Do you think deadbeat parents should be prohibited from having children?
Thursday September 26, 1:56 am Eastern Time
Deadbeat Dads Told to Stop Having Kids
Dee McAree
The National Law Journal
A growing frustration with fathers who don`t pay child support has led some judges to order them to stop fathering.
An Ohio judge recently ordered as a condition of probation that Sean Talty, 30, who failed to pay child support, take `reasonable steps to avoid fathering more children.`
Talty owes more than $30,000 for the support of his six or seven children (the judge`s order says the exact number is unclear). Judge James L. Kimbler issued the order. State of Ohio v. Talty, No. 02-CR-0075 (Medina Co., Ohio, Ct. C.P.).
Earlier this summer, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld a five-year conception restriction in the case of David W. Oakley, who fathered nine children with four women and owed $25,000. Wisconsin v. Oakley, No. 99-3328. Oakley has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Critics say that the court is infringing on a fundamental right to bear children. The Wisconsin ruling came on a 4-3 vote, with all three female justices dissenting. The condition, a dissent argued, essentially imposed a `credit check` on the right to bear children.
Patricia J. Falk, a family law professor at Cleveland State University`s Marshall College of Law, agrees: `That line of reasoning is very dangerous because it has the potential consequence of creating various classes of citizens in our country: those who can afford to have kids and those who cannot.`
Talty`s attorney, Joseph F. Gorman of Gorman, Malarcik & Pierce of Akron, Ohio, said he is urging Talty to appeal. Talty, however, sent an e-mail message to the judge accepting the terms and vowing to reform. Gorman said Talty has been reeling under the public attention the case has generated.
As prosecutors and child-support advocates work to bring more cases against `deadbeat dads,` trial courts are left grappling with what will work to change their behavior. Prison is not a first option,
I admit that that would be good for the kids. However, the only goverment that can pass laws like that is a dictatorship. A democracy like the USA could never have that sort of thing (although now we have a Republican as president...)
The only way to completely assure that someone doesn't reproduce is to either force the person to get a vasectomy or get their tubes tied. And that's very unethical, not to mention illegal.
On 6/2/2006 1:05:08 PM melLowstar wrote: Seriously, how could you enforce that? The only way to completely assure that someone doesn't reproduce is to either force the person to get a vasectomy or get their tubes tied. And that's very unethical, not to mention illegal.
Doesn't the order call for 'reasonable steps'? That seems a long way from forced sterilizations..
It would be interesting to know what 'reasonable steps' would entail. I disagree with the question though. As I dont see it as anyones right to deny someone else the ability to procreate.
On 6/2/2006 1:21:09 PM Avant-garde wrote: It would be interesting to know what 'reasonable steps' would entail. I disagree with the question though. As I dont see it as anyones right to deny someone else the ability to procreate.
I would think that using some form of birth control would be considered a 'reasonable step'...
I would imagine that extended time in jail would prevent him from fathering more kids...
On 6/2/2006 1:17:45 PM CowDung wrote: Doesn't the order call for 'reasonable steps'? That seems a long way from forced sterilizations..
I know what the article said:
"An Ohio judge recently ordered as a condition of probation that Sean Talty, 30, who failed to pay child support, take 'reasonable steps to avoid fathering more children.'"
But what, exactly, are those "reasonable steps" that they want this man to take? It's ludicrous to *order* someone to stop fathering children and expect that the order alone will keep people from reproducing. An order alone won't do that. The only thing that *would* is sterilization.
Birth control is an option, but I could only see it as valid if it had the consent of the two respective partners.
The same with jail. If its for a crime then thats different and should be enforced, but if its for explicitly denying the potential father to having children then I cant agree with it.
What the order does is give more authority to take legal action against the guy. Apparantly the child support laws aren't strong enough to make this guy pay what he owes--the possibility of holding him in violations of this court order might make a difference.
On 6/2/2006 1:28:55 PM Avant-garde wrote: Birth control is an option, but I could only see it as valid if it had the consent of the two respective partners. The same with jail. If its for a crime then thats different and should be enforced, but if its for explicitly denying the potential father to having children then I cant agree with it.
You don't think that owing thousands in child support isn't a crime?
On 6/2/2006 1:30:14 PM CowDung wrote: What the order does is give more authority to take legal action against the guy. Apparantly the child support laws aren't strong enough to make this guy pay what he owes--the possibility of holding him in violations of this court order might make a difference.
Considering that, the intent of the court is stop such violations and not deny his ability to father children. This is quite acceptable.
On 6/2/2006 1:31:08 PM CowDung wrote: On 6/2/2006 1:28:55 PM Avant-garde wrote: Birth control is an option, but I could only see it as valid if it had the consent of the two respective partners. The same with jail. If its for a crime then thats different and should be enforced, but if its for explicitly denying the potential father to having children then I cant agree with it. You don't think that owing thousands in child support isn't a crime?
If your too lazy to support the children you already have, then you need to STOP REPRODUCING!!. I'd love to hear that scientists have come up with a male form of birth control that stops them from producing sperm. Vacectomies(sp?) or having a womans tubes tied are a little extreme, but a hormonal birth control for men, like women use, would be an excellent step in the right direction. The hard part would obviously be making the pieces of poo take it.
But yeah, if there was a way to make it work, aside from forced surgery, I'd support it 100%.
Share 
