Court order denying Ohio man the right to reproduce

[TigerD]

The headline drew you in. What your thoughts on this?

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ohio-man-ordered-not-have-more-kids-until-he-pays-child-support-loses-appeal

DC

 

[Pinkie39]

The headline drew you in. What your thoughts on this?

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ohio-man-ordered-not-have-more-kids-until-he-pays-child-support-loses-appeal

DC

I read that the other day. Yes, the guy is an irresponsible moron. But in my opinion, equal blame should be placed on the women who were dumb enough or careless enough to procreate with him.

 

[justalayman]

they did not say he could not have anymore children. They said as a condition of his probation he could not have anymore children while on probation. That is a huge difference. A judge can impose a wide range of restrictions on a probationer. In this situation, given the restriction is directly related to the reason he is on probation, I see nothing improper about the restriction.


It would be no different than telling a guy on probation for DUI that he cannot drink while on probation IMO.

 

[TigerD]

they did not say he could not have anymore children. They said as a condition of his probation he could not have anymore children while on probation. That is a huge difference. A judge can impose a wide range of restrictions on a probationer. In this situation, given the restriction is directly related to the reason he is on probation, I see nothing improper about the restriction.


It would be no different than telling a guy on probation for DUI that he cannot drink while on probation IMO.

Except that "be fruitful and multiply" is a religious command.
Or that reproduction is a national right jurisdiction over which the court may not have.
Or the court had better means of achieving this goal that were not morally ambiguous. Throw him in jail.

Could or should the courts order a person with a history of not paying their rent to remain homeless until the landlords are paid?

DC

 

[quincy]

Isn't his probation five years? I haven't looked at the link yet, but will.

While the restriction itself makes a certain amount of sense, I do not see how the order can be enforced. If the judge wants him to stop having children, jail would be more effective (although it won't help to remedy the child support arrears).

 

[justalayman]

Isn't his probation five years? I haven't looked at the link yet, but will.

While the restriction itself makes a certain amount of sense, I do not see how the order can be enforced. If the judge wants him to stop having children, jail would be a more effective (although it won't help to remedy the child support arrears).

yes, 5 years probation but his restriction will be removed if he pays the $96,000 he owes.

 

[justalayman]

debtcollector`;3264420]Except that "be fruitful and multiply" is a religious command.

he has already multiplied. There is no commandment that you do it such that you personally are responsible for populating your own country.

Or that reproduction is a national right jurisdiction over which the court may not have.

well and good. There is a cost of reproducing and in this case, his is having his probation revoked. He could choose to go to jail. Probation is not a right.

Or the court had better means of achieving this goal that were not morally ambiguous. Throw him in jail.

the guy has the option.

Could or should the courts order a person with a history of not paying their rent to remain homeless until the landlords are paid?

there is a difference between a basic need and a recreational activity.

heck, using your arguments, every prisoner would have to be given the right to reproduce, even while incarcerated. Probation is simply jail light. All the rules with half the confinement.

 

[TigerD]

JAL -- just to clarify, I'm not expressing an opinion on the order. I haven't read the facts or the actual order. I'm curious about what you folks think in regards to it.

Doesn't the order infringe on the rights of a potential baby-momma to have him father her child?
Wouldn't it be illegal or at least immoral for a potential baby-momma to pay the $96k for him to be able to father her child?
Does the order create more problems than it solves?

And his crime wasn't fathering children. His crime was failing to pay child support. So the order proscribes an unrelated behavior in a way that could violate the man's rights. Would a better written order prohibit him from missing another child support payment for any current or future children during the term?

DC

 

[quincy]

yes, 5 years probation but his restriction will be removed if he pays the $96,000 he owes.

So, does the court intend to monitor his, uh, movements? A specially-designed ankle bracelet, perhaps?

 

[TigerD]

So, does the court intend to monitor his, uh, movements? A specially-designed ankle bracelet, perhaps?

Made by Trojan specially for Ohio courts...

 

[Pinkie39]

So, does the court intend to monitor his, uh, movements? A specialcour-designed ankle bracelet, perhaps?

I don't see where it says he can't have sex. He just can't get anyone pregnant. And the court didn't order him to be sterilized, just not to have any more kids while he's on probation. He stll has the "right" to reproduce, just not right now.

 

[justalayman]

So, does the court intend to monitor his, uh, movements? A specially-designed ankle bracelet, perhaps?

but I don't think it would be an ankle monitor.

but from the article, he is not prohibited from doing the nasty. Just doing it with the result of his partner having a child.


which makes me wonder; what if he impregnates a woman but for whatever reason it does not result in live birth. Would that violate his probation?

then, unless they do a dna test on a baby and it proves to be his, I do not see where they could enforce the restriction as anything less would be an unproven allegation.

 

[Proserpina]

Given that the choice to reproduce is solely that of the other party, this one leaves a dirty taste in my mouth.

So to speak.

 

[Pinkie39]

but I don't think it would be an ankle monitor.

but from the article, he is not prohibited from doing the nasty. Just doing it with the result of his partner having a child.


which makes me wonder; what if he impregnates a woman but for whatever reason it does not result in live birth. Would that violate his probation?

then, unless they do a dna test on a baby and it proves to be his, I do not see where they could enforce the restriction as anything less would be an unproven allegation.

Good points. Enforcing this is a whole different matter altogether.

 

[justalayman]

Wouldn't it be illegal or at least immoral for a potential baby-momma to pay the $96k for him to be able to father her child?

are you thinking of some sort of reverse prostitution situation?

Does the order create more problems than it solves?

how? if he piddles when he diddles, he will likely be charged with the cost of the DNA test that would be the cause for his probation being revoked.


and as far as how to discover if he violated the restriction; I suspect any woman he impregnates will willingly report the matter if he does not comply with any demands she may make. Kind of a self policing matter if you think about it.

And his crime wasn't fathering children. His crime was failing to pay child support. So the order proscribes an unrelated behavior in a way that could violate the man's rights. Would a better written order prohibit him from missing another child support payment for any current or future children during the term?

Ok, it is a a common rule of probationers to not leave the state they reside. So, given their crime was not committed in another state (hence they are on probation in the state they were incarcerated due to committing their crime in that state), the same argument could be made that restricting them from leaving the state is unrelated to the crime. Same thing for drinking or drugs. Standard rules of probation are no drinking and no drugs, even if the crime involved has no relation to drinking or drugs. Wouldn't that violate the rights of the probationer?

again, probation is not a right and the person does not have to accept the terms of the probation. They do so in lieu of being incarcerated. As such, it becomes a contractual issue and not an unlawful restriction of their rights.