http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050105/D87DMCL80.html

Jan 4, 11:00 PM (ET)

By BEN DOBBIN


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."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This woman has 7 children and all of them are now without their mother. 2 were born with drugs in their system. Why shouldn't this woman be told to stop? I'm with the judge on this one.

I agree. If a parent has repeatedly shown that he or she is incapable of facing the resposibilities of parenthood, that person should be denied the right to have children.

*sighs*

It seems like the most fucked-up people out there are procreating the most.

I agree with the judge also.

Griswold v Connecticut (1965)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... &invol=479

The same case that guarantees your right to obtain birth control from your doctor, guarantees your right to all make procreative decisions without interference from the state.

As shitty a person as I might think this woman is, and as much as I would like to see her neutered, what this judge has done is clearly unconstitutional, and will be overturned on appeal.

--PunkDavid

fine, let her procreate, just take her kids from her immediately and put them up for adoption. there's plenty of people who would love to have a newborn to adopt.

It's always good to have a lawyer in the house. I can totally see why the law is as it is. But at some point (maybe after 7 children) ... common sense should prevail.

*nods*

That's the problem, there are a lot of people out there with no common sense at all.

Unfortunately, that is the correct answer.

--PunkDavid

What happens when her kids start being born with horrible birth defects?

how come most of the people that should not have ANY kids are having the most kids?

I agree that the woman should not be alowed to have anymore children, and that it should be taken further and she should be shot for not taking care of the ones she has. However, it seems like her punishment would be considered "unusual punishment."

as much good as the ACLU does, why don't they just leave this one alone?

It's not benifiting anyone for this woman to procreate further.

As Chris Rock once said,

"STOP FUCKING"

Ask Kenny.

--PunkDavid

I don't know - That case is about Connecticut banning contraceptives and speaks to privacy rights, etc. This woman is not related in any way to that case. The government also is very clear that it is illegal to lock someone up, and yet the government locks people up.

I don't see a connection between the two cases.

Agreed. But who is this judge to tell her what she can or can't do with her body? You want to prevent her getting pregnant? Put her in jail for child neglect. Take her kids away from her. These are all legal actions that a judge and jury may take. But a judge unilaterally ordering someone to not have any more children or she'll be found in contempt is NOT the answer.



Again, agreed.

--PunkDavid

The reasoning the court used in Griswold was that there exists a right to privacy, and that it is a fundamental (that word is key) right for a person to control their own body in regards to procreative activities. Now in Griswold, it was a married couple who wanted to be able to obtain birth control from their doctor, but the reasoning of the court extends just as much to someone who does NOT wish to use birth control, and has been interepreted that way numerous times since Griswold.

--PunkDavid

How can that possibly be enforced anyway though legally? Are we in China? Is this Russia Danny?

they can't force her not to have sex legally and they can't force her to have an abortion, I agree with you man, your totally right legally, this is just one of those ones you put your head in your hands and sigh.

Arrgh

This seems fine to me.

LOL. I guess I've set myself up to become the resident Procreation Nazi.

Yeah, well, let me put it this way: I'm more concerned with the right of a person to not be born fucked-up rather than the right of a fucked-up parent to procreate. I think this should be limited only to extreme cases, and judges should be allowed make judgements on such cases. I agree with this particular decision.