Judge orders couple not to have children

[Bells]

ROCHESTER, New York (AP) -- A couple has been ordered not to conceive any more children until the ones they already have are no longer in foster care.
Link

After having read this article, I didn't know whether to be appalled or slightly impressed at this Judge's ruling. It seems that the 4 children already parented by the couple are in foster care, 3 of whom have tested positive to cocaine. The State has deemed the parents unfit to care for the children, who are aged 1, 2, 4 and 5.

Now, how this ruling is to be enforced, no one knows as the Judge has not forced the parents to take contraceptives or be sterilised. But there appears to be a catch:

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.

While it might appear obvious that this couple are unable to care for their children, I feel discomfort at the State and the Judiciary becoming involved to the point of ordering them not to have any more children. Actually no. I feel extreme discomfort at the thought of the State having such a power. I think back to those cringing days when the State had taken it upon itself to sterilise any individual with a mental illness. Civil liberties people are screaming out that this is unconstitutional and they would be right:

"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."

But in the back of my mind I think about the children they've had already. They are unable to care for the children, the last one born was taken from the mother very soon after the birth and placed in foster care. Three of the four children have tested positive for cocaine and the parents have a history of drug abuse. I admit, I feel torn between this couple's civil liberties and the right of their children not to have them as parents. So should the State be forced to care for any more children this couple may have? Should the State have so much power that it is able to tell people whether they can have children or not? A final quote from this article, as stated by the Judge in this case:

"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."

What will be next I wonder? Who else will the State order to not have children? I agree that some people should not have children. Or to put it in a different manner, should not be allowed to have children. But when I see it put into practice, I feel uncomfortable that such a right could be taken from any individual. Scary thought and a scary beginning...

 

[fireguy_31]

Interesting topic.

It's quite clear these two individuals are unfit to be parents for a number of reasons and the judges decission, in my opinion, in no way threatens the civil liberties of others but, i would argue, protects civil liberties.

Rights and liberties are not limitless, we have obligations to each and every right or liberty we may exercise in that ones 'pursuit of happiness' cannot impede or infringe on anothers 'pursuit'.

I believe the judges decission to disallow these two to concieve more children relieves any possible further burden already placed on society - the burden to care for their children. My thought is, if you want children you better well care for them yourself and if you can't you shouldn't have children - albeit I understand mistakes happen and in those instances i'd say okay but these two have four kids, at what point do we say enough is enough?

Another aspect to consider is that children do not necessarily have the same rights or liberties as adults. They have no right to vote, there are laws prohibiting them from entering the workforce, they can't drink, they can't drive, they are restricted at theatres - to name but a few. Ultimately, it is the judicial system which protects (and i use that term loosely) the welfare of children. In this case, I'd say the judge is being proactive based on the couples history and the fact that their four children have been neglected.

I don't think it's any coincidence the judge stopped short of ordering sterilization. If that were the case then the couples civil liberties would be restricted unjustifiably. A simple court order, as is the case here, can be reversed when circumstances change i.e. the couple gets their act together. When that happens, everyone will live happily ever after and the burden placed on society will disappear.

 

[Tiassa]

At least someone said it

A classic joke from the 1980s. For some reason I think it was Poundstone, but don't quote me on that:

• "You need a license to have a dog in this city. Anyone can have children."

I might manage a more useful response after I do some requisite reading.

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

What a load of progressive socialist bullshit. Let's stoke the fires in the Red Ark!

 

[fireguy_31]

Stokes Pennwalt

...progressive socialist...

Why, thank-you very much!

EDIT: Was that directed towards me? If not I'm thoroughly disappointed.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

While it might appear obvious that this couple are unable to care for their children, I feel discomfort at the State and the Judiciary becoming involved to the point of ordering them not to have any more children. But in the back of my mind I think about the children they've had already.

I will be most interested to see how the pro-abortion and anti-abortion factions line up on this one. (Screw these stupid politically correct "pro-choice" and "pro-life" labels. Everyone I know is either for abortion or against it.)

People who favor abortion cite several reasons, but one of them is that the world cannot continue to support the children of incompetent parents. People who by their own soul-searching and/or objective analysis decide that they don't have what it takes to be good parents have the right to terminate a pregnancy, and if they have that then they certainly have the right to be sterilized. Therefore, if a couple has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard of our entire legal system) to be incapable of competent parenthood, it's no stretch to decree that society has a right to sterilize them in order to avoid having one or several more children become wards of the state.

But -- since they're generally left-liberals -- this will come smack up against their reverence for civil liberties. How can the state tell people they're not fit to have children? (Even if they've demonstrated that unfitness several times. In the left-liberal model the state has no memory of past events.)

People who oppose abortion say that it doesn't matter whether a child will be born into an environment in which he can't be raised properly -- indeed one in which he isn't even likely to survive all his one-digit birthdays. God will provide. The country needs more native-born Americans to keep it strong and oh by the way to keep Social Security solvent. It's no stretch to be outraged and protest that the state must not take away anyone's right to have a precious child: a draftee- and/or taxpayer-to-be.

But -- since they're generally conservatives -- this will come smack up against their disdain for the underclass. They don't really want poor people having children who might need public assistance, much less people whose children are guaranteed to end up being wards of the state and using up the precious tax money that they want the police and the military to have.

Both the left and the right will be in a quandary over this. Let's watch them fight it out to (hopefully, please) the death.

 

[okinrus]

People who favor abortion cite several reasons, but one of them is that the world cannot continue to support the children of incompetent parents

The problem, I think, is that the decision that the couple cannot have children is just as infringing on the right of the couple to abort any child. The argument for choice is that the fetus is owned by the mother. The argument here, however, is that the State owns the fetus and hypothetical children. Of course, neither of them is right, though it should be noted that evil laws by nature are unstable, liable to reinterpretation into more evil laws.

 

[robtex]

I asked a lawyer the same question about enforcing a court condition that a woman could not have a baby last week. The defense attorney, who is very adroit in his profession, said that he thought it could not hold water because it was un-enforcable and that the political climate surrounding the position of judgeship would discourage enforcement of such a parameter. He said, that if a client of his was told to do this and she got he would feel confident in amending the courtcondition after the fact. I found the case of a woman named Relf

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_035500_sterilizatio.htm

that kinda gave some background on forced sterilazation in the United States. That article suggesed midway down that there are no current laws that are pro-sterization in existance.

I have a friend who is a cps caseworker and he has story after story after story about parents having kids and not being able to care for them...cps taking them away and the parents having more kids...at some point, morally, there has to be some accountablity on the parents part. The judge in the article appears accomodating at least in offering sterilazation at no cost to the couple. Somewhere somehow, there has to be sanctions on their pattern of drug use and reproductivty irregardless of their mental state. I am not positive on the answer either but I cannot fault the judge for drawing a line in the sand.

 

[SwedishFish]

as a tree-hugging liberal, i say they should sterilize them right now and throw them both in jail for at least 5 years. and jail for anyone else who gives birth to children that test positive for cocaine.
god, telling them to stop having kids is just common sense. how can it be violating their rights when they're too stupid and drugged up to have any? they weren't even ordered to use birth control, just told what they should have been told all along.

 

[Bells]

I agree that there has to be some accountability and that parents should not have children if they are unable to care for them. However, who should the parents be accountable to? The State or the children themselves? In a deep recess in my mind I find myself wishing that some people were sterilised because of the crimes they have committed against their own children. Lets face it, some people just should never have had children. But I still feel that discomfort that any State should have the power to take away the right to reproduce from anyone. I find myself thinking that it is too much power to the State. Hence why I feel as though I'm stuck in the middle of this argument. I generally believe that some parents should be sterilised and/or should never be allowed to have any children. But I also believe that to give such power to any State is dangerous. Where would we draw the line as to who could and could not have children? Would there be a criteria that would be followed?

After reading about this and thinking of those 3 out of 4 children who had cocaine in their systems, I think that the parents should be tied to an ants nest after being dipped in honey. Either that or they should be shot. Will this ruling stop the woman from falling pregnant in the future? Most probably not. Maybe she should be implanted with the contraceptives that last for a couple of months or years and both parents be forced into rehab. Who really knows what will come of this. This will probably be appealled (if the parents are aware enough to do so) and I have a feeling that once this precedent is set, more will follow.

But if the State is to take such a step in this direction, then guidelines need to be set down. Parents who have all their children taken from them because of drug abuse should not be allowed to reproduce until they've gone into rehab and not re-used after a number of years, and only then would they get their children back and be able to have more children if they so wish. Maybe something like that would be preferable to enforced sterilisation. Parents need to be accountable to no one but their children. If the children are in danger from the parents, then the parents should be held accountable for their actions towards those children. But as I said, to have such a precedent is dangerous. Clear guidelines need to be set down and quickly because I feel that this case wont be the last one we see of this type.

 

[Tiassa]

We might ....

How does such a case affect the issue of child support?

Forcing responsibility among parents is part of what we do when we track down deadbeat dads (and mothers) and force them to cough up child support. Forcing responsibility is such a controversial issue that I would not be entirely and cleanly detached from liability were I to donate sperm that is used to inseminate a woman anonymous to me.

On the drug issue - it's untenable without being considerably more specific.

• What if (and just work with me here) my child turns out to be brilliantly functional? Can the fact that either her mother and I used drugs heavily in our lives be attributed to her brilliance? Seriously ... if my kid grows up to be a perfect, productive citizen, can we blame the drugs?

Now, certain drugs, I admit, the case can be made for, as their effects are observable. But compare some things people put in their bodies that are illegal to alcohol and caffeine. You can have a baby born that is addicted to either. Doctors are prepared, by the sound of it, to intervene in some way in alcohol use, but caffeine addiction is just given an air of inadvisability.

Now, we might choose to blame television, music, and movies for problems perceived with contemporary youth, but I'm personally looking to the steady diet of Chee-tos and Pepsi, and am keeping an eye on bovine growth hormone. And then, of course, there's all the usual issues of family dynamics.

I don't expect the ruling to stand; the shortest way to do so would bring about a paradigm shift that advances the reduction of human beings to numbers in a bank ledger. (Amendment on Edit: I stand corrected; sort of. I see a cycle of argument that I can't quite follow all the way through yet that opens up a less-sinister avenue. I'll try to figure it out.)

So what happens if someone assaults this woman outside a crack house and she gets pregnant? Will the court be in the uncomfortable position of throwing her in prison if she does not miscarry or seek an abortion?

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Stokes Pennwalt


Why, thank-you very much!

EDIT: Was that directed towards me? If not I'm thoroughly disappointed.

Nah dude. It was directed at this judge and connected pack of idiots who allowed this to happen.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Well seeing as how the government is what keeps worthless people alive, thus allowing them to breed, it should be their right, no, RESPONSIBILITY to govern who can and can not have children.
If anyone had a problem they would be free to abandon society all together, both its benefits and restrictions, and live in the jungle somewhere hunting and gathering to support the family they think they deserve.

 

[Nasor]

I think most people here are allowing themselves to be blinded by the fact that they agree with the judge, causing them to miss the big picture. It’s pretty clear that these people are terrible, unfit parents who shouldn’t have any more children. Never the less, a judge can’t simply decree orders like this, regardless of whether or not the orders are a good idea. Our entire justice system is based around the premise that judges shouldn’t be able to just arbitrarily order people around.

 

[fireguy_31]

I think most people here are allowing themselves to be blinded by the fact that they agree with the judge, causing them to miss the big picture.

The big picture? Okay, lets see if I'm able to capture it (the big picture that is): It's about justice, no? And justice to whom, right? If not, then I'm quite puzzled considering this;

Our entire justice system is based around the premise that judges shouldn’t be able to just arbitrarily order people around.

Good point, it really is. Although I'd suggest this statement is very presumptuous. It presumes this judge took it upon himself to rule in this matter, which is not the case. It presumes an individuals right supercedes any other right. It presumes the couple in question are the only ones affected by the decission/indecission of the judge.

Truth be told, the justice system is designed to protect us all - collectively.

 

[laughing weasel]

You can not take some ones right to bear children. If they endanger a child then they should be arrested for endangering a child. The prosecutor should have tried them for that instead.

 

[Cazov]

You can not take some ones right to bear children. If they endanger a child then they should be arrested for endangering a child. The prosecutor should have tried them for that instead.

So if someone commits habitua infanticide, they should continue to be allowed to produce more children?

The way I see it...the more defective people like this who are prevented from having more children the better....

 

[fireguy_31]

The way I see it...the more defective people like this who are prevented from having more children the better....

I agree with you completely.

You can not take some ones right to bear children. If they endanger a child then they should be arrested for endangering a child. The prosecutor should have tried them for that instead.

Care to elaborate for us? I mean, you provided an opinion, how bout' offering support for that opinion.

 

[laughing weasel]

California and several other states are in the process or have already made laws which state that if you kill a pregnant woman then you can be tried for two murders this implies that the fetus has some rights and would also seem to imply that the parent has some restrictions on the freedoms that a parent has with regards to what could cause damage to the individual. If you are taken to the emergency room in an accident and there are drugs in your toxicology screen then you will be charged for driving under the influence. So if their kids are born addicted to drugs it means that the parents are on drugs and can be prosecuted for those offenses.

 

[laughing weasel]

Denying someone the most basic function of life without their breaking a specific law is unusual punishment. It also sets the precedent that the court should be allowed to decide who is an acceptable parent and which lives have a value. These are two powers that I do not think that the government has or should have.