Judge orders couple not to conceive.

The New York Times | May 8,2004 | AP

[GODFEARINGWOMAN]

Judge Orders N.Y. Couple Not to Conceive By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: May 8, 2004

Filed at 12:14 a.m. ET

ROCHESTER, N.Y. (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

[Drammach]

Norplant..

[TheSpottedOwl]

Bump.

[NYC GOP Chick]

``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.''

Perhaps Ms. Schissel can tell us just where in the U.S. Constitution and/or the New York Constitution it says that people are entitled to reproduce beyond their means and expect the rest of us to pay for them shooting out kids like a defective salad shooter?

[GODFEARINGWOMAN]

I am new to this so I have a question, "Bump", what is that???

I apologize for my ignorance.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

On one hand I agree with what you are saying, however, in some ways the precedent this sets reminds me of the ChiComs to force couples to limit their offspring to one child. I know this is a case of the couple being irresponsible, but it is unsettling anyways.

[dr_who_2]

Or ("revolving door") foster care. I guess they've already gone that route. Still, can one couple overwhelm the system? Hope not.

[stands2reason]

When you don't really have a comment,but you think the thread is worth others reading, you "bump" it. It kicks the post up to the top of the "Latest Posts" page --- kinda like keeping the thread in circulation.

[solitas]

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.

I'm sure public floggings or beatings cannot cost as much as court hearings not attended by the principals - even without charging admission to help recoup the costs.

[GODFEARINGWOMAN]

thanks

[Sacajaweau]

Ah, Rochester, NY...the city I was born in.

Of course it's not enforeable but if this cokehead doesn't get her tubes tied or he doesn't get a vasectomy, she'll probably wind up dead. This mother is putting those kids through something terrible.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Appoint Judge Marilyn O'Conner to the US Supreme Court, at the next opportunity. She's probably too rational to be confirmed though.

[LowOiL]

What is Bump?

Here is a list of FR words so you can figure out what them people are saying. LOL...

http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3a1fed9e6421.htm

[ikka]

There are lots of loving couples that do not have children. Why did the judge not put the kids up for adoption?

[grassroot]

I'm torn between two opinions here. While I agree this couple has no right to place the burden for raising their children on responsible taxpayers, I'm also disturbed by thought of a judge being able dictate birth control from the bench.

To put a little feminist spin on it, "What about this woman's right to privacy? It's her body!!" </feminist rant>

Of course the death-loving abortionists probably don't give a #%& about a woman's right to privacy when she exercises her right(?) to deliver her children instead of aborting them.

Like I said, I'm just not sure what I think of this ruling.

[TheSpottedOwl]

Don't apologize hon, it means that someone wants to bump the post. You'll also see bttt(bump to the top), and ping, which is where someone will include screen names of people that one thinks would be interested in the topic posted. When you "bump it", it stays up longer.

[supercat]

I'm torn between two opinions here. While I agree this couple has no right to place the burden for raising their children on responsible taxpayers, I'm also disturbed by thought of a judge being able dictate birth control from the bench.

By the sound of it, the woman belongs in prison. I would think there should be nothing improper about a judge forbidding "conjugal visits".

[TheCrusader]

"tell us just where in the U.S. Constitution and/or the New York Constitution it says that people are entitled to reproduce beyond their means and expect the rest of us to pay for them shooting out kids like a defective salad shooter?"

I'll be happy to answer your question; just as soon as you tell me where it is written in the Constitution that government is supposed to take care of the children of poor parents in the first place. When the Constitution was written just about every American was poor, and most American married couples had several (or more) children. Would you have us be like Communist China, who regulate the size of families?

[NYC GOP Chick]

I don't want to force people to limit their offspring, as long as they're willing to accept and deal with all the responsibilities, instead of just mindlessly pumping out more kids, secure in the knowledge that the rest of us will just have to dig deeper into our pockets to take care of them.

[NYC GOP Chick]

Why does my not wanting to pay for people's lack of responsibility make me a commie?!