Skip to comments.Judge Orders Addict to Stop Having Kids
Posted on 01/05/2005 6:04:48 AM PST by Hawk44
ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) - A Family Court judge who last year stirred debate about parental responsibilities ordered a second drug-addicted woman to have no more children until she proves she can look after the seven she already has.
The 31-year-old mother, identified in court papers only as Judgette W., lost custody of her children, ranging in age from eight months to 12 years, in child-neglect hearings dating back to 2000. Six are in foster care at state expense and one lives with an aunt.
The youngest child and two others tested positive for cocaine at birth and all seven "were removed from her care and custody because she could not and did not take care of them," Judge Marilyn O'Connor said in a Dec. 22 decision made public Tuesday.
"Because every child born deserves a mother and a father, or at the very least a mother or a father, this court is once again taking this unusual step of ordering this biological mother to conceive no more children until she reclaims her children from foster care or other caretakers," O'Connor wrote.
In a similar ruling last March, O'Connor ordered a drug-addicted, homeless mother of four to refrain from bearing children until she won back care of her children. The decision, the first of its kind in New York, is being appealed.
Wisconsin and Ohio have upheld similar rulings involving "deadbeat dads" who failed to pay child support. But in other states, judges have turned back attempts to interfere with a person's right to procreate.
O'Connor said she was not forcing contraception or sterilization on the mother, who had children with seven different men, nor requiring her to get an abortion should she become pregnant. But she warned that the woman could be jailed for contempt if she has another child.
The New York Civil Liberties Union maintained that the opinion cannot be enforced because it "tramples on a fundamental right - the right to procreate."
"There is no question the circumstances of this case are deeply troubling," said the group's executive director, Donna Lieberman. "But ordering a woman under threat of jail not to have any more babies ... puts the court squarely in the bedroom. And that's no place for the government."
We need a similar rule in this country that a woman's tubes are tied after having a second baby while on ADC.
Well, after three children, and being in my mid 30s, I had tubal ligation in 1985. You only have as many children as you can afford to feet, house, and educate. These women NEED to have their tubes tied. They are way past their limit on children!
Top of the mornin' to you, Adolf.
why hide a criminal's last name?
She deserves NO respect --- don't give me "if for the children" liberal BS!
I could agree with this if the same people did not insist that the Government step in and take care of the additional babies. If you do not want government involved in the process fine. Require the mother to raise the kids without help from taxes. Or she could put the child up for adoption.
It's not conservative to use the taxpayers' money to turn some citizens into slaves or pets. We need to just get rid of government welfare. The more government handouts we eliminate, the more people will make their own decisions and live with the consequences.
Oh good, another "right". Seriously, since so many depend on Government to exercises this "right", I'd attempt to incentivise rather than coerce people who just can't stop procreating. Tube tying in exchange for additional benefits... or maybe gifts and prizes: free tatoos, mp3 players, flat screened televisions, microwave ovens... anything.
well then tarpaulin, if you dont like it, YOU support the next 'crack baby' this POS farts out!
Those who cast themselves upon the care of government should resign themselves to be cared for as that government sees best. Tie her tubes then admit her into a drug detox facility without chance of parole.
In the 'old days' it made zero difference. But since "WE" are now paying for the spawn of 'people' like this. "WE" DO (or should) have a say so in the matter.
And since "WE" are paying for the spawn, "WE" are in effect, already IN the bedroom as her 'private acts' while there affect all of us - ERGO there is no privacy. Her 'acts' are now a public matter.
You see how it works ... get the confiscation and redistribution system in place, and then watch the people tear each other to pieces over who gets a bigger share from Massa. The socialists win.
Excellent reply. I have never read ANYWHERE where ANYONE has the RIGHT to reproduce!
If you can't support them, DON'T have them. Common sense. I'm NOT gonna support some dirtbag's nasty larva.
A 'crack baby' is akin to an unwanted fart. Gotcha.
Thanks for clearing my thinking on this issue.
I hate the thought of government-forced permanent sterilization, but scum like this "lady" make a good case for it.
My dad told me some ages ago, which at the time I thought to be very insensitive, that SOME people deserve to be enslaved because the choices they make lead them squarely into that position. (I see now he meant that if I chose to make wrong decisions, those decisions would lead me into slavery of government dependancy or into slavery from debt).
This woman is both a slave to drugs and to the government. Such a waste.
I hope what the judge really meant was "when hell freezes over".
Quote of the day. That's where the argument should end.
I understand your point, but it really bothers me that you referred to these children as "spawn". They didn't ask to be born to this crack ho and they are not less human because they were.
Your dad was saying in one way, what St. Paul says in a different way: that sinners are slaves to sin. Stories like this ought to be a wake-up call for people who believe that government welfare is "compassionate." It's not ... it's dehumanizing to the recipients, and it's also dehumanizing to the society, because people completely lose the spirit of true compassion.
People are saying that this woman, and others like her, are subhuman "because she's taking MY MONEY!" If we reason this way, we're slaves, too.
Wrong. The court is not in the bedroom; it's in the delivery room.
Your post reminded me of something....
LBJ generally gets the blame for the welfare system but that isn't quite so. Waaaay back in the 1950's I had an older cousin who worked for the City of Chicago's 'Welfare Agency' (can't remember the proper name, maybe ADC?). But back 'then' there weren't any federal or state welfare agencies and the cities handled 'it'.
Point being, she would relate stories of field agents finding out that a lot of the 'mothers' would BORROW kids from neighbors when they knew a field interview was coming. Finally some agents realized, "hey I just saw those two kids in apartment 'X', are they REALLY yours."
I'm not kidding, these people would swap children to 'up' their monthly take based on the numbers of children one had.
I believe it! Remember how many "dependents" disappeared when the IRS started requiring Social Security numbers? I think it was something like 20%. Something about "public" money, coming or going, seems to ZOT any moral sense people have!
If support for the genuinely needy came from their church community, or their ethnic community, or grass-roots charity, then people would know the truth about situations, and would also know and care for the people involved as human beings.
Our Founders may not have thought through the harm caused by "depersonalization," but they were thinking right when they made no provisions for government "charity."
Norplant in the water supply
Your posts have cut straight to the heart of the matter. This entire wretched story, from the addict to the abandoned children become wards of the state to the judge to the venom on this thread are all products of nanny-statism. Oh thank you FDR, oh thank you LBJ, oh thank you liberal Democrat scum for taking us down this road of "feel-good compassion."
Tie her tubes and she can screw all she wants.
You've nailed it more succintly than I did. Add in the hot-button issues of smoking, AIDS, illegal immigration (partly), seatbelt use, and much more.
These are all things we attack one another over, because we're missing a key point: "They" who are taking our money are not AIDS patients, illegal immigrants, drug-addicted mothers, or comatose nidgets who didn't wear their seatbelts ... THEY are GOVERNMENT. Government is taking our money; it's that simple.
Forcibly, against her will, sterilize her?
We're not talking here about a Momma who loves here children dearly, is trying her best, struggling to keep her family together, and is down on her luck. This is a woman that used cocaine while she was pregnant and did not take care of her children. This is a woman who, once her own children were taken away and given to strangers to raise, did nothing to try and get them back. She has provided absolutely no stability for any of the children, each of whom have a completely different father.
Why should she have "the right" to do that to yet another child?
I wonder why giving birth to innocent, addicted crack babies, and not being willing or able to care for them properly, isn't called child abuse and worthy of stiff jail sentences. Seems like cruelty to me.
You would think it would be at least neglect.
I don't think advocating having government butchers chop people up is a very good idea.
Its been tried:
Nobody is telling her to stop having sex, just to stop putting her children in that position. Children are not a right, they are a responsibility.
What the heck does this have to do with goverments chopping up human beings? How did you make that leap?
Yes it is.
Now if only more people could see it :-)!
Won't work for people like the woman in this story. She'll keep right on having babies, and without the government stepping in to take the babies away from her, they just won't get fed or get any other basic survival needs met on a regular basis. She doesn't care what happens to them. She never wanted them in the first place. She had them because she's spending all her time and money on drugs, and when she can't pay for the drugs whe want, she sleeps with the dealer to get a freebie. I'm definitely an advocate of minimalist government, but in this case that means the government needs to step in and stop her from having babies, because it takes a lot more government to keep taking them away from her and maintaining a huge foster care system.
Yep, that apporoach would be a lot cheaper and alleviate a lot of suffering.
Thats not going to sit well with the gay community
Not a bad idea, though it would need to be some different substance. Something that could be easily reversed by taking a relatively inexpensive medication, and easily avoided by those who can afford to drink bottled water. Women who are spending all their money on recreational drugs and booze certainly woudn't bother with either approach, since they don't want the kids anyway.
Nope - Jail time. If she has already been found guilty of neglect, has another child, then neglects that child, she becomes a two time offender (and according to the article, it sounds like she's already a multiple offender). Hence, she gets jail time, IMHO, until she's finished with hot flashes.
You forgot to mention permanent adoption for the children, instead of keeping them as wards of the state indefinitely.
You really think this woman is in control of her behavior, and analyzes cause-and-effect relationships and long term consequences before jumping into bed with one of her dealers? You're living in a fantasy world. Before government intervention programs, kids born to women like this simply died . . . slowly. Prevention is the way to go.
That sounds like a huge, new, unconstitutional government intervention in the lives of citizens ... "for the children." If you want to advocate such, well, free speech and all that, but it certainly seems inconsistent with calling yourself an advocate of smaller government. On reflection, I don't recall your ever advocating anything but birth prevention, one way or another.
Unfortunately, GS, you are correct. The children of the 19th century underclass very frequently died before they were old enough to reproduce. Now, thanks to the government, most survive to reproduce more of their own misfit kind. It's reverse Darwinism -- survival of the least fit.
"Prevention" in what form? I am completely against forced sterilization. For those who support such a thing; do you really think the government is capable of deciding who should and should not be allowed to give birth and under what circumstances?
Remember, there are plenty of Leftists who view the "expanding population" as one of the biggest threats to our world and would love nothing more than to be able to dictate the number of children people can have (a la China). This is the ultimate slippery slope.
Encouragement and incentives for acting responsibly and disincentives for acting irresponsibly is the way to go.
This woman is a difficult case, but it seems that she should have been locked up long ago. It is hard to have kids in prison.
I also don't buy the idea that eliminating handouts wouldn't make any difference. This woman is living somewhere and eating. Unless she's got a paying job we haven't heard about, and is buying herself food and paying rent, then she's living on the dole. Without it, she would either have to clean up or starve to death.
This woman is a difficult case, but it seems that she should have been locked up long ago.
Simple, conservative solution.
Such incentives worked very well on young males in India some years ago, as a population control measure, until the bleeding hearts put a stop to it.
Many people posting on this thread have called for her to be forcibly sterilized. That is what I'm opposing. That's what I called "chopping people up." That's why I called the poster of this thread "Adolf" in my first reply.
Read the page I supplied a link to. The real Adolf agreed with them. Piss poor company, if you ask me.