Judge orders drug addict to stop having children

[asch]

ROCHESTER, New York (AP) -- A Family Court judge who last year stirred debate about parental responsibilities ordered a second drug-addicted woman to have no more children until she proves she can look after the seven she already has.

CNN Article

I know there have been several threads discussing parenting in general. I saw this article today and thought it was interesting. I'm torn as to whether this type of thing should be allowed. In theory, I would agree that an individual could be ordered not to bear anymore children but my problem is on the practice of it and the fine line of defining the "laws".

Should a judge be able to order and individual to stop bearing children?

Under what conditions should it be allowed?

[leejo]

While the state probably can't force someone to stop having children, the state can take those children away from a person, so it's effectively the same thing.

Sad situation all the way around.

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by asch

Should a judge be able to order and individual to stop bearing children?

Under what conditions should it be allowed?

It goes against everything I believe, but after seeing what some of these "parents" do, I can't help but feel that this is for the good of the "parent", the children, and society...

As to when it should be allowed, that's the problem. This judges order is controversial, but what if it gets to the point that it's NOT controversial? What comes next?

Judge: "Boy, you've bounced three checks this month. It's obvious that you can't manage your finances to take care of your wife and 3 kids. I'm ordering you to get another job and that you and your wife never have kids again."

[ImAWuss]

Originally Posted by leejo

While the state probably can't force someone to stop having children, the state can take those children away from a person, so it's effectively the same thing.

Sad situation all the way around.

I agree that it is a sad situation.

However, I DONT agree that forcing someone to stop having children is the same as taking them away. In either one of those scenarios, I can almost assure you that you and I will end up having to pay for that kid. I say "Tie em up".

The judge’s order is in the best interests of the woman, the state, and any future child’s welfare.

[TheFeniX]

If law could be defined as black and white, we wouldn't need judges to make these kinds of calls. It's because we have gray areas that sometimes judges have to make hard choices.

Having a third-party victim (children) involved further complicates things. He could just throw her in jail, but then her kids become property of the state. Not many good choices for this. Once again, the lesser of two evils prevails.

[RandomGuy]

The law shouldn't intrude into people's bodies.

Is not the appropriate action to take the children and any future child into protective custody or even aadoption as necessary?

[Pokerface]

I'm fairly certain that given the option of caring for dozens of kids -- with more to come -- or mandating a thigh clamp, government would choose the latter.

[DudeMan]

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

The law shouldn't intrude into people's bodies.

Is not the appropriate action to take the children and any future child into protective custody or even aadoption as necessary?

i see your point and would have to disagree based on personal experience, a woman in the UK had kids, and they were all sexually abused, (someone my mum and dad fostered) then when they took them she just had more kids, they took them so she had more kids....

its sad but some people dont have the required human compassion for chilldrens welfare. how many more kids does this woman have before the authorities clock on ot the fact allowing these kids to be abused was making her money for drugs. ???

sorry i agree with the courts rulling if it is as bad as this woman... but i have not read it.

[Wolfie]

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

The law shouldn't intrude into people's bodies.

Is not the appropriate action to take the children and any future child into protective custody or even aadoption as necessary?

Woman has kids, neglects them, government steps in and puts them into protective custody

Woman has more kids and repeats

Woman has more kids and repeats

Where does it end?

[DudeMan]

Originally Posted by Wolfie

Woman has kids, neglects them, government steps in and puts them into protective custody

Woman has more kids and repeats

Woman has more kids and repeats

Where does it end?

unfortunatly pre order like this, it is so many times the case that parents who abuse chilldren have mental disorders and they are simply incapable of learning that lesson.

[RandomGuy]

I think if things are that bad then she should be in jail. No child bearing problems then!