Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)


(44,397 posts)
Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:53 PM Dec 2012

Judge orders father of 9 to stop having children until he can provide for them [View all]

Judge orders father of 9 to stop having children

RACINE, Wis. (AP) — A Wisconsin father of nine who's behind on child support payments has been ordered by a judge not to have any more children until he can show he can provide for them.

Corey Curtis, who fathered the children with six women, owes nearly $100,000 in back child support and interest, according to Racine County prosecutors.

In sentencing the 44-year-old father Monday in Racine County Circuit Court for failing to pay support, Judge Tim Boyle lamented that he didn't have the authority to order sterilization for Curtis.

"Common sense dictates you shouldn't have kids you can't afford," the judge said.

Assistant District Attorney Rebecca Sommers told the judge he did have some authority regarding Curtis' reproduction rights. Sommers cited a 2001 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling upholding a judge's power to order a defendant, as a condition of probation, to not procreate again unless he can show he can financially support the child.

"I will make that a condition of the probation," Boyle said immediately, sentencing Curtis to three years' probation.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Judge-orders-father-of-9-to-stop-having-children-4089938.php#ixzz2E7etHSlN

53 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
good for the judge
42 (79%)
inappropriate sentence
9 (17%)
2 (4%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
135 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Common sense indeed. unreadierLizard Dec 2012 #1
BIG slippery slope. Le Taz Hot Dec 2012 #2
^ This. This again. Still this. nt Poll_Blind Dec 2012 #4
Really? atreides1 Dec 2012 #7
I'd file it under Le Taz Hot Dec 2012 #17
+1 HonEur12 Dec 2012 #41
When the burden of feeding and housing those children falls to the state, LiberalAndProud Dec 2012 #73
Reproductive rights involve caring for children BainsBane Dec 2012 #77
Yes, a woman can blueamy66 Dec 2012 #91
Those are consequences BainsBane Dec 2012 #93
Then why sleep with a man who already has 9 children? blueamy66 Dec 2012 #94
"Women aren't stupid." intheflow Dec 2012 #97
Why not use protection? blueamy66 Dec 2012 #106
Np, a woman doesn;t take ANY blame for someone not paying support obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #109
Last time I checked, support was based on both the mother and the father's salaries blueamy66 Dec 2012 #123
Yeah, the Woman Does RobinA Dec 2012 #127
Who says she can't support her kids??? obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #131
The issue is the children BainsBane Dec 2012 #98
True that, I guess. blueamy66 Dec 2012 #108
You stated this so-called "debate" obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #110
obviously the women are responsible BainsBane Dec 2012 #124
This obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #132
Some of them may not have known of his other children Marrah_G Dec 2012 #113
"So, who files for this "taxpayer" assistance?" Exactly. n/t lumberjack_jeff Dec 2012 #118
Its called the 9th amendment Ya Basta Dec 2012 #22
Only if it is, in fact, a right. Is it a right to create life and then violate its right to life, patrice Dec 2012 #44
only corporations have the right to create life. and destroy it. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #54
Define right tama Dec 2012 #83
Using the 9th Amendment is a BIG slippery slope dballance Dec 2012 #80
no, the constitution only guarantees reproductive freedom to corporations, as well as the HiPointDem Dec 2012 #53
+++1 patrice Dec 2012 #71
Agreed. n/t gollygee Dec 2012 #20
Yep n/t LadyHawkAZ Dec 2012 #30
one that badly needs to be slid down, IMO.... mike_c Dec 2012 #35
I've read a few of your posts lately, and we've got quite a lot in common. Gregorian Dec 2012 #40
There's a lot of confusion out there about the differences between liberty and freedom. nt patrice Dec 2012 #46
not to mention the Judge's inability to enforce the order. dixiegrrrrl Dec 2012 #67
No just throw his sorry arse in jail if he does. TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #75
Is he on probation for life? Luminous Animal Dec 2012 #76
Why not? He's probably sentenced his kids to life behind the 8-ball. TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #107
I'd agree as long as it was the same for everyone. Live and Learn Dec 2012 #86
So you're anti-choice. nt Union Scribe Dec 2012 #89
only to the extent that, say, Garrett Hardin was "anti-choice...." mike_c Dec 2012 #128
Yes. There are a lot of seemingly good 1 offs to violate Constitutional Freedoms. 99.99999% are bad stevenleser Dec 2012 #38
How? RomneyLies Dec 2012 #50
Unfortunately, rejecting the conditions of his probation defacto7 Dec 2012 #82
Agreed. nt Live and Learn Dec 2012 #85
Life is a slippery slope and ashling Dec 2012 #117
I agree. Third Doctor Dec 2012 #3
9 children by 6 women. Seems like the women should get the same sentence...no? Liberal_in_LA Dec 2012 #6
are they each having nine children? moreover are they not providing for their kids? La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2012 #33
I don't know blueamy66 Dec 2012 #95
Who cares -- the guy is 100K in support arrears obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #114
Why? obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #112
Is this a "poor people shouldn't be allowed to have kids" post? noamnety Dec 2012 #12
isn't that what the judge is saying with the sentence? Liberal_in_LA Dec 2012 #15
Yep, but I expect that from some judges, noamnety Dec 2012 #34
You don't know DU very well then, I guess. closeupready Dec 2012 #47
yes, and getting lots of support from the good liberals here. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #56
That could be the result and why it is a very poor decision. nt Live and Learn Dec 2012 #87
So, if he fathers another child, thats a violation of his probation and he goes to jail? Beaverhausen Dec 2012 #5
Apparently he is not making them out of jail either... peacebird Dec 2012 #9
So why not jail him now? closeupready Dec 2012 #13
he's behind 50K and 40K is interest (that's student loan type interest accrual) Liberal_in_LA Dec 2012 #14
doesn't MrDiaz Dec 2012 #11
Not making them now. At least that way he's not making babies anymore. nt geek tragedy Dec 2012 #27
Doesn't it take two people to make a baby? blueamy66 Dec 2012 #96
Where did it state the mothers are neglectful and not caring obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #115
I'm not slagging moms blueamy66 Dec 2012 #121
Stupid. closeupready Dec 2012 #8
I would say the same thing for a mother of 9 Quantess Dec 2012 #10
Absolutely, 100% correct! Rider3 Dec 2012 #28
Octomom should be in the klink? Cayenne Dec 2012 #84
So, exactly where would you put the limit on kids for the poor? Live and Learn Dec 2012 #88
Nobody would listen to me anyway, when policy is made. Quantess Dec 2012 #101
Yeah.....I totally agree blueamy66 Dec 2012 #122
I'm glad people on DU don't make laws. closeupready Dec 2012 #16
legislating reproductive rights, and based on finances? NightWatcher Dec 2012 #18
it seems that the the fact that there are 6 mothers makes the guy look like a bum. if it Liberal_in_LA Dec 2012 #23
If he were not married to her he would. alphafemale Dec 2012 #42
Well apparently he's good at something. ToxMarz Dec 2012 #102
An outlet for his "talent" alphafemale Dec 2012 #130
Exactly - it treats poor people differently treestar Dec 2012 #65
In most cases of fines and fees and so forth, I'd agree with your rationale. joeunderdog Dec 2012 #134
You're right re: fines treestar Dec 2012 #135
I would say... Though almost appropriate in this case, too dangerous a road to go down... Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #19
agreed La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2012 #36
What is the criteria? zipplewrath Dec 2012 #21
How about complying with court orders and legal obligations? geek tragedy Dec 2012 #29
Right, where they are neglected by state child welfare agencies. closeupready Dec 2012 #32
You think he gives a shit about having his kids taken away? Jackpine Radical Dec 2012 #37
Ah, the answer to poverty! me b zola Dec 2012 #78
reproductive rights should be equal across the board. period. backtoblue Dec 2012 #24
off topic: your sig line is cute. lol Liberal_in_LA Dec 2012 #26
thanks! lol backtoblue Dec 2012 #39
Good! Rider3 Dec 2012 #25
sometimes what seems like a commonsensical decision, would be extremely La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2012 #31
i agree backtoblue Dec 2012 #45
Love! that sig! such a darling little stick-person! patrice Dec 2012 #70
Are we sure that it is about finances? or the level of personal responsibility for those lives? patrice Dec 2012 #72
Obviously you can't outlaw consensual fucking, so what if Ya Basta Dec 2012 #43
Unless the judge plans to have him castrated, I don't see how he can enforce this SoCalDem Dec 2012 #48
The judge said (in the article) that he didn't have the authority to have him sterilized. Angleae Dec 2012 #99
I hope he appeals, and that part of the ruling overturned. closeupready Dec 2012 #49
Most communities wouldn't allow you to have 9 CATS if you couldn't take care of them. alphafemale Dec 2012 #51
Cats can be euthanized, too. WinkyDink Dec 2012 #59
Good for the judge. Subsidizing those that overpopulate is ridiculous. nt Comrade_McKenzie Dec 2012 #52
yes, only the reproduction of those who can afford to consume 100 times their weight HiPointDem Dec 2012 #55
At best, this man is a bit player in his children's lives-- TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #57
Stay the fuck out of my bedroom! Ya Basta Dec 2012 #58
As almost a pure aside: Technically, this deadbeat dad is genetically WAY ahead of the game. Poll_Blind Dec 2012 #60
I agree with the Judge but how do you enforce it? arthritisR_US Dec 2012 #61
Ball peen hammer, hatchet, anvil, scalpel............ kooljerk666 Dec 2012 #104
Penis belt?;). n/t arthritisR_US Dec 2012 #129
I understand this but it scares me. This can be turned around against the mothers of these children jwirr Dec 2012 #62
Can't he just say he aborted them (financially)? The Straight Story Dec 2012 #63
Uh, no treestar Dec 2012 #64
It is a patently illegal order... ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #66
The alternative was prison time. Angleae Dec 2012 #100
Other. Care Acutely Dec 2012 #68
How can that be done? Spirochete Dec 2012 #69
I too don't see how this can be enforced. KitSileya Dec 2012 #74
I don't know if the ruling is legal or not BainsBane Dec 2012 #79
Is the court going to provide free birth control for the man and any potential AllyCat Dec 2012 #81
Common sense dictates that you don't have another child with a dude that already has 9 blueamy66 Dec 2012 #90
It would be wonderful if more people applied some common sense to their family planning decisions slackmaster Dec 2012 #111
He should have given him 5 years probation and reduce it to 3 if he'd get a vasectomy TexasBushwhacker Dec 2012 #92
I think that's a wonderful solution. hamsterjill Dec 2012 #119
Take away tax deuction for more than 2 children ok maybe 3 thats it........ kooljerk666 Dec 2012 #103
I agree with the judge on this one. Ferretherder Dec 2012 #105
The problem I have with this is that Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #116
Bad sentence because it is near impossible to enforce AlexSatan Dec 2012 #120
Law student here, support the judge, totally- and I think within his power. nt cecilfirefox Dec 2012 #125
Support your kids, you fucking loser! Throd Dec 2012 #126
As Judge Judy says, "Snip it or zip it" obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #133
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Judge orders father of 9 ...