 |
posted by Adam on 09:51 AM November 10th, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
The_Beedle writes "A month ago the Supreme Court of Ohio didn't overturned a lower court decision to prohibit the fathering of additional children by a father on probation for failure to pay his child support charges Fox News Reference. The Court of Ohio failed dodged the issue of whether such a restriction was legal in favor of overruling this particular case on the grounds that there was no provision for the man to pay up and then have more kids.
By way of comparison, People v. Pointer (California, 1984 available at Findlaw.com, free registration required) the Supreme Court of California found that a similar prohibition for a female convicted of child abuse and neglect was too great an inhibition on her constitutional rights :
"[5d] The challenged condition was apparently not intended to serve any rehabilitative purpose but rather to protect the public by preventing injury to an unborn child. We believe this salutary purpose can adequately be served by alternative restrictions less subversive of appellant's fundamental right to procreate."
A similar ruling was handed down by the Supreme Court of California in 1992, People v. Zaring after a judge there ordered a mother of five and heroin/cocaine addict not to conceive as a term of her probation. The California Supreme Court overturned that, saying
"Recognizing that drug addiction could have an adverse impact on the unborn, we must conclude under the law that even if we were to assume arguendo that the safeguarding of the health of any yet to be conceived unborn child of appellant may properly be the subject of probation conditions, it is clear to us that other conditions, less drastic than an outright ban on pregnancy, could be used here to accomplish this objective, just as they could have been used in Pointer."
They also quoted similar rulings from Kansas, Ohio and Florida, all of which illustrates a clear double standard with respect to procreation. A woman's right to concieve is inviolate, despite convictions of child endangerment, child abuse, neglect or even kidnapping. A man's right to procreate is fair game for having incurred a bad debt."
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:49 PM November 11th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
"This is a situation that many courts in the state of Ohio have to deal with, which is what to do with these types of individuals who continue to
recklessly parent children and refuse to pay for them," assistant prosecutor James Bennett said.
Gee, how are babies made? Why not put in jail women who have sex with this guy? Oops, I forget, jail is only for men.
Talty pleaded no contest in 2002 to failing to pay $38,000 in child support for three of his children with his former wife and another woman.
The government sure is rising the price to men for having sex. The money, of course, goes to the mommy, with no strings attached. The guy probably doesn't even get to see the kids. We need some superheroes to squash this evil: www.fathers-4-justice.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And remember that that monetary award was granted by a lower-standards, no-right-to-trial-by-jury, not-a-constitutional-court, Family "Court". The women had each been tried in criminal court.
By reason, the Family Courts should have less ability to infringe on Constitutional rights than criminal courts, not more.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
