Judge Orders Parents Not to Conceive

[Monica]

Judge Orders Couple Not to Conceive

ROCHESTER, N.Y. (May 8) - A couple has been ordered not to conceive any more children until the ones they already have are no longer in foster care.

A civil liberties advocate said the court ruling unsealed Friday was ''blatantly unconstitutional.''

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.''

The judge is not forcing contraception on the couple nor is she requiring the mother to get an abortion should she become pregnant. The couple may choose to be sterilized at no cost to them, O'Connor ruled.

If the couple violates O'Connor's ruling, they could be jailed for contempt of court.

''I don't know of any precedent that would permit a judge to do this,'' Anna Schissel, staff attorney for the Reproductive Rights Project of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told the Democrat and Chronicle of Rochester. ''And even if there were a precedent, it would be blatantly unconstitutional because it violates the United States Constitution and the New York Constitution.''

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.

Attempts to reach the youngest child's guardian were unsuccessful. Information on the other children's guardians was not immediately available.

Attorney Chris Affronti, who chairs the family law section of the Monroe County Bar Association, said he's not sure how the ruling could be enforced.

''I think what the judge is trying to do is kind of have a wake-up call for society,'' he said.

The source is here (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040507234709990004) but it's an AOL.com Member News page that I personally can't access. I agree with the Judge, if you can't care for your children that you have, don't have any more.

[Menokh]

What the hell? :odd:
I agree that if you don't care for your kids you should never have had them and should not have more, but that is one odd case.

I imagine that it will be hard to enforce. I have never heard of such a ruling.
Question, where in the US Constitution does it say you have the right to have children? And I've never seen the NY constitution so someone else has to help there.

[AtmaWeapon]

I imagine that it will be hard to enforce. I have never heard of such a ruling.
Question, where in the US Constitution does it say you have the right to have children? And I've never seen the NY constitution so someone else has to help there.

I will show you, sir. Look at the same part of the constitution that says you have the right to be a furry. It's also the same part of the constitution that says one has the right to be a homosexual and clone a baby. The same loose interpretation can even be twisted to say you have the right to drive drunk.

However, there are other parts of the Constitution that grant the government power to limit freedom for the good of society. Homosexuals and Furries generally aren't a danger to society (I feel morally they are but that's not what this is about). However, drunk drivers are a definite proven danger to the lives of others, and laws have been made restricting your right to drive when you are drunk. Heck, even driving isn't a right, the government has regulated it to maintain public safety. Cloning poses numerous ethical issues, so the government has moved to restrict that freedom temporarily until a permanent decision can be made.

Is the judge's ruling Constitutional? Yes it is. He has deterimined that this woman is a danger to the public because: She has had multiple children All children have been neglected All children have cost tax dollars to relocate to a foster home Those children are now a financial burden on someone else, which leaves the original mother free to have more children with no penalty The parents have refused court orders to get mental treatment for children and attend parenting classes The conclusion of the judge is that this woman will continue to have children. He has also decided that she is not nor does she care about being a better parent. He has determined that since the government keeps relocating her children to foster homes, she has no penalty other than the pains of childbirth for having more children.

Based on these points, the judge has determined that if the woman continues to have children she is damaging society through abuse of the foster care system. He has remedied this problem by restricting her right to bear children.

I want to see if this case goes very far. I hope it reaches the Supreme Court and it is decided that conception can be restricted. For all the people who whine about the cost of the War on Terrorism, you have no idea how much money people like this cost the government each year. I know at least 3 people who have more than 4 children in foster care, and they take no measures to avoid having another child.

[deathofspam]

Always nice when a crazy news story puts us on the map :P

[Rainman]

Good idea, they should start doing this for other people.

[slothman]

I don't know about neglect but any parents who have children who would go to foster care would seem to apply. Just because they alread have many doesn't mean much. One more child into foster care could come from them or a couple who haven't had children yet.
P.S. It's the same city as me woot, I think.

[aces2022]

OK I feel sad to their children. I would like to smack anyone else who did that to their children.

[Zelda]

yea, something had to be done i guess..

[biggiy05]

Why on earth would you want to have that many kids in the first place. I work as a bagger at kroger and ive seen some big families on food stamps come through and they buy a good $2-300 every other week and its all paid for they dont have to do a thing and they just sit around the house all day. The parents ever heard of birth control or i hate to say it but cutting the baby factory off at the source?

[Zeo]

Question, where in the US Constitution does it say you have the right to have children? And I've never seen the NY constitution so someone else has to help there.


Amendment nine:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

there are certain RIGHTS that coudn't be concieved be listed at the .adoption of the consitution.

I.E. I have the RIGHT to quit my job. I have to suffer the econoic cosquences of it, but the governemnt assures that an empoyer can't force me to work when I've said I'm not working for them any more.

And as one guy said, anyone DEOS have the right o choose to be homosexaul, or a furry, but Also what politicla part one can join, what states one can live in, where one SHOPS, ect.

However, like my quitting my job, they DON'T have the right to aviod the cosquences of said decision.

The ninth amedment says bascally so long as its a PRIVATE or PERSONAL matter, you have the right to do whateer youwant, that includeshave sex.

The ruling is unconstituional. Plain and simple. HOWEVER, in his case, I think common sense is able to over rule the State AND fed Constituion, as is the State can prove unreasonable burden by her haing children.

[Cloral]

The ninth amedment says bascally so long as its a PRIVATE or PERSONAL matter, you have the right to do whateer youwant, that includeshave sex.
But as soon as you burden the state with the cost of caring for the children, it is no longer a private or personal matter. It becomes everyone's problem. So in that sense, it is not unconstitutional.

[AtmaWeapon]

OK Zeo first I think something is wrong with your keyboard and second I'm not really sure if you are disagreeing or disagareeing because of this "paragraph":
The ruling is unconstituional. Plain and simple. HOWEVER, in his case, I think common sense is able to over rule the State AND fed Constituion, as is the State can prove unreasonable burden by her haing children.Your whole incoherent post seemed to be supporting the fact that this woman had the right to do what she pleased even at the expense of the state, but then came back to say the state can prove unreasonable burden. :confused:

In fact, a lot of people in this thread are doing this. Don't straddle the fence, guys, make up your mind whether the government can do this or not. I think in cases of unreasonable burden the government has the authority to do it. There are many rights we have that can be suspended if the appropriate governmental body can prove it is warranted. Your rights to privacy can be suspended without your notice if an investigative body has reasonable suspicion you are performing illegal activities within your home. Your right to drive can be suspended if you prove dangerous Your right to become a doctor or lawyer can be suspended if you commit a felony (You can't be licensed or bonded) Your rights of habeas corpus can be thrown away just because (ask Honest Abe about that one) Your right to own land can be taken if the government can prove it is in the state's best interest to have that land (Look up emminent domain laws; it was big in MS a few years ago. People didn't want to give up their father's father's father's land at triple its plummeting market value, so a court ruled they would be paid "fair price" i.e. whatever the state felt like paying) Your right to life can be taken by a judge if it is decided your crimes are particularly heinous Your right to life can be taken by a woman if it is decided you are an accident. Many other freedoms can be suspended in response to certain crimes (Kevin Mitnick couldn't touch a computer; restraining orders restrict where you can go; probations can restrict where you go; you can't buy a gun if you've committed certain crimes) So it would seem to me there's a pretty good precedent for the government limiting your freedom if it is determined you are a danger/burden while you have that freedom. I'm fairly certain similar cases have been filed in the past. I swear I've heard of cases where the judgement was the defendant was under court order to place any children under immediate foster care; this is just a step farther.

I think an earlier poster was implying that there was no problem because lots of foster parents are people who can't have kids and therefore really want a child. Believe me, no one wants a crack baby, particularly one that has been ordered into mental care at the age of 1. Statistics will show that these kids don't grow up normal. In extreme cases you have great tragedies. A foster child with a similar background in MS just a few years ago shot his foster mother and father because they grounded him from his 3-wheeler for a day. There are some wounds a child is born with that will never heal, and to me the most humane thing that could have been done for those children was if they had never been conceived. Time and again people are deemed "unfit for parenting" because of negligence during pregnancy, but the courts until now have seemed content to let these people churn out brain-damaged, mentally ill children who start life on a bad foot. Maybe this will put a stop to that. :toast::toast:

[theplustwo]

I agree with Atma (well, except for that toast remark) that disallowing people such as this woman from having children is within reason. The only thing is that actually going about stopping people from having kids would be kind of tricky. If you force the woman to have an abortion that would create religious upheavals, and I am anti-abortion so I don't think that would be right.

The better solution would probably be to order the woman to be "fixed," although that would probably spur alot of "Monroe County out of my uterus" sentiment. However, people would get used to the penalty, and it is certainly much less extreme than abortion.

[AtmaWeapon]

See I have a pretty decent solution. You can't really prevent her from conceiving but you can place penalties on it. Something like you alert doctors in the area, and if she goes in for a checkup and is pregnant you place her in prison, where she can be monitored and it can be confirmed there is no cocaine going into her body. Then you let her stay in for an extra 9 months. For each conception, you tack an extra 9 months to the term. Cruel, but effective.

[theplustwo]

See I have a pretty decent solution. You can't really prevent her from conceiving but you can place penalties on it. Something like you alert doctors in the area, and if she goes in for a checkup and is pregnant you place her in prison, where she can be monitored and it can be confirmed there is no cocaine going into her body. Then you let her stay in for an extra 9 months. For each conception, you tack an extra 9 months to the term. Cruel, but effective.Yet costs the state money to feed her and put her through rehab.

[AtmaWeapon]

I'd be willing to assume such a pillar of society with a drug habit and record of child neglect would be on welfare and claiming all four children to maximize profit. There's nothing wrong with being on welfare, but there's something wrong with people like this woman. The welfare system was not created to support failures like this. She's already costing the state money, I say at least keep her in a controlled environment.

[theplustwo]

I'd be willing to assume such a pillar of society with a drug habit and record of child neglect would be on welfare and claiming all four children to maximize profit. There's nothing wrong with being on welfare, but there's something wrong with people like this woman. The welfare system was not created to support failures like this. She's already costing the state money, I say at least keep her in a controlled environment.Okay yes I will grant you that but instituting a new program where the doctors will be notified and stuff would be quite costly especially since budgets-- (but yes would probably work in the long run).