Judge To Deadbeat: Stop Breeding

[CShine]

Ohio Supreme Court justices on Tuesday sharply questioned the constitutionality of a judge's order that a man avoid having more children while on probation for failing to pay child support. Sean Talty is required to make "reasonable" efforts to avoid conception during his five-year probation after he was convicted of not supporting three of his seven children by five women. If he violates the order, he could get six months to a year in prison.

"How in the world would a judge enforce this?" Justice Evelyn Stratton asked.

Talty, 32, 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. Since then, he has paid the court-ordered $150 weekly in back child support and avoided fathering more children, according to his attorney, J. Dean Carro.

Prosecutors and Talty's attorney agree that reproduction is a right protected by the U.S. Constitution. But the state Supreme Court must decide whether that right may be curtailed for someone on probation or parole — the same way parolees may be ordered to provide urine samples for drug testing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/11/national/main616875.shtml

[bluestateguy]

1. I really don't have a whole lot of patience for deadbeat parents

Is this judge's order a bit heavy handed? Probably, but you'll forgive me if that's not on my hot list. This guy had a choice. The prisoners at Abu Grahaib did not have a choice when they were violated.

[schultzee]

2. Birth control does exist. Its not like the man is denied sex and people

should be able to feed the children they bring into the world.

[lazarus]

3. He's not the one with a choice, though

Remember that. The choice isn't up to him. He just has to pay for it.

They've taken everything else from the poor, I guess sex is next.

[DoNotRefill]

8. Not necessarily....

This order could very well be constitutional. You're looking at it from the perspective of "you can't have sex." I'm looking at it from the perspective of "The guy is a deadbeat dad, which deserves jail time if he does it delibrately." The judge, rather than throwing his ass in jail, is conditionally suspending the sentence on the condition that the guy doesn't father any more children. The guy has several choices: He could say "f*ck it", and do his jail time. He could say "I'm not going to jail" and either practice safe sex or not have sex. Or, he could say "F*ck the judge", have sex, have another kid, in which case he goes to jail for his original crime, failure to pay back child support.

[lazarus]

26. Here's a slippery slope for you, then

How much more likely does this make it that some conservative judge tells a woman she can't reproduce if she's on welfare?

Reproductive rights should go both ways, IMO. As soon as we allow judges to mess with reproductive rights, we're in big trouble.

Eugenics isn't far behind. Too poor to pay for your kids? Then you can't have any. Next step: orphanages.

Then we see an expansion, as the definition of "undesirable" starts to mutate and grow.

See where it's going? It's easy to bust on a deadbeat dad, especially given the propoganda spread about them. But part of what makes America work is defending people one finds repellent, and defending rights that are being abused. If we start making exceptions, the wall comes crumbling down.

[DoNotRefill]

29. There's a HUGE difference...

between telling somebody that they can stay out of jail if they agree not to do something (be it smoke crack or father more children or protest outside an abortion clinic or trespass on somebody's property), and telling somebody that they can't have kids because they're on welfare. Being on welfare isn't a crime. There's no potential jailtime involved. This is a case of mitigation of sentence, NOT a case of depriving somebody of their reproductive rights. Think about it. If the judge put his ass in jail, his ability to have children is also curtailed since he isn't "getting any", at least with a woman, right?

The deadbeat dad committed a crime. In order to avoid doing the time, he agreed to not father more children. That's his choice. If at ANY time he wants to father more kids, he can, he just has to serve out his sentence that he got out of by agreeing to not have more kids.

[lazarus]

31. debt is a crime?

being poor is a crime?

If this case involved a woman, everyone on this board would be screaming about a judge interfering with a woman's reproductive system.

I'm just amazed that there are people on this board who are defending a judge's interference with reproductive rights. Just amazed.

What this does is make reproduction a right that can be taken away by the government.

[DoNotRefill]

33. Debt, in and of itself, isn't a crime...

Willful refusal to comply with a court order IS.

From what I've read, he had the ability to pay, but refused to even make token payments.

If you in effect tell the judge to "f*ck off" by ignoring the court order, you're going to get smacked.

[haele]

36. refused to make token payments?

"Talty, 32, 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.

Since then, he has paid the court-ordered $150 weekly in back child support and avoided fathering more children, according to his attorney, J. Dean Carro."

Hmm....

And then there's this to consider, also from the article.

"Justice Maureen O'Connor inquired whether the trial judge who issued the order was not "really trying to legislate morality." She also questioned the state's contention that the order does not affect other people, such as Talty's new wife, who could not have another child with Talty until the sentence is complete. "

[DoNotRefill]

40. He pled guilty...

and didn't offer a necessity defense, or declare bankruptcy, or offer any kind of mitigating circumstances, or offer to work on paying it, or anything.

If he was poor, and offered to pay what he could afford, there seems little doubt that he wouldn't have been convicted.

He's been paying $600 a month since he was convicted, so he has to have a job. If he'd made even token payments prior to his conviction, and based his defense on the token payments being all he could afford, it wouldn't have been an issue.

[lazarus]

46. actually

it would have been an issue.

And you seem to have found a great deal of information that isn't presented in the article. Care to share your source?

As for his not being convicted if he was poor, that's a load of crap. At one point, I was out of work and missed a couple of payments. I had just gotten a job when they served me. I offered to pay back 20% of what I owed each month. Nope. Had to pay the whole thing, right then, or I was going to jail.

I got lucky and had family that could loan me the money.

But tell me what possible purpose would have been served by putting me in jail, costing me a job 2 weeks before Christmas? Is that in the best interests of the child?

Did you know that every jurisdiction in the nation has a child support enforcement department, but virtually none of them have a child visitation and custody enforcement department?

I'm not saying that paying child support isn't a requirement. But there are mitigating circumstances that never seem to get mentioned in these "deadbeat dad" articles.

I knew a man who was ordered to pay 70% of his wages. The judge told him to get a second job and work weekends if he had to. That sounds fair, doesn't it? When's he supposed to see his kids?

Family courts talk a lot about "best interests of the child," but when you really start looking, at the number of men who have been jailed because they lost their jobs, at the number of men who have been locked out of their children's lives, you realise that's not what the courts are after at all.

[DoNotRefill]

49. Saying "pay this or go to jail"...

is different from the court convicting you of a crime and actually putting you in jail.

You borrowed money to pay the back child support. That shows you had assets that could be tapped. The system is supposed to get the money for the children. It isn't supposed to accept excuses.

Have you considered the message you sent to your children by refusing to pay when you were supposed to? When you were threatened with jail, you came up with the money. I hope that they don't end up feeling like you couldn't come up with the cash for them, and only came up with it when it was either produce it or it was YOUR ass on the line.

I'm looking at this from a different perspective. My father was supposed to pay 1/3 of his salary as child support for my sister and I. He never did, despite the fact that it wouldn't have been an outrageous burden on him. Consequently, we went without.

Being a man is more than just being able to father a child. It's about stepping up to the plate and fulfilling your responsibilites, even when it's difficult to do so.

[lazarus]

51. refused to pay?

See what happens? I had resources? Yeah, I had "resources" I could only use in an extreme situation.

And if I hadn't had those resources? If the one family member who could afford it had said no?

For many men, 1/3 (light) to 2/3 of their salary is an outrageous burden. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, barely able to survive, suddenly coughing up half your pay is an outrageous burden.

The point you're missing is that, in my case, and in many cases, it was a temporary setback, and the money was being paid back. Just not fast enough for the lawyer the government appointed. This wasn't "refusal to pay." It was an inability to pay. Distinct difference. Sorry you had one of the men who apparently don't understand their responsibilies as a father, but don't lump the rest of us in with you.

Oh, and forget that "money for the children" crap. It's most explicitly NOT "for the children." If it was, there would be some mechanism in place to ensure that the money was being spent on the children.

[DoNotRefill]

59. It wasn't an inability to pay on your part...

as demonstrated by the fact that when pushed, you paid.

Child support payments are not to be made at the convenience of the father. If it's inconvenient for you to pay, you don't pay, and the child is forced to go hungry or do without, that's WRONG, both morally and legally. You seem to have the idea that your failure to pay didn't constitute an extreme situation, but the risk of being put in jail WAS an extreme situation. In my book, that doesn't bode well for your ethical fiber. It makes it sound like you're a very self-centered person.

[shimmergal]

55. How can you say "he doesn't have a choice?"

He can choose not to have sex, or to use a condom, or worst-case, to have a vasectomy. In fact "reasonable efforts" might even include simply first asking the woman if she's using any contraception.

If you're trying to make a point about Roe v Wade, it's not relevant here.

[saigon68]

4. just curious

don't take offense to me asking but --what choices of the prisoners at abu ghraib relate to family planning?

( this is a serious question--not my usual sarcasm)

[bluestateguy]

5. reply

I didn't make myself very clear. My point is just that the prison thing is a little more important to me right now that this silly case of the deadbeat dad who can't keep it in his pants.

[saigon68]

6. understood

thanks for the reply :-) :-)

[NuttyFluffers]

7. according to biology, he is a successful organism...

now if his progeny survives he will truly be successful, because his genes would have been passed down.

sometimes you cry for the future of humanity.

[DoNotRefill]

9. Yeah....remember that paper that said rape was a ...

successful strategy for guys who otherwise couldn't get laid? That kind of strategy we don't need...

[mulethree]

20. cuckoo

lays its eggs in the nest of a smaller bird. Egg hatches and baby cuckoo shoves the legitimate hatchlings out of their nest. The 'adoptive' parents are busy raising a cuckoo baby instead of their own and the cuckoo parents are off laying more eggs.

[mulethree]

10. hmm we take other constitutional rights from felons

If we can keep them from voting, bearing arms etc. why not this 'right to reproduce'? Or is failing to pay $38K not a felony like stealing $38K would be?

I think it should be more like the 'right to drive'. If you prove that you know the laws and that you meet minimum competency and you provide proof of financial responsibility then you have a right to reproduce which can be revoked if your actions prove you are not law-abiding, competent and responsible.

[okcdem]

12. I cant believe a post like this on DU

I'm an ex-felon. I did my time and paid for what crime I committed in spades. One year fighting for my life... from the rapists, bad asses or sadistic guards pays for alot. I did ten. Must I commit penitence for the rest of my non-deserving life to please even the Dems? Or, Should felons be barred from even having children? Peeps, Nader is looking good. (I VOTE BTW RESTORED IN 2003)

[mulethree]

19. so you don't want to answer the question?

I don't think a felon that's 'paid' should be denied the right to vote or bear arms or have children or in any way have fewer rights than any one else. But if 'felon' status does surrender some inalienable rights why not others?

If one can be regarded as 'safe' enough to be a father or mother then why should they be deemed 'unsafe' in any other regard? How many of the bad asses, rapists and sadistic guards you met in prison got that way by having irresponsible parents?

I think people who can't handle the responsibility of children should be dissuaded from having them and people who have had children and PROVED themselves incapable of the responsibility should be prevented from having more until they prove that they have acquired the necessary responsibility.

I think you'll find many here who admire Nader's platform if not his organization or motives. I think it's a shame that corrections reform isn't on any major party's agenda. We have about 1% of our country's people locked up at a yearly cost that could pay for a top-end university for each prisoner, we're certainly not getting all the 'correction' we're paying for.

[okcdem]

37. I strongly disagree

I dont believe that a felon should surrender any inalienable rights once he or she is released from incarceration. This does nothing but create a social sub-class of citizen in a system founded on equality. Stripping a felon of the vote is little more than class and racial exclusion from the political process done so to benefit the ruling elite. In my opinion, disenfranchisement of an entire segment of a population should not be tolerated in a democracy.

Here are some interesting facts:

U.S. Prison Economics (From Going Up The River: Travels in a Prison Nation; Joseph T. Hallinan; Random House, 2001):

* No nation in the world incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than the U.S.
* In the last 20 years, our prison population has more than quadrupled.
* The U.S. government predicts one in every eleven men will be imprisoned during his lifetime - one in every four for black men.

This is from
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Election_Reform/Felon_Disenfranchisement.html


Today, 48 states and the District of Columbia prohibit felons in prison from voting, and 33 states ban people on probation and/or parole as well. In 13 states a felony offense can result in the loss of voting rights even after the sentence has been completed, and often for life. Although these laws have been in place for many years, their impact is now greater than at any point in US history, given the six fold increase in the number of people entering the criminal justice system during the past three decades. Overall, some four million Americans-two percent of the adult population-cannot vote as a result of a felony conviction; the rate for African-American males is a staggering 13 percent.

Mulethree, my point is that there should not be a 'felon' status. The argument that rights have already been denied - so why not take more screams of injustice. Doesn't it?

The State should have no say in personal reproductive choice.

[mulethree]

53. well thanks for the discussion

"In 13 states a felony offense can result in the loss of voting rights even after the sentence has been completed, and often for life."

I thought the above was more widespread, certainly the ex-felons I know believe they are disqualified from voting, holding office, owning guns and working certain jobs like banking.

"Mulethree, my point is that there should not be a 'felon' status. The argument that rights have already been denied - so why not take more screams of injustice. Doesn't it?"

yes, it screams it instead of whispering it see Reducto Ad Absurdum. If a felon can be denied inalienable rights then they can also lose the right to life which contradicts proportional punishment.

So I guess we do disagree on reproductive choice. I feel the state has an interest in ensuring that children have parents who are capable. I understand that people don't trust the state to properly define what 'capable' is. The state does provide financial assistance to all parents thru tax and other policies and does take action in the most blatant cases of endangered children. But that does mean every one of us, are supporting children who are endangered whether in state care or not. I just feel the same public interest could extend further to reduce the number of endangered children we support.

[TexasBushwhacker]

56. Perhaps only certain kinds of felons

For example, it would make sense that people convicted of felonies that involve harming children might have their "reproductive rights" revoked. Why should someone who spent years in prison for beating their children within an inch of their life, and who has lost parental rights for those children, be allowed to go out and make some more, which they can then abuse as well. What is more important, the "reproductive rights" or the safety of the children?

There's something that goes along with parental rights. They're called parental responsibilities. Both parents have both and should be held accountable.

[DoNotRefill]

21. Because...

the right to reproduce is a fundamental human right.

When a person is convicted of a felony, they don't lose their other fundamental human rights, like to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, do they?

There's absolutely NO "right to drive". There's a recognized right to travel, but not to drive.

[mulethree]

54. Depends where you live

I know neighborhoods where theres no such thing as 'free from unreasonable search and seizure'. Where 'reasonable' is defined by individual police officers whose training seems anything but reasonable. Likewise there are many seizure laws that define 'reasonable' as merely 'suspicion' without any evidence or proof. Imagine having your car seized because it was used in a crime though you were never convicted or even indicted?

These laws only seem to exist or be enforced when the 'victim' of the seizure is unlikely to be able to afford legal recourse. Is there or should there be some equal right to justice? We seem to only get as much justice as we can afford.

In other areas the laws are more reasonable but are relaxed for cases of 'known offenders'. So having a prior conviction makes many things 'reasonable' which would not be reasonable for someone without prior convictions.

This particular guy who evades child support should be allowed freedom of reproduction? Yet in many places a felon cannot adopt or have a foster-child, even if his crime has nothing to do with his conduct toward children. So we can blanket-statement say we won't entrust kids to people, but we won't deny anyone a right to make his own babies even when the crime specifically relates to endangering children?

Here's a interesting report though I wish it contained more detail.
http://www.lac.org/lac/index.php

[Exultant Democracy]

11. This is gross, you people need to think about this.

I may not want this guy to have more kids, but you do not start fucking around with reproduction rights.

I am sure that those of you who don't have a clear understanding of that law may not realize the huge ramifications of this if it is upheld. To put it in the simplest terms, right now case law has provided us with an interpretation of the first amendment that allows for the right to privacy.

This privacy allows women to get abortions and homosexuals to have sex with each other (remember they ruled under the 1st not the 14th.)

If they were to uphold this judges ruling that would be grounds to review Row v Wade along with a shit load of other cases we don't want to be reviewed right now.

[bloom]

13. Maybe

there needs to be working prisons for these people.

Those who refuse to pay support could work in prison until it is paid off (I would expect them to be paid more than a dollar a day - but I would also expect them to pay the cost of their being there). Then they can go try again on the outside. If they work and pay what they owe, fine. If they can't - back to the prison again.

There is a judge around here who is good about jailing people who refuse to pay. Most guys will pay (borrow from somewhere if they have to) rather than go to jail. I think this judge's system works better than most.

[MadHound]

16. Agreed, and good point LC

Another matter on this issue is that this issue could lead us down the entire slippery slope of who is fit for having children period. Today, it is because you are a deadbeat dad, tommorrow, it could be because you are too liberal, or not rich enough, or an atheist. Next step, force vas jobs or tube ties on those who are deemed unworthy.

Look, we have plenty of laws already in place to deal with this issue, fine this guy, put him in jail, garnish his wages. But don't start messing around with reproduction rights in a manner that could lead to a new round of euginics. That was the Nazi solution, and this country alread has enough facist precursors as is, we don't need another.

[okcdem]

17. Agreed

n/t

[Baltimoreboy]

18. It appears this guy has a choice

He can choose prison as an option. Probation is not a guaranteed right. And continuing to commit the crime you are in jail for seems reason enough to limit his actions.

[Exultant Democracy]

22. I think you are missing the point

this isn't about this guy, it is about all of our rights. Once you have case law that allows the government an interest in the affairs of the bed room then our rights to privacy are as good as gone.

[Baltimoreboy]

27. Don't courts already have that right when dealing with prisoners?

Prisoner rights are already limited. They can't vote. They must check in with probation officers after they get out, etc. This is not about the rights of you and me, it's about a prisoner continuing to commit the same crimes that got him sent to jail.

[Exultant Democracy]

41. No it is a world of difference.

The fact that a prisoner is locked away may make it harder to reproduce, but any prisoner who wanted to could donate sperm to any willing woman and have a child if he wanted to.

The man never committed a crime by having children, his crime was not paying child support.

The fact is that I am not having a debate with you about this, I am just pointing out a fact, if this court ruling is upheld then any case that has turned on the "right to privacy" is up for review.

Do you want the courts of today to decide if there really is a right to privacy in the U.S. constitution? The fucking right answer is hell no because the case would end up being 5-4 one way or the other, but with a 65%< chance that it would no find a right to privacy written into the 1st amendment.

[DoNotRefill]

44. Really?

"The fact that a prisoner is locked away may make it harder to reproduce, but any prisoner who wanted to could donate sperm to any willing woman and have a child if he wanted to."

Please cite the relevant caselaw.

[Baltimoreboy]

50. Another question

Other than the courts, where is that right of privacy you speak of?

[DoNotRefill]

30. It's not a privacy issue...

He's free to have sex in private, he's just got to not father more kids, on penalty of having his suspended sentence reimposed.

This is a matter of sentence mitigation, not an invasion of privacy.

Here's another example. If you're convicted of DUI, and the judge offers to suspend the jail sentence conditional upon you remaining sober, has he violated your rights? You still have a right to drink, you still have a right to privacy, but if you exercise them and violate the conditions of your suspended sentence, it's reimposed.

[Exultant Democracy]

42. Driving is a right, it is a privilege. Reproduction is a right

and who and how you have sex with is a right.

The way the law works is very complicated and not many people understand it. The point that I am making is pretty simple and pretty straight forward. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY WRITTEN INTO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, but the courts decided that it was a nice idea and kind of complemented the first amendment. All of our rights to privacy that we enjoy today are a result of that. Now I think this next part is where things are getting tricky for you. IF THE COURTS MAKE RULINGS ON SOMEONES PRIVATE BED ROOM BEHAVIOR THEN THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS GONE!

Then all the cases (and rights that have been obtained from them) will come under review but the SCOUS, and the court e have today is full of conservative ass-hats who have been champing at the bit for an excuse to remove the right to privacy and overturn Row v Wade along with many others.

I do not support this man, but I am a pragmatist and I a not so smug and self righteous that I think that one asshole getting what he deserves is a good reason to put everyone's rights at risk. I guess you could call me a progressive of something crazy like that, but if you support this ruling or anything like this go vote for bush because that would hardly make you more of a traitor to the progressive cause.

[DoNotRefill]

43. I understand the law fairly well...

it comes from having the initials "J.D." after my name on my business cards.

The right to privacy is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It's based upon an underlying principle that is fundamental to a structured order of liberty. Why would the 3rd Amendment be included, unless there was, in fact, an unenumerated right to privacy inherent in the Constitution?

It was NOT, as you say, the result of "the courts decid{ing} that it was a nice idea and kind of complemented the first amendment. All of our rights to privacy that we enjoy today are a result of that."

You need to either stop pretending that you know what you're talking about, or go and take an assload of CLE courses as a refresher.

[yellowcanine]

14. Hmm - "snip, snip"?

Could he be offered a "bonus" to have a vasectomy? Strictly voluntary, of course, but the value of the bonus is equal to the child support debt?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ursacorwin]

23. i admit to two minds on this...

reproductive choice is as close to sacred as they come for me...to reproduce is just as important as to not, and no gov't agency should have a say in that choice, for anyone.

on the other hand, back when i thought men were a good idea, i had one in my life. he screwed me out of my previously solid credit rating, and left me one night holding the bag for all our 'joint' debt, never to be seen again.

i've got court orders and financial papers, everything proving that he has to pay at the very least half of what i owe. what have i seen? nada, zilch, zero, nothing.
a similar story comes from a friend of mine, except in her case, they made the mistake of having a child. my friend worked her ASS off for 7 years, working two jobs and going to school full time, while raising her girl. and how much did she get from the child's father? same as me- 0. oh, he's happily married to a younger woman now, they have three kids. he gets paid under the table by his boss so my friend can't "take food out of his real children's mouths," in his words.

i'm not looking for sympathy, but hoping to remind everyone that there is a HUGE difference between getting a court to say, "support your obligaitions" and making it happen. once you get a judgement, they basically tell women, "well, it's up to you to make him pay." i'm not a credit collection agency, and if i had the money to afford one in the first place i wouldn't need his payments.

in the case in question, we've got five separate families of this man's making- is there nothing we can do to make him live up to his obligations?

and what about the children? should they starve so daddy can keep shooting his rocks off without a condom into any woman he can sweetalk and fool? 'cause that's the kind of guy who does this...all sweet talk and promises, and Boom! baby shows up, and he's out the door.

tell me it doesn't happen this way all the time.

[bloom]

25. It doesn't happen that way all the time

But much too often, I'm afraid.

Like I mentioned with the Judge that I am familiar with. He tells the guys "this is what you owe, pay it in a month or you go to jail." Sets a hearing for a month later. They pay it or go to jail. They almost always pay it.

I know most judges probably don't get as good of results. I don't think enough of them take it seriously enough.

[ursacorwin]

28. the problem isn't the judges

my dad's a judge, and he always said to me that if people understood how immoral (with respect to properly caring for children) americans had become we'd see real reform...but of course that's not happening. his words from the last year he sat on the bench: "incest is the number one problem of the families i see." he thought it the root of many of the criminal acts that he was called upon to judge.

no, the problem is that in order to get in front of a judge, you've got literally months of paperwork and gov't agencies to please first. my friend has an interesting tale about this. (the one in my previous post)

she was no dummy, she knew the law was on her side. he would never pay, and the state said that after 30day of nonpayment, she could go to social services and fill out a complaint. 30days after that, SS would send him a threatening letter. 30days after THAT, he got called into court.

but he'd always claim (totally BS) "hardship" and as he got paid partly in unrecorded cash he could "prove" that he could only afford one month's worth of payment. keep in mind, this is 3-6 months after she'd originally been promised the money. but the judge would have to accept it, and roughly a week later she'd get her check.

she had to go thru this process EVERY MONTH in order to get anything from him. obviously, with her schedule this wasn't always or even often possible. thus, in the end, he paid about 1/5 of what his daughter deserved.

it's the gov't layers between the judges and the children that are hurting them, and preventing real solutions. i'm not a fan of the old west, but there are times when i really think they had the correct idea of 'justice.'

sorry if i'm a bit bitter about this all, but i know i'm not the only woman with friends and stories like these.

may i mention that the man in question is white? just to avoid anyone falling into rethug sterotypes about deadbeats- it's a problem with the way our culture treats men, and allows them to get away with this.

[lazarus]

32. A quick point or two

Women default on court ordered child support at a much higher rate than men do.

And many men are, quite simply, unable to pay child support. They're not all just off living the high life, while letting their children starve.

May I mention that there's a distinct whiff of sexism on this entire thread? "It's okay because it's a man who's having his reproductive rights threatened, and men are bad." That's what I'm taking from this thread, and it's disturbing.

[DoNotRefill]

45. Laz...

He has two options: He can comply with the terms of his probation (including the no more rugrats condition) and stay out of jail, OR, he can go to jail, serve out his sentence, and get out in due course.

There's no right to probation or a suspended sentence. It's in EVERYBODY's best interest that he stays out of jail. It's in his interest, because being out of jail is better than being in jail. It's in the court's interest, because we don't have to pay to incarcerate him. It's in his children's interest, because he's now paying $600 a month in back child support.

To me, this seems like a "win-win-win" situation.

You'll notice that the guy in question isn't bitching about this. Why is that? I'd bet money it's because he doesn't want his sentence reimposed. Probation is better than incarceration.

[lazarus]

47. great

and women will soon have two options: care for the child, or give the child up for adoption.

That's what happens when you break the wall around reproductive rights.

If the guy isn't bitching about it, why is the case before the Supreme Court of that state?

And why not punish the women who get pregnant by him? Don't they bear some responsibility here? That's brought up in the article. It's not just his rights that are being trampled on here.

[DoNotRefill]

48. I detect a bit of anti-woman sentiment in this statement:

"And why not punish the women who get pregnant by him? Don't they bear some responsibility here?"

I find that surprising. He's not being punished for fathering children. He's being punished for failure to pay court-mandated child support. I've seen nothing to suggest that the women who got pregnant by him have done ANYTHING to merit punishment. They have custody (if they didn't, then there's be no need for child support, and alimony isn't mentioned), and are apparently taking good care of the children.

If his new wife wants to have children, she can. If he is the father, his probation is revoked and he must serve his sentence, which he obviously doesn't want to do. If she has a child by him, she doesn't go to jail, HE does. She's committed no crime, and still retains her reproductive rights.

Let me ask you this. Suppose the Ohio Supreme Court rules that the probation requirement is unconstitutional, and they remand it. What result? I'd think the result would be he'd be resentenced, and go to jail for failure to pay child support.

[lazarus]

52. sigh

Here's what a woman who got pregnant by him did: Aided and abetted the commission of a crime. Violation of probation is a crime, the woman helped him do it.

And I see now what's most important. The woman's retaining of reproductive rights. The man's? Who cares? He's a deadbeat anyway, right?

That's a slippery slope your bitterness is placing you on.

Also, why would he be jailed for failure to pay child support when the article clearly states that he's paying it? Revenge? Or did you just not actually read the article?

[DoNotRefill]

58. Oh, horseshit.

"Here's what a woman who got pregnant by him did: Aided and abetted the commission of a crime. Violation of probation is a crime, the woman helped him do it."

Violating a term of probation isn't necessarily a crime. Take, for example, an order to remain sober. In most cases, it's not a crime to get drunk (exceptions: If you're under age, or driving, or in public). Same deal with the right of association. If the judge orders a person to not associate "with people of low repute", associating with them isn't a crime, it's breaking an agreement which has earned the forebearance of the court.

"Also, why would he be jailed for failure to pay child support when the article clearly states that he's paying it? Revenge?"

Nope. It's not revenge, it's for the crime of failing to pay child support when he wasn't paying it. The fact that he's stopped breaking the law doesn't alter the fact that he WAS breaking the law and then stopped.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[haele]

35. It's not just the men...it's the system

Where I work, there are two men who currently have custody of their children. In both cases, the children's mother is supposed to be paying child support, but isn't.
In fact, on of the ex-wives went so far as to falsely file for child support against him in another state, for two children she had after she was separated from him by another man she never married.
Yes, I know plenty of women who have been hurt by ex's, yet I know even more women who have a reasonable relationship with their ex's and get both the custody and a little extra when the man can afford it for the sake of the kids.
But almost all the men I know who have physical custody - as well as several men who have joint custody in a hostile divorce - have been hurt or scammed by their ex's for both the custody payments they never receive and requests for money not associated with the care of the children. As one of them put it, it's almost as if the children are almost held hostage for any money or favors these women can get from the man that has nothing to do with the kids.

The hurt goes both ways, and no matter who is being selfish or greedy, it hurts the children.

But in the particular case of the thread, is the issue of custodial payment court ordered or at the request of the mothers?
I know of several cases where the fathers have personal agreements with the mothers based on issues like ability to pay regularly, defined support that might not be monetary, or just the ability to take care of the kids because paying child support might deny the kids a safe place or things like food and a place to sleep when they're spending quality time with their father - especially in a joint custody case. But in many such cases - which many poor fathers and mothers find themselves in - courts have a nasty habit of totally ignoring the wishes of the parents and forcing set payments to be paid to the state that cause hardship to all involved. The latter happened in a case I know of were the mother had just moved in with the father after changing her mind after initially applying for welfare when she had wanted to live on her own. The county DA had his wages garnished for "non-payment" when he refused to pay custody (why should he, they were living together), then waited six weeks before sending the payment to the mother. In the meantime, they were almost evicted - if not for the hat being passed at work to help them out, they would have been on the street.

There's a lot of stories out there where lack of communication and hostility is the primary villain - not just the "deadbeat dad" or "deadbeat mom".

Haele

[bloom]

60. It's probably better in smaller towns

Knowing people on the prosecution side, they can do only so much unless the judge cooperates and has a system of enforcement. Of course if there isn't a group trying to do something, the judge can't do anything, either.



(And the system is for men and women, btw, for lazarus, who is worried it's all about the men.)

[TEXASYANKEE]

24. Sad.

I just served on a jury in Dallas that sentenced a young man to 18 years for aggrevated assault. This young man was 21 years old, had quit school when he was 16, did not get his GED, had been arrested and pled guilty to stealing a car, immediately violated his parole, lived with his mother and, oh yes, had fathered *5* children with 4 different women. None of whom he lived with nor supported financially.

What is the solution, I wonder? I wish there was a surefire way to teach these young women that there really *is* a better way in life than making babies with these worthless creeps. Sad.

[TexasBushwhacker]

57. Well, sex education in the schools would be a start

"What is the solution, I wonder? I wish there was a surefire way to teach these young women that there really *is* a better way in life than making babies with these worthless creeps. Sad."

I agree, but that's the world they grew up in and that's all they know. Some states are taking measures in regards to sex education and birth control education, but Texas isn't one of them. One state actually REQUIRES sex education in the schools if the birthrate for underage mothers goes up to a certain point.

Good info here:

http://www.siecus.org/index.html

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v2.0
==================
 
The time now is 8:28:23PM EDT, Wednesday, May 12, 2004.
 
There are exactly...
4 days,
3 hours,
31 minutes, and
37 seconds left in our fund drive.
 
This website could not survive without your generosity. Member donations 
pay for more than 84% of the Democratic Underground budget. Don't let
GrovelBot become the next victim of the Bush economy. Bzzzt.
 
Please take a moment to donate to DU right now. Thank you for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[BadGimp]

39. whack off his pee pee

jk

:evilgrin: