Judge orders couple not to conceive.

The New York Times | May 8,2004 | AP

[GODFEARINGWOMAN]

Judge Orders N.Y. Couple Not to Conceive By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: May 8, 2004

Filed at 12:14 a.m. ET

ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) -- 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

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

The taking care of them part isn't good, I admit. We shouldn't be taking care of the parents at the very least.

[Sacajaweau]

The mother's a cokehead. Three of those little kids tested positive for cocaine. We have them because they need medical care. We gave her lotsa chances.

We rarely put the cokehead Mom's in jail here but put them on probation and they might spend weekends in jail SO THEY HAVE EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO NUTURE THEIR CHILDREN. It's called RESPONSIBILITY. This dame is totally irresponsible.

Chris Affronti made a good point at the end of this article.

By the way, neither the mother or father showed up in court for this.

[TheCrusader]

"Why does my not wanting to pay for people's lack of responsibility make me a commie?!"

Your desire is legitimate, it's your solution to the problem which is Communist in nature. Our three branches of government have no business whatsoever in ordering, or even requesting, that a man or woman stop giving birth because of their social or financial status. This is an abuse which expands government powers to an unconscionable level of excess.

Part of the answer to this problem lies in restricting the powers of government, (which is the principle that our Constitution embodies). It is the overreaching hand of government that has established the welfare state and the so-called "family services" agencies that defraud the taxpayers to finance their intrusive operations. Government has also been instrumental in limiting the power and expression of religion, and religion needs to be strong because it has traditionally been the faith based organizations that help the needy, the poor, the downtrodden. This way you help the drug addicted woman's child only on a voluntary basis, (and there is a far better chance she will get the proper spiritual guidance and help to kick her babit from the priest/minister and Church community than from some government hack). I think President Bush is right on the mark with the promotion of his faith-based programs.

[Gabz]

As long as the government (read: taxpayers) wind up supporting these offspring, the government (read: taxpayers) have every right to say this couple should not have any more.

Get the government (read: taxpayers) out of the equation of taking care of the offspring and then I will totally agree with you.

I really have no problem with welfare/foodstamps/ subsidized housing or health care as temporary assistance..............I am against it being a lifestyle.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Sorry to "jump" on you here, but

I really have no problem with welfare/foodstamps/ subsidized housing or health care as temporary assistance..............I am against it being a lifestyle.

There is a MAJOR problem with it - namely - it is not allowed under the constitution.

[Gabz]

You didn't jump on me, so no apology needed.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I have never heard of it being not allowed under the constitution. I am always open for education and enlightment.

I remember back in the early 70s a friend of my parents' being highly embarrassed because she was using food stamps to feed her 5 kids because her husband had been laid of from his local job and went to Canada to find work. The pay was good, but he was only going to be paid quarterly......she still had to feed those 5 kids before that first check came in.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Under the Constitution, the Congress was given explicit powers. Any power not given was reserved to the people / the states.

These powers are:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

[Hotdog]

Yes...right...might as well have the Pope tell Kerry he can't take Communion!

[TheCrusader]

"As long as the government (read: taxpayers)"

As long as the government (read: taxpayers who elect official representatives who are bound by our Constitutional laws)....

Just a few questions to ponder for those who would support a law making it illegal to have children:

(1). What if the woman kicked her drug habbit, would she then need a special Court Release to have children or would the Order stand forever?

(2). What if the woman were found to be pregnant by the "pregnancy police" while under Court Order to not procreate; should they force her to abort, put her in jail, or just fine her heavily?

(3). What if the woman were a married Christian whose faith prohibited birth control?

(4). Would not such a 'procreation" Law eventually broaden, (as most laws tend to do), to include other forms of "misfit" mothers, such as poverty stricken mothers, sick mothers, divorced mothers, mothers with low IQ's, mothers with police records, mothers who already have four children, etc?

[Gabz]

The morality police are already calling for my child to be removed from me because I choose to smoke tobacco. Those do-gooders consider me an unfit mother even though I am married to the father of the child and do not have her in daycare.

I'm sorry, but if people are going to claim I am an unfit mother who deserves to have her child removed from my custody I've got no problem with anyone who wants non-productive members of society from adding any more burdens to the tax payers of society.

I hate nannyist government regulations as much, propably more, than the next person. But when the same people fighting against this kind of crapola are among the ones seeking to snatch my child from me I seriously have to wonder just what the agenda is that they are actually promoting.

[Gabz]

Each state is permitted to create their own laws, rules and regulations.

[NYC GOP Chick]

The taking care of them part isn't good, I admit. We shouldn't be taking care of the parents at the very least.

Right. But how do you suggest we not put ourselves in a position of taking care of every kid she carelessly whelps out?

I know that there are certain segments of society who can never take care of themselves and we do have an obligation to not leave them in the streets to die. However, there's a difference between humane compassion and being taken advantage of by lazy, thoughtless losers.

[NYC GOP Chick]

As long as the government (read: taxpayers) wind up supporting these offspring, the government (read: taxpayers) have every right to say this couple should not have any more.

Exactly! Well said, my friend. :)

[TheCrusader]

"But when the same people fighting against this kind of crapola are among the ones seeking to snatch my child from me I seriously have to wonder just what the agenda is that they are actually promoting.."

In a word, their agenda is CONTROL.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Each state is permitted to create their own laws, rules and regulations.

I have no problem wih that statement.

I see I should clarify my earlier statements by adding "Federal Government". So when I said "not allowed under the constitution" - that refers to the Federal Government only.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Coleus]

Bob Grant would say, "Sterilize Them!"

CNN.com - Judge orders couple not to have children - May 8, 2004

COURTTV.COM - TOP NEWS - Judge orders homeless woman not to have children

MSNBC - Judge orders NY couple not to have children