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.
Ditto.
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.
LOL!
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.
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.