posted on May 8, 2004 07:28:09 PM new
A Rochester, New York couple has been ordered to not conceive after their 4 young children were found to be neglected and 3 testing positive for cocaine use. What are your thoughts?
Here's the full story -
ROCHESTER, New York (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.
posted on May 8, 2004 11:24:52 PM new
Good. About time the Judges actually do something about Parasite Mothers that are just as much at fault and deadbeat dads.
posted on May 9, 2004 06:57:13 AM new
Breeding License. I like it.
___________________________________
When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
[ edited by profe51 on May 9, 2004 06:58 AM ]
posted on May 9, 2004 07:45:06 AM new
This Judge is an idiot for thinking his ruling has any standing and it should not.
There are more effective ways to stop them. put them in prison for the "CRIME" they committed. it is a much more effective method of birth control than turning two coke heads back out on the street with an order not to have sex.
posted on May 9, 2004 07:53:39 AM new
This is how fckd up this country is getting... we allow queers to get married but we can't stop these negligent parents from having more children to abuse...
posted on May 9, 2004 10:44:20 AM new
Twelve, can you just give your opinion without all the references to queers? It's getting old.
I agree with you Prof. Or even some kind of course you have to take before you have children. I know it'll never happen, but maybe if they say you have to give a blood sample before you get married, and if it tests positive for hard drugs, you won't be given a licence. These kind of people that just have kids because they're too lazy to use birth control, should be sterilized then put in rehab.
[ edited by kraftdinner on May 9, 2004 10:45 AM ]
posted on May 9, 2004 11:28:24 AM newThe 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.
Normally I am all for the government staying out of people's personal lives. But it is obvious in the case of this woman that she should not be having any more kids. Perhaps something in the way of a Norplant device which would prevent her from conceiving & could be renewed as needed--but if she cleaned up her act & proved herself responsible, could be removed.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 9, 2004 11:35:02 AM new
I agree Bunni, but they (the opposer's) always bring up how unconstitutional that would be and how sterilization or implants is too Nazi-like. These people are usually the very same ones that are against abortion. So in the end, who really cares about the children?
posted on May 9, 2004 07:00:44 PM new
Twelve, telling me to ignore your rants about gays is just as stupid as telling you to ignore my well thought out posts about Bush. You will NEVER be able to push my buttons, you stallion.
posted on May 10, 2004 02:01:04 PM new
The judge should have put them in jail for child abuse and have forced both parents go through operations so they could not have children again.
Somebody needs to stand up and start doing something. Whether or not the judges ruling will stand up in court is another thing, but at least he didn't give the parents probation.
I am surprised the state did not take away the older kids.
posted on May 10, 2004 09:48:28 PM new
Posted in a thread started by you KD......
I can't get over how crabby everyone is to each other lately
You know we all agree to disagree. There are probably 4 sides to every story but in here only 2 sides are given then one side says things about the other side and vise versa. Even after all the dirt settles there will still be some to disagree. so be it.
In my very early days of work, even beyond some of you in here we sterilized women so they couldn't have children. I know that sounds terrible but the women didn't understand birth control and this is the way the state did things. Women and Men under state control didn't have a choice.
Children have a right to have a good life. They didn't ask to be born. Many Women and Men shouldn't have children and if this is the only way they can stop them I will agree.
I don't know about anyone in here but when I see a child with dirty or torn clothes, no shoes I feel really bad and there is nothing to do for them.
posted on May 10, 2004 10:04:37 PM new
I agree with you Libra. Some people are so self-centered, they believe their right to bear children is more important than the children themselves. I think this woman should be sterilized.
posted on May 10, 2004 10:37:29 PM new
Kraft, I dont get you. Dont know your views on abortion, but from your posts assuming you are on the left of the issue?
How can "the state" (by law), not interfere with a womans right not to have a child, but its okay to interfere with her right to have children? Its still about choice, isnt it?
I dont think the state can or should mandate anything with peoples reproductive rights unless its a public health threat. And if the children are in harms way, they get taken out of there.
Half the baby boomers in this country would not be here if some bozo judge got to make moral decisions about who should or should not have children via sterilization. Years ago, there were families of 7,8,9,11 and they were mostly poor, some with alcoholic mothers or fathers; totally dysfunctional families. Even so, they have a right to be here as anyone else. The idea to control the population in this manner is so nazi-ish to me.
What she did is criminal by using drugs etc., but if we were gonna punish criminals in that manner, then we will have to start doling out justice by giving lobotomies to clever white collar criminals - or like the Iraqis, cut off hands for stealing; tongues for lieing - and I am sure there are even more creative ideas. When not start by mutilating one and take it from there?!
posted on May 11, 2004 12:13:07 AM newAnd if the children are in harms way
Don't you think these Children are in Harms Way. Cocaine in their system is definately a threat. It is an illegal drug and if the parents are doing it then it becomes an illegal act. I have never used drugs in a social manor so I don't know how I would feel. but, remember these are children and should be protected in anyway possible. I feel they should be taken away and never given back. I agree this is abuse in the most horrible way. If they are abusing their children with punishment i.e. belt, fist aren't the children taken away then? Remember children are are most precious commodity and should be protected whenever possible.
If the parents are on welfare and depending on the state to live then I think they should beable to do what they want. Sterilazation is not abortion. There is no fetus involved. They are preventing these parents from having more children that they can't take care of.
posted on May 11, 2004 12:00:01 PM new
Nero, I feel that abortion is a sad necessity for some so I'm very much for free choice in most cases, but when you choose to take hard drugs such as cocaine AND choose to have children while on the drugs, not just one but 4, you're obviously not parent material - your need for the drugs outweighs your responsibility to your children's welfare making you unfit, imo. I mean, how low must one sink to have a judge tell you how to live? If you're that out-of-it that you don't already know how bad hard drugs are, getting your tubes tied should be the least of your worries. And while we're on the subject, I think women that use abortion as a means of birth control, should have their tubes tied.
posted on May 11, 2004 04:14:42 PM new
Hi Kraft, as a matter to what I thinkI would agree with you that is what she should do, of her own freewill, but I have never been one to agree with attempts to legislate morality in our government or laws.
I dont know how old this woman is and havent really read up on the story, ,but lets say she is in her twenties. Okay drug addict, horrible person, yada yada. Sterilize her. Three years from now she has kicked the habit, gotten a good job and has changed. The other kids are long gone because she was a bad mother. Her loss, ok. What about time for a criminal act? Any? I dont know?-But Ok, either way. Crime committed, crime paid for; if no jail time served and being straight and dealing with what she did isnt a humongous burden or punishment in itself, I dont know what is for a mother, imo. So okay now she has redeemed herself (and people can and do change if they want too badly enough) - but her "punishment" is so irreparable she cant have a family at ever again? What is that?? They have that birth control now that is implanted in the skin and can stay there. There is no need to modify her body without her consent.
Well, maybe the odds are she will never get well or be a better person. But what about others that come after her? If they try to set a precedent with this, I really think theres no telling where it could go. Its unconstitutional, imo.
Libra, cocaine in their system is a definite threat to THEM - and social services should look after getting this kids some loving foster parents or people who can or want to give these kids a life. But its not exactly a public health threat -unless you think b/c of the cocaine they are going to commit murder or something?
ed Do you think sterlizing the mother changes anything for these kids at this point?
posted on May 11, 2004 05:45:52 PM new
Nero, when I say sterilize, I mean having your tubes tied which can be reversable. In this case, no matter how old she is, she's had 4 babies in 5 years - 3 of which tested positive for cocaine. Instead of putting her in jail, she should spend the rest of her life taking responsibility for blowing her chances. When/if she becomes mature, she can put her energy into having a good relationship with her children.
posted on May 11, 2004 08:02:38 PM new
I don't think sterilaztion in the way we did it was right but back then that was the only option. Now they can do a tubal ligation and they can also reverse it. I would agree to that. It never tells us of the age of the children. I know it is a terrible thing to take children away from their parents but in this case in order for these children to have anormal life they have to take them away. There are horrible stories about parents on drugs, homeless or on welfare but they could have an should have changed their lives but the children have no guidance and must be given to loving parents that can lead them in the right direction. The adults to me mean nothing. Children mean a lot.
posted on May 11, 2004 08:27:40 PM new
In this case Libra, the children were 1, 2 4 and 5.
I don't believe this is a cry for education and family planning like the article states, but more of a result of what taking drugs will do to you. This is a perfect example of why drugs should be legalized. The money made in pay-offs and corruption in the illegal drug industry makes the cost of these drugs so high, addicted people will do anything to get the money. If it were legal, all that money would go into treating people like this couple and her children would be assured of being well taken care of. Without money, they'll never get proper treatment.
posted on May 13, 2004 08:57:55 PM new
Welfare mothers make better lovers, is a line from a song penned by a fellow Canuckian of yours, Neil Young. I suspect your popularity with the opposite sex has something to do with being radiant.
