Judge Orders N.Y. Couple Not to Conceive

Imp · Post by **Imp** » Sat May 08, 2004 10:50 pm

Sorry, Lovechild... this needs to be seen... found in the LiveJournal community for http://www.somethingpositive.net

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.

and here is the link in case anyone wants to look...

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/sto ... 887624.htm

LunaSea · Post by **LunaSea** » Sat May 08, 2004 10:53 pm

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Hardcoregirl · Post by **Hardcoregirl** » Sat May 08, 2004 11:49 pm

I think thats awesome. People should have licenses to breed in the first place....stupid whitetrash fucks having babies they don't take care of...*grrrr*

pryjmaty · Post by **pryjmaty** » Sun May 09, 2004 12:37 am

The thought of some people breeding scares the hell out of me!!!!

lovechild · Post by **lovechild** » Sun May 09, 2004 9:32 am

thanks imp for picking up my slack....i havent been online as much lately..

i agree with the courts rulings...they found cocaine in the children....god thats just makes me mad!

creapyrob · Post by **creapyrob** » Sun May 09, 2004 10:19 am

lovechild wrote:thanks imp for picking up my slack....i havent been online as much lately..

i agree with the courts rulings...they found cocaine in the children....god thats just makes me mad!

So whats your opinion on forced sterylization?

After having the foster siblings I got I'm all for it. Its a really long story I'd rather not get into here but 4 of my foster siblings are brothers and sisters. All have been abused in every way and all were born on coke and booze. One of them is sever fetal alcohol. So as soon as you 'rights as a parent' are revoked I am of the opinion that your ability to be a parent should be taken away, male and female.

And for the boo hoo they'll change their lives people out there I have this to say: Why did the fuck up in the first place? Maybe this will be a better deterant.

Ligeia · Post by **Ligeia** » Sun May 09, 2004 11:53 am

HAHAHAHA!!! And here I thought the world was going to shit! I think rulings like this should become an every day thing. Mad props, Your Honor! :cb:

The Stormstress · Post by **The Stormstress** » Sun May 09, 2004 3:04 pm

While I don't consider this a blanket cure 4 our social & population issuez, I think that it'z a bold step towardz nforcing responsible parenting n casez so xtreme az the 1 documented ... Glad 2 c that sum1 finally stepped up & took action 2 prevent such atrocitez (& sum even worse occur daily all around us ... which may now b more eazily prevented & rezolved due 2 this precedent being set) :dup:

On the issue ov "forced sterilization" & it'z moral "right to chooze" issuez, I believe that there r thoze casez n which a person iz not capable ov making a reazonable choice (due 2 drug addictionz, nsanity,...) , n which case, it iz up 2 thoze n the pozitionz ov authority 2 do so 4 them... The real danger there iz n making certain that proper judgement iz uzed n deciding sum1 so unfit & who haz the appropriate wizdom & right 2 make such a call ... pretty sticky stuff !!! B the ruling just or not, it haz certainly brought 2 the fore-front 1 ov many social issuez that this country so often shieldz it'z eyez from & outright dismissez ...

lovechild · Post by **lovechild** » Sun May 09, 2004 3:29 pm

to anwser your question creepyrob...im all for forced sterilization, that is if the parents are found to be unfit..if at a later point they "turn their lives around" and are by the courts said to be fit as a parent and want kids there is always the option of adoption.

Vachy · Post by **Vachy** » Sun May 09, 2004 6:38 pm

im all for forced sterilization, that is if the parents are found to be unfit..if at a later point they "turn their lives around" and are by the courts said to be fit as a parent and want kids there is always the option of adoption.

Yes! We definitely do not need limitless amounts of children in state custody. If a person is unfit to be a parent, don't allow them to be. And if later they want to adopt, that would not only allow them to reclaim their "parental rights" but also give the adoptee a much needed home. It would work out well for everybody.

ps...this is kinda embarrassing, as I've been here since sept. or so, but how do you put "whoever wrote:" above the quote? I tried a few things, but nothing seems to work, and I can't find it in the faq... :oops:

lovechild · Post by **lovechild** » Sun May 09, 2004 9:37 pm

its okay vachy....i still dont know how to do it myself...im puter stupid

gwenhwyfar · Post by **gwenhwyfar** » Sun May 09, 2004 10:50 pm

i had an idea once and was told that it was entirely hitler- esque.

i suggested that a females tubes be tied at birth or soon after. and when they find a suitable mate/ husband, together they can be evaluated/ tested/ whatever (something to prove their stability and worthiness) and be given a liscence or something to have the tubes connected again to concieve.

just a thought.

clearly some people are too fucking stupid to use ANY kind of birth control. they just keep spitting them like the damn cannon thing that knocks down the little fuzzy clowns at chucky cheese. and then pawn them off on other people who aren't any better at caring for a child. the high # of inmates that were foster kids is not a coinsidence(sp?). often the foster home is no better than the crackhead parents that spawned the poor child.

ITS NOT THAT FUCKING HARD TO TAKE THE PILL!!!!!!

yes, i understand that not everyone can take the pill and there are people that get knocked up while taking it. accidents happen. but how many fucking times does someone have to accidentally become pregnant before they buy a goddamn clue.
there are dozens of different forms of contraception out there. PICK ONE! regular pills, low hormone pills, the patch, the ring, the diaphram, the sponge, injections/shots, gels, condoms, the list goes on. i refuse to believe that anyone is unable to use ANY of it. even if someone can't afford; all you have to do is walk into the health dept and tell them you don't have a job and they will give the shit to you!!!!!!!!!!! i assure you, there IS something out there you can use to prevent pregnancy. find it!!!!!!! for the love of god, stop having children.

the problem surplus of unwanted children is almost as bad, if not worse, than the surplus of unwanted animals. the only difference is that animals go to pounds/shelters and get put to sleep, simply because there is noone to fucking take care of them. there aren't enough good people in the world to adopt all the unwanted kids, but we can't put babies to sleep.

Please spay and neuter your kids and help stop the surplus of unwanted children.
this message has been brought to you by PETI
People for the Ethical Treatment of IDIOTS.

Imp · Post by **Imp** » Mon May 10, 2004 12:34 am

a friend of mine once stated that we should put something in the water that would be effective birth control for one or preferrably both genders. When a person/couple was ready to concieve, she (or he or they) would get an antidote. Admittedly there are various views for this- should it be OTC or perscription, how hard should it be to get a perscription, costs involved (which would undoubtedly be below what is currently paid into the foster care system), avoid allergic reactions, etc. Any way you look at it, though, there would be no more unwanted babies. A concious effort would be required to conceive.

edit- whoo! I have attained my 200th post.

Onibubba · Post by **Onibubba** » Mon May 10, 2004 8:43 am

Maybe some of those horrible gay couples that aren't responsible enough to enter into the sacred pact of marriage could help by adopting some of the children that they can't have from their infinitely more wise and responsible "straight" brethren?

white_darkness · Post by **white_darkness** » Mon May 10, 2004 10:06 am

Imp wrote:a friend of mine once stated that we should put something in the water that would be effective birth control for one or preferrably both genders. When a person/couple was ready to concieve, she (or he or they) would get an antidote. Admittedly there are various views for this- should it be OTC or perscription, how hard should it be to get a perscription, costs involved (which would undoubtedly be below what is currently paid into the foster care system), avoid allergic reactions, etc. Any way you look at it, though, there would be no more unwanted babies. A concious effort would be required to conceive.

edit- whoo! I have attained my 200th post.

Hey, I know we've discussed this, and they've recently found chemicals that inhibits male's sperm from swimming properly. They move slowly, and can't seem to figure out where to go, basically they get good and drunk. The only issue with saturating the water supply is if it'd inhibit other creatures reproduction.

It'd have to be a forced arrangement on sterilization, one couldn't depend on the masses to obediently take their dosage to remain infertile.

I'm still wondering where it says in the constitution that people have the unalienable right to reproduce like a rabbit though. I'd like to see that line. considering the crap that goes on daily, it should be obvious that reproduction shouldn't be a right but a priviledge.

And on the note of gay couples adopting, it'd work. Many of them I've known are more stable than their hetero counterparts, and quite a few couples I'd known brought children with them from before they came out of the closet.

div · Post by **div** » Mon May 10, 2004 11:33 am

just because you have the ability to reproduce doesn't mean you should have a right to. We have too many idiots popping out kids like they're pez dispensers. You should have to prove you are mentally, physically, and financially able to take care of a kid before being allowed to have one. And if you decide you want a second one - you should be commited.

littlepockit · Post by **littlepockit** » Mon May 10, 2004 1:32 pm

my views on this are contridictory, so i don't think i should comment on my views, but i do want to comment on the ruling. even if the ruling does get revoked, overturned or whatever, at least the judge had the proverbial balls to do what she thought was right.

TiredUnhappy · Post by **TiredUnhappy** » Mon May 10, 2004 1:44 pm

People who can not take care of children, and consider their children a complete and utter burden on their lives should not have children. Period. I'm sorry but I lose alot of respect for women who are careless during their pregnancy. They knowingly take drugs, drink, smoke, etc. That just bothers me to no end. Seriously, would you hand your infant a cigarette, or start giving them mixed drinks? (One would hope not) So why are you doing it then? Being a mother is a great honor, priviledge, and a great responsibility. It upsets me to think there are alot of wonderful potential mothers out there who can not conceive, but those people are having kids left and right and they don't even take care of them. :mad: