regulation by the state. This is evil. Procreation is not merely a priveledge the way driving is a priveledge. If it were, then eugenics would be no more evil than a stop sign or an emission inspection. I can see it now: “Sorry, sir, but you failed your annual genetics inspection. Please turn in your penis license”.

I find it absurd that I am having to remind people that procreation is a basic human right, and as such, can’t be restricted by the state.

As to the case under discussion, I don’t really believe the judge violated Mr. Talty’s human rights. I just said he came close to it in the hopes that lib and nyctea would realize how immoral their arguments were. Finally, you ask “would it be better if he just had jail time, with no other options?”. In a word, yes. The state has no business telling people when they can and can’t procreate, regardless of the circumstances.

Bryan Eckers, don’t be dense. If procreation is a human right, then the state has no business forbidding it, regardless of the past history of the defendant. Here’s an analogy: If a guy writes several slanderous books, you punish him for the slander, but you do not take away his right to free speech by forbidding him to write another book.

51

Well, I’m sure that we all could think of some examples of restrictions on particular parolees that are unfair. But I’m not sure I’m following you here: do you think that all restrictions set for parolees are unfair? Or would you consider it a better choice if there was no such thing as parole, and therefore no need for parole restrictions? I mean, this guy seems to be given a choice: either abide by certain restrictions and be out in society, or to be locked up in jail—somewhere where he deserves to be, according to the law of the land—but have restrictions. :shrug:

I don’t think he has some God-given right to not go to jail for something that he’s guilty of, and I don’t think that he’s got some God-given right to parole without restrictions. But, whatever.

Monkey with a Gun: yes, I understand about taking this thing too far. I see that there can be a slippery slope. I think if it’s a case-by-case thing, with parole restrictions on those who most wholeheartedly deserve to be in jail for their outrageous behavior, then, I am not wringing my hands with worry over them. If they don’t like the parole restrictions, then they can do the jail time—time that they most certainly deserve.

52

Wrong thread, wrong topic. [sub]BTW, the answer to your question is no.[/sub]

Let them throw the motherfucker in jail. I have no problem with that. If you’d bother to read at all, you’d find where my problems with this lay. Like, in attempting to limit someone’s right to reproduce. Parole or not.

Case-by-case leads to unlimited unfettered access to case law that allows it for every case. Let them do jail-time, but I think even in a situation where we’re talking about it as a condition of parole, limiting reproductive rights is going way beyond the pale.

Sam

53

Okay, I see where you’re coming from. If you’d prefer they be in jail, then that’s cool. If you feel there is some real danger of some slippery slope or messed up court judgments, and feel that just throwing them in jail is a safer bet, then, hey. I can get on board with that. Jail it is.

54

Don’t you be dense, Monckey. The judge in this case was well within his rights to impose jail time, but chose instead to give this clown another chance, provided he make a reasonable effort not to make his situation worse than it already is. The libel analogy is incorrect, since libel is a civil (not criminal) matter and there is at present no consitutional right to procreation. I think a better analogy would be a repeat drunk driver who is told he can have probation if he stops drinking. If he is later seen getting loaded, it’s clear he was insincere about his probation conditions and it’s jail-time for drunky.

55

I think there’s a disconnect here. The judge didn’t declare that all fathers who are behind on their child support payments “pay up or zip up”. She gave this ultimatum to one guy. This one guy who has fathered 7 children by several mothers and is $40,000 behind on his child support. Like others, I see that there is a slippery slope here, but I don’t think this is ever going to be a common punishment.

Oh, how I hope you are kidding. Do you really think invasive surgery is “easier” than a condom?

What I find interesting is the order of the words. “…the right to marry and to found a family.” Marry, then found a family. I’m quite sure they didn’t mean for a guy to have the right to run around spreading his seed and not be able to provide for them all. Maybe I’m reading too much into it.

56

Sorry if this is addressed later in the thread. It’s late, and I’m exhausted from chasing down deadbeat motherfuckers like the shmuck in the OP.

No.

In Ohio, any court-ordered child support is, by law, within one’s means. There are mandated guidelines that the courts follow when they set the support order; essentially, the take both Mom and Dad’s gross incomes, adjust them for health insurance costs, child care expenses, and the number of other dependant minors each party is supporting, and then come up with an amount that each party can reasonably be expected to contribute to the well being of the child per year. The Absent Parent’s (AP) amount is then divided by twelve to come up with the monthly support order.

If the AP loses his job, takes a pay cut, knocks another woman up, or whatever, he has the option to file for both an administrative and a judicial review of his case, during which the above formula will be run again.

Felony Criminal Non-Support charges result from a willful failure to pay for two years. That means, if dude would have paid five bucks, no felony charges would have been filed. He could still lose his driver’s and professional licenses and be locked up in the county jail for up to 120 days for contempt of his court order, but he wouldn’t do any hard time.

Beyond the two year requirement, a prosecutor won’t even look at a felony case unless the Custodial Parent has agreed to testify against the AP in advance. In this case, apparently, at least one of the mothers of the children didn’t appreciate whatever consolation prize, if any, this dink was offering in lieu of actually helping to put food on the table.

Starving? Possibly. But it’s entirely more probable that the children and the CP are receiving some kind of public assistance. The AP then owes that money to the State, to reimburse it for the money he’s not paying.

I do this for a living, and I understand that people fall on hard times. In those cases, I do everything I can to explain what options they have. And they do have options.

By the time you get to a felony case, though, there’s been a willful, blatant, and callous disregard for the welfare of the children. I’m not aware of any case where an AP has ever been acquitted of felony non-support charges; these guys are the lowest of the fucking low.

57

Oh, and as for the “extraordinary” measures taken by the judge, I can’t say I agree with them. To me, reproductive rights are fundamental. Even given the soul-draining shit I see on a daily basis.

I don’t think you should be able to force a dude to wear a condom any more than you should be able to force a woman to have an abortion.

I don’t have much sympathy for him; in fact, I’d like to see felony CNS bumped up from a fifth degree felony to maybe a third. Prison time on the first offense. You get two whole years to take ten seconds and not be a fuckup; if you can’t do that, then you get to spend six months in prison. Seems fair to me.

58

No disconnect. I never said that one lone judge declared all fathers deadbeats.

I see lots of guys coming in with arrears up the fucking wazoo. Lots of guys are out there busting their fucking humps JUST to pay their child support. If you read that or any of my other posts, you’d know what I was saying is that child support enforcement agencies have WAY too much reach into peoples lives and adding the option of taking someone’s reproductive rights away is going well overboard.

THey already take driver’s licenses and business licenses, which effectively neuters dad. How the fuck can someone make a fucking living and support their children if they can’t drive or their company was shut down?

I don’t have a solution to the problem, but I know that what we are doing now is wrong and serves no purpose and solves none of the problems associated with the issue. I am exasperated, and tired of seeing people beating the system, and equally tired of seeing the system beating people.

Sam

59

Won’t fly, did you read my post? My whole point is that procreation is a fundamental right, whereas things like drinking are not. Therefore, you can revoke someones ability to drink, but you can’t revoke his or her ability to procreate. Analogies are imperfect, so I won’t try to formulate a more fitting one. Instead, I’ll spell it out.

Fundamental rights (security of person, freedom to procreate, etc.) are retained no matter the past of the criminal and should not be part of parole restrictions. Take security of person, a judge could give the convicted the option to go to jail or to be whipped once a week. If the person is found not to have reported for his weekly forty lashes, then he goes to jail. Although some criminals would prefer the lashes, we don’t allow this because it violates their fundamental human right of security of person.

Aw hell, that was an analogy, wasn’t it?

Anyway, we can’t allow parole restrictions to trample on human rights. If we believe that procreation is a human right, then it can’t be restricted no matter the circumstances.

60

No, I was completely serious. Furthermore, I think the fetuses should be used to feed the starving masses in Ireland.