"Judge orders couple not to have children"

Judge Marilyn O'Connor declared on March 31 that both parents "should not have yet another child which must be cared for at public expense". Quite a dillemma in the courts this past week since the judge is basically denying the couples constituional rights to bear children. The judge's logic behind the ruling is basically saying that once a couple or family can not care for their children it should be be a burden on the government to care for those children. However, this ruling is quite controversial because there is no precedent of any kind for this type of case, so it is quite possible that it could be taken all the way up to the supreme court. The judge feels that due to the incapability of both parents to properly care for their children they should not have anymore children. If they do conceive another child the couple may choose to be sterilized at no cost to them. The judge is also not forcing the couple to use condoms or any other contraception.

The problem here is simple, it is unconstitutional. "I don't know of any precedent that would permit a judge to do this, and even if there were a precendent, it woudl be blatantly unconstitutional because it violates the United States Constituion and the New York Constitution." said Anna Schissel, staff attorney for the Reproducted Rights Project of the New York Civil Liberties Union. If this ruling is unconstituional it will be overturned, however the dilemma of this case is the moral guardian issues. The parents are obviously unable to care for these children properly and all of the children have been tested positive for cocaine.

Moreover, since this case is quite controversial it is quite likely that it will be appealed to the supreme court. If it does go to the supreme court it will most likely be ruled unconstituional, however the bigger question is if it is ruled unconstituional will the supreme court push for some kind of amendment? As far as legal dilemmas go this case is clear; it is simply unconstituional. Even if it was constitutional there is really no way to enforce the ruling made by the judge. "..not sure how the ruling could be enforced." said Attorney Chris Affronti, who cairs the family law section of the Monroe County Bar Association.

Reflection. I think this case is rather quite interesting it is true that it is unconstituional, however since the parents are so neglectful and the children have been tested positive for cocaine I think the couple shouldn't be allowed to have children until they can care for themselves. Having children is a privledge, at least I think so if the parents are unable to care for the children properly it shouldn't be the responsibility of the government to keep caring for additional children. "Both parents had a history of drug abuse." It is quite obvious that the parents are neglectful.

"The mother was found to have neglected her four children, ages 1, 2, 4, and 5. All three children who were tested for cocain tested positive, according to court papers." If as a parent you can't properly care for children I don't think you should be allowed to have them. Nor should it be the burden of the government to continue to care for the children you are continuing to neglect. "This court believes the constitutional right to have children is overcome when society must bear the financial and everyday burden of care." The judge said at the ruling of the case. And since the mother is having another child that will most likely go up for foster care I see no point in starting the process all over again.