twinkie*princess

Couple Ordered to Have No More Children

May 15, 3:35 PM (ET)

By BEN DOBBIN

ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) - When a drug-addicted homeless woman had her newborn taken away last spring, she agreed the baby should be placed in foster care with her three other children.

A year later, a judge delivered a startling postscript: She ordered the parents to have no more children until they prove they can look after the ones they already have.

"All babies deserve more than to be born to parents who have proven they cannot possibly raise or parent a child," Family Court Judge Marilyn O'Connor wrote in a 12-page opinion. "The cycle of neglect ... needs to stop."

The unusual ruling has outraged civil libertarians, and was made all the more difficult by the revelation that the mother of the 1-year-old girl is already pregnant again.


But many lauded the government's desire to ensure children are raised in a healthy environment. A Rochester newspaper columnist, Mark Hare, echoed a multitude of radio talk-show callers in applauding "a wake-up call" to all parents to "put our children first."

It was the first known decision of its kind in New York, but courts in Wisconsin and Ohio have upheld similar rulings involving "deadbeat dads" who failed to pay child support. In other states, judges have turned back attempts to interfere with a person's right to procreate.

The infant girl's father, Rodney Evers, an admitted cocaine addict who stays periodically at the House of Mercy shelter for the homeless, described O'Connor's judgment as demeaning.

"I can't abide by something like that," said Evers, 54, his gaunt face and graying goatee shaded by a baseball cap. "I know for a fact that God said 'be fruitful and multiply.' This is telling me I have to be celibate. Man cannot play God."

The couple has struggled for years to find work and shelter and both have admitted in court to abusing drugs and alcohol. Evers is the father of three of the four children, including a 6-year-old boy. The youngest three, ages 4, 2 and 1, tested positive for cocaine at birth.

In a March 31 ruling made public last week, the judge said she was not forcing contraception or sterilization on the couple and was not requiring the mother to get an abortion should she become pregnant. But the couple could be jailed for contempt if they have another child.

It was unclear what effect the order could have on the 35-year-old mother, identified in court papers only as Stephanie.

At a preliminary hearing Thursday to explore whether the foster parents of her 2-year-old son can adopt him, the woman's relatives revealed she became pregnant in mid-March with her fifth child - two weeks before the judge's order. Calls to the judge's chambers were not returned.

Women with multiple children in foster care who continue to have children are not uncommon.

Eftihia Bourtis, who frequently serves as an advocate for abused or neglected children removed from their homes, said she knows of a woman with seven kids in state care who is due to give birth again in a few weeks.

"I had two little boys tell me they wished people would have kids only when they could care for them," Bourtis said. "They were talking about their parents, almost like wishing they were never born. It just broke my heart."

Bourtis is the law guardian for the child of Stephanie, the homeless woman, but said she will not appeal O'Connor's ruling.

O'Connor, 66, a Democrat first elected in 2000, said in her ruling that under U.S. Supreme Court decisions, "the rights to conceive and to raise one's children have been deemed 'essential'" as opposed to merely establishing that "the right to conceive a child is essential."

Her analysis, countered Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, is "incompatible with the protection of the right to procreate and raises serious and bizarre issues regarding ... what goes on in the bedroom."

According to court papers, Stephanie was charged with prostitution in April and a bench warrant was later issued when she failed to appear in drug court. Evers went looking for her in a dilapidated house but said he couldn't find her.

"When she's not using, she's the most beautiful, sweetest woman in the world," he said.

Although an order of protection prevents Evers from communicating with his children, he said he clings to the belief that someday they'll be reunited. "I feel it in my heart," he said.

Link: http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D82J724G0.html

Thoughts?

idork

.)
*gag* He knows for a fact? What did God whisper it in his ear or was it just the drugs speaking?
I agree with the ruling, but a ton of people are going to be very upset about this (hello, ACLU.)

mh67511

It's not saying he has to be celibate. It's saying he needs to stop being stupid and start using a condom. If he can afford to buy drugs, he can afford to buy some condoms.

SuperDeluxe

Wow. Just wow. THIS JUDGE FOR SUPREME COURT

seriouslly.

We need more foward thinking like this

IF YOU CANT RAISE THE KIDS YOU HAVE, stop having kids!

What a logical concept.

Katis

Hm, interesting. My first reaction is good, these people need to care for the children they have before being stupid and having more.

Maresa

I completely agree that if you can't take care of the children you have now, you shouldn't have any more.

However, can a judge actually rule that? And can it be enforced?

SuperDeluxe

I don't think a judge would have made a ruling, if he thought there was no way to enforce it.


and to the father of the children..calling it demeaning. BOO ******ING hoo!

What I find demeaning is that all your freaking kids are going to foster homes, because you cant take of your own stuff!

Cry me a river..I wish I had the smiley icon playing a violin.

CrabbyCancer69

Civil libertarians my ass, certain people should never be allowed to have kids! This is the perfect example.

migamoo

no one said that he had to be celibate. all he has to do is have safe-sex.

Ashley

I'm Not Your Boy Toy

this was brought up in a civil liberties discussion.

more women than men agreed that women who keep having children to ride welfare shouldnt be allowed to have children. and if they do then they should be ordered to have a hysterectomy. also for men that cant keep it in their pants and have children with multiple women should get the ole snip.

people talk about how the children suffer and its so sad and disturbing. well if more people would think and act of stopping it we could reduce and maybe even break the cycle

AirBear

Why don't we focus on ending poverty and increasing education instead of cutting up people's genitals?

SuperDeluxe

Because education is too late for these numbnuts.

*Lauren

I have no problem with this ruling, but if he was forcing the people to become steralised, or God forbid, have an abortion, then I would find something wrong with it.

Through the ongoing abortion debate, its been shown the government can't interfere with our bodies, why is this any different?

And SD, I'm glad to know that you think that education is a waste for some people.

SuperDeluxe

You're welcome Lauren


Through the ongoing abortion debate, its been shown the government can't interfere with our bodies, why is this any different?

I agree with you that the govt can not tell us what to do to our own bodies.

HOWEVER, when its been shown you can't take care of you're children, and yet you continue to have children. It affects Me and others.

Having a abortion or not, does not affect me. Idiots having kids when they cant support them, affects me (via my tax dollars)

There is the difference.

I am tired of taking care of people's kids.

Headhunter

People like this should not be allowed to have kids. That said, if they refuse to comply, I do not know what can be done; contempt of court seems pretty flimsy.