Judge to deadbeat dad: If you have another kid, you’re going to jail

posted at 4:41 pm on May 15, 2014 by Allahpundit

The ruling applies only if the deadbeat fails to pay what he owes. If he does, he can have all the kids he wants. But since he owes upwards of a hundred grand, I think “no more babies” is the realistic takeaway here.

The order actually came down more than a year ago. It’s in the news this week because the appeals court finally issued their decision on it. Upheld — on a technicality.

The decision, released Monday by the 9th District Court of Appeals, did not provide a legal explanation on whether Walther’s order was appropriate. Instead, two of the three judges on the panel wrote that without a copy of a pre-sentence report on Taylor completed by the county Adult Probation Department, they didn’t have enough information to examine the virtues of Walther’s order.

“Indeed, we have little to go on other than what the trial court said in its journal entries, which is itself limited,” Judge Carla Moore wrote in the majority decision. “We therefore have no choice in this case but to presume the regularity of the community control sanctions and to affirm.”…

Given his past failures to financially support his children, [the third judge] wrote that Walther’s order made sense.

“Where, as here, the defendant has demonstrated a long-term refusal to support multiple children by multiple women notwithstanding his ability to work and contribute something for their care, an anti-procreation condition is reasonably related to future criminality,” Carr wrote. “Taylor has here demonstrated that he is not inclined to support any of his children. There is no reason to believe that he would be inclined to support any future children.”

The Ohio Supreme Court overturned a similar order 10 years ago because it gave the deadbeat dad no means by which to have the order lifted. It was an unconditional ban. This new one is conditional, i.e. make the payments you owe and you can knock up whoever you like. In fact, it may be even more conditional than that. According to the judge, “The defendant is ordered to make all reasonable efforts to avoid impregnating a woman during the period control or until such time the defendant can prove to this court that he’s able to provide support for the children that he already has.” If he and his partner could somehow prove that they were using contraception, would that qualify as a “reasonable effort” even if she ended up pregnant?

But never mind that. What you want to know is whether this is constitutional. Answer: Maybe. The state can’t forcibly sterilize people to prevent them from procreating (anymore) but at least one state supreme court has upheld orders like Walther’s, penalizing people for having more kids if they haven’t provided for the ones they have already. That would be Wisconsin’s, in 2001:

The case split the court, 4 to 3, along gender lines. All four male justices joined in the ruling, issued on Tuesday, finding the condition a reasonable mechanism to deal with a father who has consistently and intentionally failed to pay the child support he owes. The three female justices opposed it as an unconstitutional intrusion on a basic right to procreate…

The opinion defended the restriction on Mr. Oakley as “narrowly tailored to serve the state’s compelling interest of having parents support their children.” It noted that the condition would expire in five years, when probation ends, and said the alternative of sending Mr. Oakley to prison would further victimize his children, ages 4 to 16.

But the female justices said the order violated Mr. Oakley’s fundamental right to procreate and, as Justice Diane S. Sykes put it, basically amounted to “a compulsory, state- sponsored, court-enforced financial test for future parenthood.”

More than a decade later, court orders warning deadbeats not to have any more kids or face jail time were still being issued in Wisconsin. My hunch is that SCOTUS would overturn that if and when a case along these lines makes it up there; the Court’s four liberals would naturally vote with the deadbeat dad in the interest of keeping reproduction rights (which, of course, include abortion) inviolate, and Kennedy would probably join them. He trends libertarian on social issues and famously refused to overturn Roe v. Wade in the Casey decision back in 1992. Even if there are five conservative votes on the Court to uphold this, though, they might be reluctant to see orders like this proliferate, which would be a natural consequence of the high court taking a case on it and affirming it. Having lower-court judges handing down orders on who can and can’t have kids, even in the narrow realm of deadbeat dads, might make appellate judges squeamish for slippery-slope reasons even if they conclude there’s nothing unconstitutional about it per se.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Lesson: move the hell out of Ohio.

There’s going to be a financial test to have kids? Insanity.

DarthBrooks on May 15, 2014 at 4:47 PM

I don’t see this as being upheld very much further. The state has a solution if they don’t want him to procreate, lock him up.

Rocks on May 15, 2014 at 4:47 PM

Would they ever do the same thing to a woman?

Mark1971 on May 15, 2014 at 4:50 PM

I’m conflicted, but leaning towards approval on this. On the one hand, yeah I don’t like things that lead in the direction of a one-child sort of rule, but on the other, his crime here really is against the kids. Either he gets locked up so that he can’t harm them or any future ones (at which point the current kids are still bereft of even a chance at his supporting them), or we give him a chance to help his present kids and earn the ability back to have more (or at least keep him from harming any future ones further).

RblDiver on May 15, 2014 at 4:53 PM

Well this is easy. Put deadbeat dads like this on a chain gang and work them until their kids are grown. They can pick up trash, paint over graffiti and pretty much do anything else that simple labor can be used to pay for their kids welfare. House them in low cost detention facilities when they are not working off their debts.

HotAirian on May 15, 2014 at 4:54 PM

If governments can order men not to procreate, can they order women, too? What’s the difference between a man that can’t financially support children without government assistance and a woman from supporting children without government assistance? I haven’t thought this through completely, but I’m not seeing it.

blink on May 15, 2014 at 4:48 PM

That is a good point.

That said, a guy that won’t support his kids even though he can garners zero sympathy from me.

sumpnz on May 15, 2014 at 4:57 PM

Another example of the misogynistic war against women. C’mon, Michelle. #EqualityForOurGirls, right?

rogerb on May 15, 2014 at 4:59 PM

Good ol’ child support laws. Remember, the Feds passed a law in 1986 saying that you can never have child support debt forgiven. Even in cases where the gov screwed up and assigned said debt to the wrong person. State family courts have a habit these days of assigning support payments based on potential income not actual income.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Amendment

This guy may in fact be a “deadbeat” but then so are all the single mommies having kids and living off of EBT/welfare.

oryguncon on May 15, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Would they ever do the same thing to a woman?

Mark1971 on May 15, 2014 at 4:50 PM

You mean like Kimberly Lightsey.

RickB on May 15, 2014 at 5:03 PM

From the wiki link:

Bobby Sherrill, a Lockheed employee in Kuwait from North Carolina, was captured by Iraqis and spent nearly five months as an Iraqi hostage. Sherrill was arrested the night after his release for not paying $1,425 in child support while he was a hostage

Welcome home! You’re under arrest! Deadbeat!

oryguncon on May 15, 2014 at 5:03 PM

If governments can order men not to procreate, can they order women, too? What’s the difference between a man that can’t financially support children without government assistance and a woman from supporting children without government assistance? I haven’t thought this through completely, but I’m not seeing it.

blink on May 15, 2014 at 4:48 PM

What’s the difference if Government decides citizens aren’t qualified to procreate under an expanded government criteria?

People used to be sterilized under government sanction during the eugenics craze in the early part of the 20th century and in some states this continued into the 1970′s.

The government justification was eugenics ideas about generational IQ…but it was also a way to control population growth in poverty stricken regions like the appalachian mountain region.

Abortion is a eugenics policy aimed primarily at controlling population growth amongst undesirable groups…as Margaret Sanger described them…namely racial minorities and poor immigrants.

Why isn’t this a form of economic eugenics…only those who are economically qualified can procreate?

This isn’t the answer….imho…

workingclass artist on May 15, 2014 at 5:04 PM

Meet Corey Curtis

RickB on May 15, 2014 at 5:05 PM

Either he gets locked up so that he can’t harm them or any future ones (at which point the current kids are still bereft of even a chance at his supporting them), or we give him a chance to help his present kids and earn the ability back to have more (or at least keep him from harming any future ones further).

RblDiver on May 15, 2014 at 4:53 PM

Are you ok using the same options on women?

blink on May 15, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Good question…

Octomom who relies on Welfare

workingclass artist on May 15, 2014 at 5:08 PM

He isn’t the first in Ohio to be ordered not to procreate.

RickB on May 15, 2014 at 5:09 PM

Even Communist Russia doesn’t ban a person from screwing.

What a country.

faraway on May 15, 2014 at 5:10 PM

So the government can order someone to not have children, and abortion is a Constitutionally protected right.

Sometimes I wonder if this nation even deserves to survive at this point.

Shump on May 15, 2014 at 5:11 PM

It also happens to couples.

RickB on May 15, 2014 at 5:11 PM

Pursuing happiness cannot occur at the expense of “others” happiness.

Bmore on May 15, 2014 at 5:12 PM

So if his next girlfriend gets pregnant then.. I assume the Judge is supporting abortion then?
So-cons can you help me out here?

weedisgood on May 15, 2014 at 5:20 PM

I don’t like this at all. Is this guy raping these women? If so, off to jail he goes. If not, then ladies, have some self repect and display a bit of self-preserving behavior and don’t sleep with the guy. Is he hiding his entire life story from you?

cptacek on May 15, 2014 at 5:21 PM

blink on May 15, 2014 at 4:48 PM

And:

Mark1971 on May 15, 2014 at 4:50 PM

We live in a place where women are given the special privilege to determine whether or not the thing growing inside them is either a baby or merely a parasite. Based solely on their whims.

anuts on May 15, 2014 at 5:22 PM

So if his next girlfriend gets pregnant then.. I assume the Judge is supporting abortion then?
So-cons can you help me out here?
weedisgood on May 15, 2014 at 5:20 PM

Pretty sure no one has yet been forced to pay child support for an aborted baby.

anuts on May 15, 2014 at 5:27 PM

So if his next girlfriend gets pregnant then.. I assume the Judge is supporting abortion then?
So-cons can you help me out here?

weedisgood on May 15, 2014 at 5:20 PM

Put your bong down.

RickB on May 15, 2014 at 5:28 PM

What’s next?

Judge to Tea Party dad: If you have another kid, you’re going to jail

faraway on May 15, 2014 at 5:29 PM

Why isn’t this a form of economic eugenics…only those who are economically qualified can procreate?

No it’s about paying off the debt. But the mother or mothers should also have to help pay.

crankyoldlady on May 15, 2014 at 5:29 PM

So if his next girlfriend gets pregnant then.. I assume the Judge is supporting abortion then?
So-cons can you help me out here?

weedisgood on May 15, 2014 at 5:20 PM

Wow, guess who doesn’t pay any taxes??

How about sterilization? Something you should consider if you haven’t already polluted the gene pool.

BigWyo on May 15, 2014 at 5:29 PM

Regardless of the reason, it sounds frightening that any official of the state can determine, by punishment or threat, whether you can have a child.
Communist China believes they too have they same authority over life itself.

Don L on May 15, 2014 at 5:30 PM

I don’t like this at all. Is this guy raping these women? If so, off to jail he goes. If not, then ladies, have some self repect and display a bit of self-preserving behavior and don’t sleep with the guy. Is he hiding his entire life story from you?

cptacek on May 15, 2014 at 5:21 PM

Yeah the problem is that when two mouthbreathers breed and don’t support their children; it is the rest of society who does.

melle1228 on May 15, 2014 at 5:31 PM

How about sterilization? Something you should consider if you haven’t already polluted the gene pool.

BigWyo on May 15, 2014 at 5:29 PM

You support government mandated sterilization?
I would give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that was a joke.

weedisgood on May 15, 2014 at 5:31 PM

Pretty sure no one has yet been forced to pay child support for an aborted baby.

anuts on May 15, 2014 at 5:27 PM

So abortion in this instance will be OK with so-cons then.

weedisgood on May 15, 2014 at 5:32 PM

Pursuing happiness cannot occur at the expense of “others” happiness.

Bmore on May 15, 2014 at 5:12 PM

I assume you then support the “sensitivity politics” of the left?

Don L on May 15, 2014 at 5:33 PM

Thinking about this a bit and I’ve concluded that I disagree, and here’s why.
If you want to lock someone up, they should have committed a crime first, and then get a trial. Lock him up for failure to pay child support? Probably won’t remedy the situation, but at least there’s a justification for that.
Lock him up for having a child? That’s not illegal. It’s only illegal for him to have a child because the judge said so. It is the judge who then makes the decision on whether this man’s actions are a crime, because he is essentially writing a law for this one man. We have a separation of powers; the judge doesn’t get to write the law. I understand that he would be in violation of a court order, but court orders exist to establish the remedy for the matter being judged. Banning future children isn’t a remedy for the back child support; it is an overreach by the judge who is trying to do the right thing, regardless of whether or not that is within the realm of his authority.

dcman98 on May 15, 2014 at 5:34 PM

Judge to Christian (anti-gay) dad: If you have another kid, you’re going to jail

faraway on May 15, 2014 at 5:34 PM

So abortion in this instance will be OK with so-cons then.
weedisgood on May 15, 2014 at 5:32 PM

No. What it means is that he wouldn’t have another child that’s violates this judge’s provision that would land him in jail. Thus the question is moot in this case.

anuts on May 15, 2014 at 5:42 PM

This guy IS the dumb redneck football player at the beginning of The Idiocracy who ends up being the source for all the worthless idiot population in the future.

dentarthurdent on May 15, 2014 at 5:42 PM

*that

anuts on May 15, 2014 at 5:43 PM

No. What it means is that he wouldn’t have another child that’s violates this judge’s provision that would land him in jail. Thus the question is moot in this case.

anuts on May 15, 2014 at 5:42 PM

But the judge is an extension of the government. So in a affect the government is telling you when or not to have kids.
I disagree with this. Very dangerous territory.

weedisgood on May 15, 2014 at 5:45 PM

So in effect* (I can’t spell!!!!)

weedisgood on May 15, 2014 at 5:46 PM

What’s the difference if Government decides citizens aren’t qualified to procreate under an expanded government criteria?

workingclass artist on May 15, 2014 at 5:04 PM

That doesn’t answer the question.

blink on May 15, 2014 at 5:40 PM

Yes it does.

Currently the only government criteria that restricts procreation are those involving incest.

Expand that criteria and that gives government too much power….we have already been down this road before with government imposed sterilization to prevent certain people from procreating based on a eugenic IQ criteria.

workingclass artist on May 15, 2014 at 5:47 PM

Regardless of the reason, it sounds frightening that any official of the state can determine, by punishment or threat, whether you can have a child.
Communist China believes they too have they same authority over life itself.

Don L on May 15, 2014 at 5:30 PM

Except that this guy already has multiple children that he does not support and clearly has no regard for how they live or are raised – so WE are paying the bill for raising HIS kids.
He has the option of taking responsibility for the kids he’s already produced.
That’s a HUGE difference.

dentarthurdent on May 15, 2014 at 5:48 PM

But the jeudge is an extension of the government. So in a affect the government is telling you when or not to have kids.
I disagree with this. Very dangerous territory.

weedisgood on May 15, 2014 at 5:45 PM

Here’s some advice: Don’t want the government making decision for you; don’t invite the government in by having them financially support your bad decisions. Easy peasy..

melle1228 on May 15, 2014 at 5:49 PM

But the judge is an extension of the government. So in a affect the government is telling you when or not to have kids.
I disagree with this. Very dangerous territory.
weedisgood on May 15, 2014 at 5:45 PM

Well, technically the judge or by extension, the government, is telling the man to pay his back child support. He can have more kids but the that would assuredly add to his expenses which decreases the likelihood of paying back child support. He would be going to jail for being a deadbeat (failure to pay child support).

Either way, I disagree also. Throw him in jail now.

anuts on May 15, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Either way, I disagree also. Throw him in jail now.

anuts on May 15, 2014 5:51 PM

Yep, especially if he has been voluntarily unemployed or underemployed. Jail = no procreative sex..

melle1228 on May 15, 2014 at 5:54 PM

Either way, I disagree also. Throw him in jail now.

anuts on May 15, 2014 at 5:51 PM

On one hand I agree.
On the other hand, then we’re paying to support his kids AND him while he’s in jail. And going to jail typically reduces your chances of making a decent income – even after you get out.
I may even consider giving him the choice of jail or sterilization.

dentarthurdent on May 15, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Fundamental right to procreate. What horse hockey!

Cindy Munford on May 15, 2014 at 5:57 PM

I expect Murder Incorporated to begin funding a legal challenge of this court’s order. They want those customers!

slickwillie2001 on May 15, 2014 at 5:59 PM

The ruling applies only if the deadbeat fails to pay what he owes. If he does, he can have all the kids he wants.

If he does what?
If he fails?

Allahpundit, these opening sentences don’t live up to your normally high standard of excellent word-crafting.
Remember why they’re paying you the big bucks, bud.
:)

itsnotaboutme on May 15, 2014 at 6:01 PM

On one hand I agree.
On the other hand, then we’re paying to support his kids AND him while he’s in jail. And going to jail typically reduces your chances of making a decent income – even after you get out.
I may even consider giving him the choice of jail or sterilization.
dentarthurdent on May 15, 2014 at 5:55 PM

No matter what happens to this guy legally we will undoubtedly be on the hook paying for certain his offspring and more than likely himself too. But failing to pay child support is already a crime. He’s done this several times over. He needs to pay for this crime. It’s well past the point of him paying for it financially. And it got this bad not in any small part due to the fact that he wasn’t thrown in jail much sooner.

anuts on May 15, 2014 at 6:06 PM

anuts on May 15, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Ya – I can’t disagree with that at all.

dentarthurdent on May 15, 2014 at 6:11 PM

Nope this will only mean that he will force his baby mommas to have abortions…government has made it too easy to ignore responsibility and morality…..

crosshugger on May 15, 2014 at 6:20 PM

How about sterilization? Something you should consider if you haven’t already polluted the gene pool.

BigWyo on May 15, 2014 at 5:29 PM

You support government mandated sterilization?
I would give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that was a joke.

weedisgood on May 15, 2014 at 5:31 PM

Why not? Females to get government support get tubes tied or no support. Males that fail to pay child support either jail or vasectomy. Their choice. If they can’t support the brood they have, they have no business producing more. I payed everything for my own they don’t need the ability to reproduce more on my dime.

wifarmboy on May 15, 2014 at 6:21 PM

So now the Courts want to go into our bedrooms? Can we have a slide rule so we can see where the courts stand on a certain day of the week?

Brock Robamney on May 15, 2014 at 6:42 PM

Honestly, this whole breeder culture we’ve encouraged with copious welfare and no-fault divorce and no-guilt illegitimacy has led to this.

Too many of these sperm donor dads are spawning on more-than-willing baby mommas, who are not doing any more to support these kids financially than the dads.

And lots and lots of fat little chickies with the babies by these wastrels don’t even bother go to court to get child support (not that they’d get it, because these horndogs are living with they biotches because otherwise they’d have to get a j.o.b.)

What a vile underculture we’ve created, and in just 4 or 5 decades- all in the name of “liberating” women.

Dolce Far Niente on May 15, 2014 at 7:00 PM

So the order is found unconstitutional, and he’s just sent to jail instead.

Is he entitled to conjugal visits?

malclave on May 15, 2014 at 7:04 PM

Why not? Females to get government support get tubes tied or no support. Males that fail to pay child support either jail or vasectomy. Their choice. If they can’t support the brood they have, they have no business producing more. I payed everything for my own they don’t need the ability to reproduce more on my dime.

wifarmboy on May 15, 2014 at 6:21 PM

Yep. WIC and Food Stamp benefits should cover a certain number of children per family and no further support beyond that. Earned Income Tax Credits should also cap off after two or three children.

slickwillie2001 on May 15, 2014 at 7:05 PM

You support government mandated sterilization?
I would give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that was a joke.

weedisgood on May 15, 2014 at 5:31 PM

Fertility is apparently considered a medical disorder (see Sandra Fluke).

Why should the government pay out money month after month for a treatment that is subject to the patient remembering to take medication, when it’s possible to treat the disorder permanently?

malclave on May 15, 2014 at 7:08 PM

I don’t like this. If the guy broke the law, put him in jail. Stop playing games.

Murf76 on May 15, 2014 at 8:17 PM

…war on women.

KOOLAID2 on May 15, 2014 at 8:22 PM

I actually can’t believe he got away with wearing a freakin’ hooded sweatshirt into his court hearing.

Judge should have held him on contempt just for that.

The Ugly American on May 15, 2014 at 9:11 PM

It’s no exaggeration to say that the existence of family courts, and virtually every issue they adjudicate — divorce, custody, child abuse, child-support enforcement, even adoption and juvenile crime — depend on one overriding principle: remove the father.” When a family is broken up, each child “becomes a walking bundle of cash” — not for the custodial parent, but for a huge and expanding population of tax-fattened functionaries who “adopt as their mission in life the practice of interfering with other people’s children.”

The next step comes as Dad is summoned to court and ordered to pay as much as two-thirds of even more of his income as `child support’ to whomever has been given custody. His wages will immediately be garnished and his name will be entered on a federal register of `delinquents.’ This is even before he has had a chance to become one, thought it is likely that the order will be backdated, so he will already be a delinquent as he steps out of the courtroom. If the ordered amount is high enough, and the backdating is far enough, he will be an instant felon and subject to immediate arrest.”

The sinews of this system are the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OSCE) and its state-level affiliates. Some idea of the scope of the Regime’s war on fathers is found in this comparison. The Drug Enforcement Agency, the spearhead of the “war on drugs,” employed a total of 4,600 armed field agents; the OSCE boasts more than 60,000 enforcement agents, all of whom are permitted to carry firearms under the “Deadbeat Parents Enforcement Act.”

When brought to bear against an isolated individual, the weight of this State apparatus will eventually destroy the victim.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on May 15, 2014 at 9:13 PM

RblDiver on May 15, 2014 at 4:53 PM
Are you ok using the same options on women?

blink on May 15, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Sorry for being away, but yes. If the woman’s neglecting to take care of her kids, then yes. Don’t know why there should be a difference, a deadbeat parent is a deadbeat parent.

RblDiver on May 16, 2014 at 11:58 AM

If it weren’t for the massive legal war on men, I’d be for this. We desperately need some kind of legal precedent to prevent sticking the state and taxpayers (meaning US) with more bills because being able to reproduce is considered such a sacred cow that it can never have even the tiniest fig-leaf to collar abusive rapscallions like this guy.

This is not even asking “can the state take away kids you already have”, this is asking “can the state forbid you to create more kids that the state will have to support while you already can’t/won’t support the ones you have NOW?”

Run that out logically and birth control would be mandated for welfare unless you were sterile or too old…which the Democrats will never let pass as it could collapse their voting base.

LawfulGood on May 18, 2014 at 6:06 AM