Woman ordered to stop having children. What do you think?

[regularjoe]

*snip*
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.

*snip*
"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.

*snip
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.

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

I'm interested in DUers reactions to this. Type away.

[roguevalley]

1. I agree with the court. They have a compelling interest in the

children and the state has the right to expect that the children will have a future. CHildren have the right to have a good or at least the chance of a good life. Fuck the mother. Put her in rehab or jail. I taught too many FAS babies and crack babies and watched too much hell in 27 years of teaching to be on her side.

[KT2000]

2. OK with me

birthing children to be put into the foster care system is beyond irresponsible. I think the judge has chosen a pratical solution to the problem. I would think that she could be held for criminal charges of child abuse.

[imenja]

3. it's unenforceable

What are they going to do, force an abortion on her? Or perhaps they will sterilize her without her consent like Tom Coburn did in OK.
What they need to do is to provide her with adequate drug treatment, parenting classes, and help getting a job and day care. Criminalizing her actions is not going to solve the problem.

[KT2000]

4. she would be jailed for contempt

if she becomes pregnant again - no abortion or forced sterilazation.

[imenja]

12. that won't help the children

[AP]

20. ...and will, in fact, hurt the children.

Why didn't the judge order that the county give the woman a job and subsidize the cost of rent in the best school district in Rochester for her? It might have been cheaper than jail.

[imenja]

23. and drug treatment

there is a lot the state can offer that would likely cost less than incarceration or keeping 7 children in foster homes.

[Red State Rebel]

5. Works for me - I've seen first hand the damage...

We know some people who are Foster Parents, 3 boys they have are from a drug addicted mother who was making Meth in the home. The oldest boy 9, was about 2 years behind in school because mom kept him home to help, the youngest - a toddler - has permanent damage to his voice and who knows what else from the fumes.

I have NO pity for such irresponsible parents.

[AP]

18. Our society should give all children an equal opportunity to succeed

whether they're one of eight children of a poor person or the only child of a billionaire.

That kids go into foster care is a sign of how fucked up our society is -- that people don't have good jobs and good schools and opportunity. It's not a sign of how it's a problem that people can have babies when the want to (or not have babies when they don't want to).

[roguevalley]

6. To me, its simple. You don't let a drunk drive. You either put

them into treatment or jail. Same here. It isn't like she wrecks her own life. Get treatment or get jail.

[AP]

17. Driving is a privilege. Reproductive decisions are a right.

[LynnTheDem]

7. WHAAAAAAAAA???????????????!!!

:wow:

Dear Judge; F*CK YOU.

My GAWD talk about SLIPPERY SLOPE!


I order you not to have children because you're the wrong skin color.

You're too poor.

You're too fat too thin too ugly.

WTF is happening in this country?????!!!

[regularjoe]

8. I don't think it is THAT slippery of a slope. n/t

[LynnTheDem]

9. Right. And the PA will only be used against terrorists.

NO ONE but NO ONE has any right to order women to get pregnant or not for ANY reason whatsoever. NO ONE.

[LiberalVoice]

14. what the hell are you talking about?

The judges order had absolutly nothing to do with any of the idiotic things you listed.

It's very simple...The woman is incapable of raising any of her seven children(from seven different fathers). She needs help and should be put in rehab til she is found to be capable.

[annabanana]

19. still.... no one can be ORDERED not to have children..

There IS a slope here. (Watch for new cases where the death of a fetus is 'murder', based on the Petersen trial.)

[AP]

21. Criminal law is statutory, not common law.

There will be no new law based on Petersen trial, unless a legislature passes a criminal statute.

[LiberalVoice]

22. I understand that part...

What i'm saying is that if they place her in a rehab institution she probably won't get pregnant.

(Sorry I was rude. I jumped the gun)

[LynnTheDem]

24. What the hell I'm talking about is a JUDGE having the legal right to say

who can and who can't get pregnant.

A JUDGE is legally determining when a woman can & cannot get pregnant, THAT is a very slippery slope.

So when will a judge decide a defendant before them, regardless the charges, decides that defandant can't get pregnant because they're too whatever???

It is not the law's place to decide who can and who can't get pregnant or when someone can or can't get pregnant.

And it is NOT a judge's place to determine who is FIT to be a parent. I agree that this woman is not a fit parent & should not get PG; but that is NOT for me to say and it is NOT for a judge to say!

Where does that line get drawn, as to what constitutes "fit parent"? A whole lotta rightwingnuts would say if you're a liberal or a Catholic or an Athiest or divorced or etc would all constitute "unfit".

[AP]

25. That's called eugenics. The Nazis loved it and every state that went down

this path later regreted it.

Sadly, even Sweden had a eugenics program. It started by sterilizing low IQ people. I believe they continued the program into the 70s and before they called an end to it, they had broadened the categories so much (mixed race, physically deformed!!!) that it became shockingly immoral.

http://www.healthmatters.org.uk/stories/webster31.html

[bettyellen]

10. WHERE ARE THE FUCKING FATHERS !!!

can you imagine if they tried any of this on a man? jail for having sex with a junkie??
how about a man going to jail for being a junkie or drunk and knocking somebody up??? (junkie + alcholics sperm cause birth defects too, so why not-- they can also pass on brain damage)
men are free to create kids and leave the burden on the woman and the state.... no punishment what so ever. if the govt doesn't hold men accountable, how are the mom's expected to?
since contraception doen't work 100%, women should abstain...
but if she becomes pregnant, then our govt will be recommending abortion??
oh it's just so darned ironic.
i know this womens a junkie and it's awful and i'd like to make an exception and say this is a workable solution.
but it's wrong. commit her to treatment and track dowm those fathers and take just the smallest piece out of their hides too. Because this woman didn't have these kids all by herself.

[LiberalVoice]

15. I agree

It should not just be her responsibility.

[rman]

11. is this what repubs mean by "more personal responsibility" and

"smaller government"?

[izzie]

13. Does not make me see Red.

I do not wish to care for her children and I will have to . After the fact we have to care for the children of the world but if these people are going to have them and will not care for them and we know it, it does not make me mad. Look the people of the West are not having as many children because they know they can not raise them as they wish. It is a world wide thing.

[AP]

16. I don't think the state has any business telling people the must or can't

have children.

[kodi]

26. if the "pursuit of happiness" means squeezing out pups, govt can't stop it

bad ruling by that judge.

instead, as i have advocated for years, a government program where Norplant-type contraceptives employed by women (and men)result in tax credits.

you can't force people to do things as easily as you can get them to do things with cash.

[MsTryska]

27. I agree witht he court as well....

having been an Aide to a aldy who ran a foster home that had 10 Kids form a woman who had been crack-addicted for 10 years, and pregnant again.

it was horrifying the problems these children had.

[mattclearing]

28. The Feds have always had the authority to do this.

They have jurisdiction over children, and always have. This is not a huge change, as far as I understand the law.

Just as they can take away children via social services, a little stretch would allow them to prevent further procreation.

I'm not saying it's right. In fact, I think it's kind of horrid, from a slippery slope perspective.

But it's shockingly not far off from the law as it stands.