Texsox Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 I'll make them a deal, if this family stays out of my wallet, (out of jail, off of welfare, employed, etc) I'll stay out of their bedroom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 I know it opens a slippery slope, but at least for a moment, I am thinking "About f***ing time!". WHat they should do is arrest the parents for child endangerment and lock their butts up for a long time. I feel kinda like southsider2k4, if I am paying for it, I want a say. Just a thought: where in the constitution does it say you have a right to have kids? It says you have a right to life, but doesn't say you have a right to create life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Be Good Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 No; It is unconstitutional. Keep government out of the bedroom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Hello! Condoms! :headshake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 noone said they couldnt f***, there are shoots of birthcontrol you can get every 3 months a belive or even fixing on of them will work too. there are other ways to fixing this problem other than entering the bedroom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 I am more concerned about the fact these kids have cocaine in their system than the money they will cost us, the taxpayers. It's about time a judge has tried this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 10, 2004 Author Share Posted May 10, 2004 Then should we tell people with too low IQs not to have kids? Cub fans? Genetic problems that may or may not happen? Living in too poor an area, or too high a crime rate? Perhaps if they are both in high stress, highly involved careers and will have to let nannys care for the kids? Or is it just for financial reasons? How long should they demonstrate the ability to earn a living? A month, a year, three years? What do we do if she get's preganant? Does this mean with each other? Can she have a child with a gut who can support her and can he have a child with someone else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 We have to start "Norplanting" repeat welfare mothers, who keep having babies (normally to different fathers) just to get bigger checks. Six years ago I worked for an apartment finding service. At that time, welfare recipients were given up to $1600.00/month for rental allowance (Section 8). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.