Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Judge orders lowlife parents not to have any more kids

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Judge orders lowlife parents not to have any more kids

    Judge orders N.Y. couple not to have children
    Pair allegedly neglected other children; rights groups assail rulingThe Associated Press
    Updated: 12:52 p.m. ET May 08, 2004ROCHESTER, N.Y. - A couple has been ordered not to conceive any more children until the ones they already have are no longer in foster care.

    advertisement

    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.

    Children found neglected, test positive for cocaine
    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.

    © 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4932434/

  • #2
    Originally posted by Leader
    A civil liberties advocate said the court ruling unsealed Friday was “blatantly unconstitutional.”
    They don't care about the rights of the children to have a stable home.
    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
    I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Confed999
      They don't care about the rights of the children to have a stable home.
      Or the right of the tax payer not to have to pay for these peoples immorality.

      Comment


      • #4
        The judge wildly overstepped the court's authority, even if the judge happens to be right in this case.

        Comment


        • #5
          Well the judge is setting

          Well the judge is setting a danerous presedent. Parental rights are extreamly important. We don't want the government to decide who can and who cannot have children..

          These kind of cases really challenge us to come up with solutions that will not potentially do damage to the rights of others futher on down the road.... ya know the old slippery slope.

          The government does have the responsibilty to protect the innocent from the wicked. That is the role of moral authority. T

          I have to tell ya. these kinda of cases are toughys.. I have yet to think of a even one good really good solution other than the ones that have already been attempted.. intervention and adoption.. foster care.

          This subject really needs the attention of some good and creative thinkings. The trick is to find alternatives to underminding the RIGHTS of parents and to effectvily protect the innocent.

          er

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by M21Sniper
            The judge wildly overstepped the court's authority, even if the judge happens to be right in this case.
            I'm sure he was just making a point. He didn't put any enforcement into his judgement and I'm sure he knows it wouldn't be upheld. The judge was just making a point, and a good one at that. Personally, I would just have the cops follow these two slugs until they were holding cocaine. Have them arrested, brought before this same judge, convict them and put them in prison in general population. Have the guards let the other prisoners know these two neglect their children, and watch them disappear.
            No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
            I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
            even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
            He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by M21Sniper
              The judge wildly overstepped the court's authority, even if the judge happens to be right in this case.
              If you’re going to force the tax payer to pay for these children, then the court should have the authority to order these people to stop making more burdens on the state.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by headlessbarbie
                Well the judge is setting a danerous presedent. Parental rights are extreamly important. We don't want the government to decide who can and who cannot have children..

                These kind of cases really challenge us to come up with solutions that will not potentially do damage to the rights of others futher on down the road.... ya know the old slippery slope.

                The government does have the responsibilty to protect the innocent from the wicked. That is the role of moral authority. T

                I have to tell ya. these kinda of cases are toughys.. I have yet to think of a even one good really good solution other than the ones that have already been attempted.. intervention and adoption.. foster care.

                This subject really needs the attention of some good and creative thinkings. The trick is to find alternatives to underminding the RIGHTS of parents and to effectvily protect the innocent.

                er
                The solution is for these parents to have the moral fortitude to stop having children that they cannot care for.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Confed999
                  I'm sure he was just making a point. He didn't put any enforcement into his judgement and I'm sure he knows it wouldn't be upheld. The judge was just making a point, and a good one at that. Personally, I would just have the cops follow these two slugs until they were holding cocaine. Have them arrested, brought before this same judge, convict them and put them in prison in general population. Have the guards let the other prisoners know these two neglect their children, and watch them disappear.
                  The problem is that these two are not the only ones. Irresponsibility is an epidemic in the cities of America. When are these "inner city leaders" going to step up and tell there people to take some responsibility for there actions? Or are they to busy shifting blame on to others?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Leader
                    When are these "inner city leaders" going to step up and tell there people to take some responsibility for there actions?
                    Never! If people take their own lives into their hands these "leaders" would lose their power. No, they will contine telling their followers there is no hope for their lot in life until {insert race, nationality, religon or sexual preference here} are stopped. I support the same actions happening to them, as I do the scum from the news story above.
                    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                    I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      "If you’re going to force the tax payer to pay for these children, then the court should have the authority to order these people to stop making more burdens on the state."

                      I'd revolt before i sat back and tolerated such totalitarianism.

                      This is not Red China.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by M21Sniper
                        "If you’re going to force the tax payer to pay for these children, then the court should have the authority to order these people to stop making more burdens on the state."

                        I'd revolt before i sat back and tolerated such totalitarianism.

                        This is not Red China.
                        I don't know, if it were up to me this would fall into child neglect, I don't mind paying to get those kids a place to live.
                        No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                        I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                        even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                        He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by M21Sniper
                          "If you’re going to force the tax payer to pay for these children, then the court should have the authority to order these people to stop making more burdens on the state."

                          I'd revolt before i sat back and tolerated such totalitarianism.

                          This is not Red China.
                          How many more of these children do you want to pay for?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Confed999
                            I don't know, if it were up to me this would fall into child neglect, I don't mind paying to get those kids a place to live.
                            The children that these wastes have already had should be taken care of, but they should not be allowed to continue to burden the state with their irresponsibility. Next time they have a kid and they cannot take care of it put they in jail for a year or two for child neglect. Then maybe they will think about it next time.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Confed999
                              Never! If people take their own lives into their hands these "leaders" would lose their power. No, they will contine telling their followers there is no hope for their lot in life until {insert race, nationality, religon or sexual preference here} are stopped. I support the same actions happening to them, as I do the scum from the news story above.
                              What I tire of is the bitching and complaining about inequality when most of the problems originate in the community itself.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X