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."
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.
At least maybe putting her in jail would keep her off the crack till the baby is born. I feel sorry for the poor babies who are born drug addicted and will have to overcome possible long term problems from it.
How is locking her up for the rest of her reproductive life less of an infringement on her rights than sterilizing her? As far as I can see, it has the same effect on her reproductive freedom, a much harsher effect on all her other freedoms, and is much more expensive to the innocent taxpayers.
She may not be on the dole. Could bwell e surviving by "selling her body".
Judge Orders Addict to Stop Having Kids...
Should read...
Judge Orders Addict to Stop doing drugs and having drug addicted Kids...
No more crack babies!
I didn't say for the rest of her life. What I proposed would force her to take responsibility for her actions and get off the drugs at the same time. The justification for locking her up lies in the fact that she is a criminal - not her reproductive irresponsibility.
If she's making a living as a prostitute, and buying groceries and paying rent, then she's obviously got some capacity to make rational decisions. More than likely, however, everyone involved is on welfare and in public housing, no matter how much they're making by selling drugs and prostitution.
Don't know if you saw this ... some interesting suggestions here, esp. in light of your Chambers article :-).
Yes, I did. I decided to stay out of it. Too many Hitlerites on that thread. BTW, I agree with the judge.
:-). Happy New Year ... gotta go give James a bath before church ... it's been in the 70's here!
If you can love and raise children, have as many as you want. But these mothers/fathers who neglect or even kill their kids should be forcibly sterilized after one post-conviction appeal. I have no problem with that. If we can put people to death for murder, why can't we put people infertile for serious harm to children?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.