You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
Judge orders couple not to have children
2004-05-08
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."
Predictable but not unmerited.
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. This court believes the constitutional right to have children is overcome when society must bear the financial and everyday burden of care."
Sounds eminently sensible. She's sure to be overruled...
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."
Not that she can show us where in either document ...
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.
This is going to work well.
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.
Wasn't clear to him either.
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. 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.
- EMPHASIS ADDED -
Let’s open this one up for discussion. I really dislike government intervention into the private lives of citizens. Yet, when people not only burden remaining society with their own responsibilities but also commit consistent child abuse, arguments estopping legal adults from continuing such a pattern of offense obtain a degree merit.

It is difficult not to believe that any further children had by these slackers would only be exposed to similar abuse before becoming wards of the state. Again, your opinions, please.
Posted by:Zenster

#11  Oh Aris, were it so simple. Prisoners here in the States are, in many cases, allowed conjugal visits. Some ACLU wackjob would get Mom permission to see Dad during visitation on Sunday and the clusterf**k (literally) would just keep going.

I'll throw my lot in with OP's remedy.

This couple's consistent pattern of child abuse would make it appropriate for the state to impose a restraining order prohibiting any conjugal visits.

... punishing children for the excesses of their parents?

Let's all be thankful America prohibited inheriting "the sins of our fathers" by eliminating debtor's prisons. For those unclear on the subject, read Dickens' "Little Dorrit."
Posted by: Zenster   2004-05-08 7:11:09 PM  

#10  A4602 - punishing children for the excesses of their parents? Stop the machinery - either by physical separation or a (promised) claw-hammer vasectomy
Posted by: Frank G   2004-05-08 6:30:00 PM  

#9  hmm but i suppose gov money still goes for lots of stupid things and from top of my head paying the children food isnt the worst of all. Anyway put the children in debt to the state, when they grow up they'll have to pay or work for society or go jail.
Posted by: Anonymous4602   2004-05-08 6:22:23 PM  

#8  And since, to my knowledge, prisons don't tend to be mixed-gendered

Oh Aris, were it so simple. Prisoners here in the States are, in many cases, allowed conjugal visits. Some ACLU wackjob would get Mom permission to see Dad during visitation on Sunday and the clusterf**k (literally) would just keep going.

I'll throw my lot in with OP's remedy.
Posted by: Doc8404   2004-05-08 5:38:02 PM  

#7  If they have been proven to have committed child abuse then they should be locked up in jail. And since, to my knowledge, prisons don't tend to be mixed-gendered, there wouldn't be a problem with further procreation by them either.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-05-08 5:09:17 PM  

#6  This is a clear case of societal abuse. These people refuse to accept the consequences of their own behavior, so the rest of us have to enforce our rights to NOT be put out by these slackers. My suggestion is to put them separate zoo enclosures, in different countries, and let them communicate only by email - with anyone - until both are sterile from old age. It'll be cheaper than having to continually absorb the cost of caring for an ever-increasing of welfare-dependent children, and maybe someone else will learn from their punishment.

We all have equal rights. No one, however, has the right to impose upon others without consequences. These nutcases are unwilling (or unable - with as much brain damage as they've done to themselves, there's always that possibility) to restrain themselves, so society must step in and restrian them - for the sake of the rest of us.

As for the ACLU, I hereby declare open season: Bag limit is two a day, possession is unlawful. Any weapon is permissible, but a lethal blow with an axe to the neck is preferred. These motherless sons are out to destroy our Republic, and it's time to stop them
Posted by: Old Patriot   2004-05-08 3:39:40 PM  

#5  Norplant and a hit on the lead ACLU attorney? Darwin's law in both cases? Just thinking aloud....
Posted by: Frank G   2004-05-08 2:56:17 PM  

#4  The government ordering a citizen to be sterilized is extreme. Instead, offer them free drug treatment if they agree to sterilization.

Old Guy, that is not happening here.

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.

When we relieve people of the consequences of their stupidity, all we reap is more stupidity.

Dave D. has it right. We are fighting evolution by cushioning so many feebs from the consequences of their acts. Stupidity should be painful.
Posted by: Zenster   2004-05-08 1:43:57 PM  

#3  You know, I can think of *some people* (Ahem) that make you wish some judge had ordered their parents not to conceive ...
but it's too Nanny Police State for words to do that!
Damn living in a democratic republic where everyone has freedom! LOL
Posted by: Jen   2004-05-08 1:28:07 PM  

#2  The government ordering a citizen to be sterilized is extreme.

Instead, offer them free drug treatment if they agree to sterilization.
Posted by: Old Guy   2004-05-08 1:21:48 PM  

#1  "This court believes the constitutional right to have children is overcome when society must bear the financial and everyday burden of care."

What needs to be overcome here is not constitutional rights, but the nanny-state notion that society somehow "must" relieve people of the personal costs of their stupidity, foolishness, lack of impulse control, or irresponsibility.

When we relieve people of the consequences of their stupidity, all we reap is more stupidity.
Posted by: Dave D.   2004-05-08 1:18:42 PM  

00:00