It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge orders Couple not to Have Children!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2004 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Saturday, May 8, 2004 Posted: 9:18 AM EDT (1318 GMT)


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 coc aine 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.
======================================

Just reading the heading, sent chills down my spine.




posted on May, 8 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   
YAY!

As so many have said before...you can't legally shoot a gun without a license, you can't legally operate a car without a license...

but the stupidest, most worthless individual on earth has free-reign to screw up a child.

I have no problem with this ruling. If you have already proven you have negative parenting skills and have lost your children to foster care, you have no business reproducing until you fix yourself.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Mixed thoughts here.

While I don't necessarily like the idea that the courts can dictate who can and can't have children, it's obvious that in this case these people should NOT be having anymore children. They should have stopped a long time ago. They can't care for them, neglecting them, etc.

I suppose it could be worse. They could forcibly sterilize the woman or something to that effect.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I totally agree! There was a guy here in Florida, who beat his child to death

Toddler Dies After Beating from Father

www.wcjb.com...

I can not even attempt to "think" about beating a child so bad that they would die!!!



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
As so many have said before...you can't legally shoot a gun without a license, you can't legally operate a car without a license...


So are you saying we need permission from the State to have kids too?

I don't know about you, but the only license I need to either; shoot a gun, or travel, is the right given to me by God, which are protected by The American Bill of Rights.

This court case is taken a little over the deep end, but if the people are such criminals why not "put them away"?

It's the solution to everything from petty drug offenses to murder.

How about the court tell them to seek counseling, and others try to change them?

I'll admit, it's border-line, because it's not quite forced sterilization, but it isn't a stern lecture either.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Mixed feeling here also. Its a shame that the country has to come to this because some people have gotten soo bad. THye are violating her rights as a citizen i feel but they are also protecting the rights of the upcomming child(if there is one). The child would be denied (since hes a crack baby and whatever else is wrong) life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. THese are the core ideals of america. THis lady has proved she is unfit to care for her children why put her thorough the pain again and another child who will probly have soem brain damage and then will have to be taken away from there mother. Im against her having an abortion tho if she gets pregnet and i am glad the court didnt tell her she had to then i would be angry.

I feel the judge was just in this particular case. Hope no precedent is set. I just hope this is not one of the cases that turns into a slippery slope.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by BeingWatchedByThem

So are you saying we need permission from the State to have kids too?


Oh, no. No word-twisting. That is absolutely NOT what I'm saying. I am saying that the highest responsibility we can ever have (caring for and raising a child) can be accomplished with no prerequisites...it should stay that way, but it leads to these situations. It leads to finding out about starved children, abused children and neglected children.

BUT, my point was, that with this responsibility should come accountability, and when the stakes are a child's welfare, screwing the pooch and hurting children should warrant you being regulated from hurting further children. THAT's what I meant.



How about the court tell them to seek counseling, and others try to change them?


Who said they didn't? I would assume that this restriction from child-bearing is depedent on them meeting certain requirements. If its permanent, then it's not okay. But I'm also not okay with the next child born being a guinnea pig while these idiots are working through their apparent problems.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Post edited by VOD after making an egregious comment about a large financial contributor to ATS.


Point understood


[Edited on 9-5-2004 by Voice_of Doom]



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Voice_of Doom

How about this Valhall...why dont you and your hubby use some of that money you spent "buying" a moderatorship at ATS to adopt one of their four children in foster care. Then you can "raise 'em right"....or raise them your way...which is of course the "right" way...or at least its... your way.
Of course its not YOUR problem...until somebody decides that you arent "raising" your children right...or having to many children. Then they have a court presitent to modify your behavior...a presitent that you are currently endorsing. Because its all right when they tell OTHERS how to live. Its ok when they tell OTHERS whats acceptable and whats not.



Well, aren't you something. Let's see how many things we can premuse WRONGLY in one post. Maybe there's a presumptious award here that you'll get for the month.

1. I am not a mod. My husband has bought nothing. But, let's assume for argument's sake that he has, in fact, donated to the maintenance and operation of this board. What's it like to live off somebody's else's money VOD? Ingrate.

2. Yes, as long as I don't starve my kids, or abuse my kids, or neglect them to the point they atrophy as human beings, you bet your liberal little ass that I assume I'll be left alone. And, for those who harm children, I sure pray somebody's hunting them down... not for vengeance, but for the sake of the children.



[Edited on 5-8-2004 by Valhall]



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I don't believe in the government giving or not giving the right to live the life that you see fit for yourself, however these people should be @$^$@*^*^($&^%(! You know what is says, don't be coy!



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Let's see, 4 other kids all of whom were born with drugs in their systems. The parents don't even bother to show up in court. The "right" to have children stops when your not the one taking care of the kids but I am through my taxes. No all incompasing law but how about like in this one we just do it on a case by case basis. In this case the parents have shown that they do not have the ability to take care of children. From what has been done so far they should have been locked up now.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   

I have no problem with this ruling. If you have already proven you have negative parenting skills and have lost your children to foster care, you have no business reproducing until you fix yourself.


I agree 100%. Great post.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join