How can this be legal?

I wonder how it can be legal also, but, this drug addicted woman needs to have some drastic consequences given to her. Seven kids, seven different fathers, three of the children tested positive for cocaine at birth, that's horrible!

My empathy is for the kids, not the mom. I think she should be locked up, for a long time, five years sounds good.

Locking her up would, hopefully, fulfill the judges order.

For her to get locked up, she will have to get knocked up, again!

Hey, that's where I grew up! I personally think that the woman should just be taken out back behind the courthouse and beaten to death, but I'm not sure that's legal either.

Was it legal I do not know? However, was it a correct judgment IMO absolutely. In fact sterilization would be even more correct for that sick creature.

Hey, me and au1929 have the same exact number of posts! Well, not anymore, but still...weird.

Kicky
Get a life :wink: Now we are even

Those poor kids, that story is sad. If I had the means I would adopt all of them.

Maybe I should adopt Kicky instead.

Will you let me breastfeed?

Unfortunately in this case, forced sterilization is frowned upon as well but geez, can't something be done to prevent this junkie from having anymore unwanted children?

Personally, I think sterilization, forced, voluntary, however she wants it to go, is called for here and in other cases like this as well. Something must be done. This woman, and those like her, are a menace to society.

What would YOU suggest?

You would be the most well fed kid in the state. You could develop an addiction to feeding time, then you would have to be weened off, and could possibly suffer withdrawals. No telling what could become of you.

In short, you could end up homeless or in jail, just like the woman in this story.

I care to much to see that happen to you, so the answer is no.

A drug treatment program, and after she graduates, have her sporadically tested, if drugs show up in her system, throw her in jail, longterm.

This way she will be given a chance to get clean and start anew, and if she blows it, she will be the one who has made the decision to send herself to jail.

If she goes to jail allow the kids to be adopted by someone who is willing to give them a decent life.

That is a tough one... On one hand, we have an addict out of control; on the other hand we have a judge potentially setting a precedence for many families to be persecuted through... Would drug abuse be redefined later to include those who drink while p/g? Smoke? Use caffeine?

And what's the point of a judicial order than cannot be enforced? Was he grandstanding or making some other political point? I wish I knew more about what is going on here, and hope someone with better research skills than I and a better handle on legal precedence will come along and post upon this topic...

In the meantime, I would hope that there is still an organization giving out money to women such as these to voluntarily get tubal ligations... I think there used to be one that gave such women $200.00 in cash to entice them to get their tubes tied... Perhaps THAT is the answer...

The judge is a woman. A good thing too.

200.00 for your right to procreate? That sounds pretty cheap and scamming to me, preying on their drug habit and the immediate need for cash. I'd rather be treated as fairly as possible, given my options and if I screw it up, then it's on my head. That's me tho, I know, but shouldn't adults be treated like adults? I think so. Especially in our judicial system.

It is something to think about, tho, isn't it? princess mentioned above the possibility of drug abuse being redefined later and yeah, that's always a possibility in this country but this woman did not care for her children, according to the article. They were severely neglected and two were born addicts. She'd already lost custody and that's when the judge ordered her to stop having babies until she could care for the seven she already had.

Difficult question
Over the course of several years, this woman gave birth to seven children -- none of whom she can support or nurture. She is a drug addict. Six of the children are wards of the state and must be cared for at public expense. The seventh child resides with a relative.

The State has intervened on behalf of the children and removed them from the woman's custody through neglect proceedings. It doesn't appear that the State has terminated her parental rights. The State has probably set up a reunification plan -- wherein the mother can regain custody of her children if she follows a drug treatment program, cleans up her act, and demonstrates that she can provide the children. If the mother fails to clean up her act in a reasonable amount of time, the state can terminate her parental rights and place the children up for adoption. Children should not be forced to live in limbo if it's unlikely that the mother will become a fit parent within a reasonable amount of time.

Child neglect proceedings are civil proceedings. However, the children were obviously removed from the home because the mother was endangering the health and welfare of the children. The mother could also be facing criminal charges in criminal proceedings for child endangerment and/or nonsupport.

From the article, it is NOT clear what type of proceeding (civil or criminal) was being adjudicated when the judge ordered the woman to stop having more children until she could take care of the seven children she already had. The article merely states the judge wrote the following:

"Because every child born deserves a mother and a father, or at the very least a mother or a father, this court is once again taking this unusual step of ordering this biological mother to conceive no more children until she reclaims her children from foster care or other caretakers," [Judge] O'Connor wrote.

If the ruling took place during the course of a civil child neglect proceeding, then it is clear that the judge exceeded his statutory authority (jurisdiction) and infringed upon the woman's constitutionally-protected fundamental liberty interest in procreation.

However, if the ruling took place during the course of a criminal proceeding brought by the state for child endangerment or nonsupport of the seven existing children, and if she was found guilty of a criminal charge and sentenced to jail, the judge could suspend or defer imposition of sentence and place reasonable conditions on the suspended or deferred portion of the sentence. It could be argued that reasonable conditions could include the woman's participation (and cooperation) in a drug treatment program, residence in a treatment program facility or half-way house, making progress in her treatment, becoming employed and supporting her existing children, and not having any more children that she may possibly endanger or fail to support. The conditions would be effective only during the period of time that the jail sentence is suspended or deferred. If any of the conditions were violated during that period of time, the judge could then revoke the suspended or deferred sentence and require the woman to serve the entire jail sentence that was originally imposed.

It has LONG been established that the government (state or federal) may NOT penalize status, e.g. status as an indigent person or status as a drug addict. However, the government MAY penalize conduct, e.g. criminal endangerment of children or possession of illegal drugs or criminal nonsupport of a child, etc. Courts may take a person's status into consideration as a mitigating factor that may influence a sentencing decision in a criminal matter -- but criminal conduct is criminal conduct pure and simple. This woman is engaging in criminal conduct when she endangers her children through her drug addiction. When a person engages in criminal conduct and is convicted, a person forfeits fundamental liberty interests.

So . . . I would say the court's ruling in this particular case that the woman not have any more children may or may not be constitutional depending on the type of proceeding in which it took place. The duration of the ruling, "until she reclaims her children from foster care or other caretakers," is not constitutional. If this was a criminal matter, the duration of the condition that the woman not have any more children should only be effective for the period of time that a sentence is suspended or deferred.

Right to Procreate
Here's a "right to procreate" case that you might find interesting:

Gerber v. Hickman

William Gerber, an inmate in the California State prison system, filed an amended complaint in federal court in which he alleged: “Petitioner asserts that Mule Creek State Prison is violating his Constitutional Rights by not allowing him to provide his wife with a sperm specimen that she may use to be artificially inseminated.” Gerber sought an order of the court directing the institution to permit him to provide “a sample of sperm to artificially inseminate his wife.”

The district court dismissed Gerber’s suit for failure to state a claim, ruling that a prisoner does not have a constitutional right to procreate while incarcerated. Gerber v. Hickman, 103 F.Supp.2d 1214, 1216-18 (E.D. Cal. 2000). Because we agree with the district court that the right to procreate is fundamentally inconsistent with incarceration, we affirm.