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."
Full Story @ CNN.com
Posted by Mrs Muddy at May 16, 2004 03:03 PM | TrackBackAll I can say is that whether or not this ruling *will* be upheld...this gives me a new hope for our system. I'm glad to see this judge actually *putting* the children first.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at May 16, 2004 03:14 PMHmmm... think we can use this judge to help lighten the load on the welfare system?
Posted by: muddy at May 16, 2004 03:17 PMHere's another article:
Posted by: mrs. muddy at May 16, 2004 03:18 PMThis isn't a first. There is plenty of precedent for this going back all the way to english common law.
Posted by: skywalker at May 16, 2004 04:38 PMDidn't say it *was* the first. It's just nice to see a judge *these* days taking a stand like this.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at May 16, 2004 07:08 PMYea and I am also SOO happy to see the ACLU here to protect our civil liberties (once again) to have as many childres as we want and allow the tax payers to pay for their care.
Way to go ACLU. At least your consistant.
Posted by: cwilli at May 16, 2004 07:55 PMSo you agree with (big) government being able to tell parents when and when not to have children ... lol.
Frankly I'm appaled by the parents behavior ... But I'm not sure the judge order is wiser.
I mean ... Is government going to emit parenthood license ?
Back to the eugenist policies ?
I'm surprised the solution proposed is sterilisation. I mean there are other contraceptives available ... Why chose one irreversible ? Why should drug addict remain drug addicts for the next 30 years of their life ?
Remember bethoven was the 13th son of a family with alkoholic parents and mentally disordered brothers... Had his parents been sterilized ...
Also forget the public funding issues. Those children are bound to be tax payers later and each living child has a right to fair education. These funding are bound to be repaid.
Posted by: DF at May 17, 2004 02:19 PM"So you agree with (big) government being able to tell parents when and when not to have children ... lol."
No, NOT at first. If you have clearly proven that you can't make proper decisons in the case where children are involved then *somebody* NEEDS to step in and blow the whistle.
I understand that it *does* sound hypocritical BUT, but these parents have been given the opportunity to straighten themselves up. Obviously, they're having "a bit" of a problem handling the situation....so yes, in this case, for the sake and saftey of the children (and any future children) the gov. *should* step in and say, "enough is enough".
Besides, it's one things when the gov. tells you how you should personally and privately live when you are a law abiding citizen. BUT when you are clearly breaking those laws (buying drugs) and taking advantage of the system then I believe the judge is in the right here.
"I'm surprised the solution proposed is sterilisation."
The judge told them that they did NOT HAVE to get sterilized BUT *if* they wanted to then the couple would NOT have to pay for it....basically, the taxpayers would.
"I mean there are other contraceptives available ... Why chose one irreversible ?"
LMAO! I think it has been proven that this couple does not CARE about the meaning of birth control. The other article also quoted the father:
" "I know for a fact that God said `be fruitful and multiply.' This is telling me I have to be celibate...."
Well, obviously HE wasn't *listening* (must be all the drugs). First off, the judge said nothing about him being celibate...she just suggested a way that he could continue about his "business" without bringing more children into the picture. Secondly: God would never tell a person to *purposly* be a burden like this to society by having all these children purposly and NOT being able to support them.
"Why should drug addict remain drug addicts for the next 30 years of their life ?"
That's their choice. The other article also stated:
"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."
So clearly, they are NOT willing to help themselves for actions speak louder than words. If they really wanted treatment they could have sought it out by now AND most likely with little or no finacial responsibility on their part.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at May 17, 2004 02:58 PMI didn't say I agreed with it. I just said there is precedent for it.
Your argument however is also a good argument against abortion.
Bethoven's parents weren't just alcoholics (who in Europe wasn't then though?) They had physical disabilities, as did all of his siblings (and he himself could barely hear at all.) He was (i think) the 12th or 13th child wasn't he? But then, that too was common.
The real issue here is that these people are having children and then making the government pay for there living, not just education. Pathetic. I'm not sure that this judge should stop them from having children, but they might want to stop.
Posted by: skywalker at May 17, 2004 06:46 PM"So you agree with (big) government being able to tell parents when and when not to have children ... lol."
Well to be honest, DF does have a point. (I already scheduled a doctors appointment). However I mean really how else are we going to stop them from having babies and making everyone else pay for them?
I cant think of any other solution to the problem....
Posted by: cwilli at May 17, 2004 07:29 PM