Judge orders drug addict to stop having children

[raggedcompany]

ROCHESTER, New York (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 December 22 decision made public Tuesday.

more here

---

What do y'all think of that? I commend the judge for sticking his neck out and saying what needed to be said. When you've got seven kids you can't care for, that means you're depending on the rest of us to do it, and at some point, that has to stop. Freepers likely think the world is just chock full of people like this, and that they all post at DU when they aren't smoking up, but we know better. I don't think this judge is setting a precedent that will lead the way for the state to dictate how often people reprodce, or anything like that. There is afterall a limit to who you stick up for. I wonder though, would a pro-life person be bound to disagree with the judge?

Anyway, would love to hear what you think.

[Pirate Smile]

1. Here is an earlier thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1122248

[raggedcompany]

3. Damn. I looked, but obviously not well enough. Thanks.

Sorry for the repeat.

[Cuban_Liberal]

2. I'm an ex-cop who dealt with people like this every day

I say the judge is dead-on right.

[livinginphotographs]

4. I kind of agree with him.

Judges ordering people not to have children make me nervous in a knee-jerk sort of way, but I have to agree that she's doing a disservice to her children and society by constantly having kids that she can't raise properly.

[RobinA]

5. How Would They

enforce a thing like this? I work in child welfare, and how nice it would be if this were possible, but court orders don't mean squat to people like this woman.

[Moon Princess]

6. This is a bit disturbing...

I'm afraid that they only way this can be enforced is forced sterilization.

That's not a good thing...

[UdoKier]

9. I don't think the state should be able to regulate reproduction

That is a fundamental part of human nature. A lot of libertarian rightwingers like to spout this stuff, but Telling people whether they may or may not reproduce seems to open a whole can of totalitarian worms. I'm content with the present system that forbids abuse and neglect. I do think offering incentives to women to use contraception or even those implants might be all right, but forcing them doesn't set well with me.

[RobinA]

10. It Doesn't Set Well

with me either, but when I see the damage.... You gotta realize that you're trading the child's right to a reasonably healthy upbringing with a decent shot at life for the mother's right to freely reproduce. Seems we haven't found a way to have both, so it's either/or. I work with this every day. Do I come down on the side of the child, or give the mother one more and one more and one more and one more chance.

As far as the fathers - they are no better than the mothers in most of these situations, usually worse due to their violence. Neither parent is responsible enough or able to raise a child.

[UdoKier]

12. Yes. I'm not standing up for these "parents"

But I am very wary of totalitarian solutions, besides, if we have hundreds of billions for destroying and looting Iraq, what is our excuse for not caring for the children that may be produced by the small minority of citizens who are druggie basket cases?

[Warpy]

7. First, who benefits from having a next generation?

Certainly not her. She's addicted, caring for children is slave labor she can't cope with either emotionally or financially. Children aren't a self indulgent hobby. Producing and raising children is the real work of the society, the country and the human race. That the rest of us pitch in when someone is incapable of following through is our JOB as human beings.

It seems this judge is a great (female) patriarch, roaring "Thou shalt NOT!" from the bench, but offering this woman no solutions.

Did she offer her counseling? Rehab? Family planning services? Not a chance. The only offer was for prison if the woman gets pregnant, a biological function. Shee just tried to bully her into something she is clearly not capable of right now. It aint gonna work.

It also puts the court where it doesn't belong, in the bedroom.

Clearly, the state has an interest in seeing that the next generation of citizens is safe and educated. That's why this woman's children were removed from her care. That is the only position of the state.

[CrispyQ]

8. What about the men who fathered these children?

Why are they allowed to go scott free & she takes all the heat?

I angers me when people discuss welfare mothers but never take into account the fathers who are no longer present. I don't condone her behavior, but it takes two to tango.

[Hunter_1253]

11. The funny thing is...

that the Freeper's will love this, getting these welfare recipients off the role and stop having babies. The flip side is that the fundies will view it as birth control and the stopping of God's children coming into the world. The rich corporations don't care one way or another, because they don't help the poor and the poor don't buy many of their products. Either way, it will tear apart the fragile RW machine that has tried combining middle America (Joe Sixpack), Fundie nuts, and corporate fat cats.

Personally, I think it's promoting parental responsibility more than governmental control, and that's OK with me. This woman needs help to get her off of drugs and back on her feet, and having more kids will just prevent that. I can see the logic.