Drug addict ordered not to have any more children

Remove all ads!

Family Court judge in Rochester (US) has ordered a drug addict not to have any more children until she reclaims her biological children from current custodians. The woman has already lost custody of seven (seven) children, each with a different man.

(http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/05/children.ruling.ap/index.html)

In case anyone wonders:

 

I bet abortion would have helped in solving of this issue.

Seriously though I believe having a child is a human right and putting someone to jail just because they get pregnant and either refuse to abort the pregnancy or just do not bother with it is horribly wrong. Now this is of course horrible for the children but denying a woman the right to have a child is unethical in all circumstances imho.

 

How is it unethical to forbid someone to have children he or she isn't going to care about?

There's no absolute fundamental right to have children, but there's a set of children rights.

 

Well let's say she quits the drugs and gets drunk and then sleeps with a man and gets pregnant. Is this a punishable act? Is having sex something that she should be punished for? If she's a drug addict then I believe the conditions should be that she would either go to jail or to treatment because of her drug abuse or she could be put to jail because of her abandoning of her previous children but not because she gets pregnant and has another child.

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with the decision.

 

This is a tricky question, I agree with both the courts and Morgoroth. Cant they just throw her in jail for possession drugs, cant be that hard to catch a hardcore addict with stuff on her, and keep her there. It will at least be harder for her to get pregnant while in prison than on the outside. No official hindrance for her to get pregnant, her rights are safe and no more poor kids who are born doped up and without parents.

This is assuming that abortion was a clear and easy option for her and not practically if not theoretically prohibited for her. It might have been the womans clear choice not have an abortion and it can have been impossible for her to get them due to cost or legality and the like. If the latter this situation can easily be avoided in the future by making it easier for people to get abortions.

 

A little far fetched if you ask me. Just because she tested positive on cocaine doesn't necessarily mean she's a drug addict, that's such a harsh word. But what else can you expect in a nation that has declared war on drugs. She might be just an occasional user, which means that she might be quite capable of being a good mom. Not a very responsible one, mind you, but taking her kids away at birth is a bit too drastic in my book.

 

Paccie, please read the link, she did not take care of her children.

Funny thing actually, a fundamental right to have children, did some divine presence stated that every human being is allowed to have children?
Then why can only woman have children?
Fundamental right to have children, fah, she has seven! And the cocaine can do nasty things to the fetuses, deforming them.

I think the decision is just, children have rights too, although not a fundamental one, but one 'we' give them.

 

Alcohol is a drug... The fact that it's legal doesn't make it any less of a drug than it is.

If she would actually drop the addiction, even then we would have to question her motives for getting a child:
1. She already has seven of them, why not try and reclaim them if she had the chance?
2. Why would she try to have a baby? In order to possess a child? It's not even 'to have,' it's 'to possess' in this case. That motive is already questionable.

@Pac man - I'm sure she is. I'm sure she took cocaine just prior to birth to help her relax... Sure.
If she'd be an occassional user, and if she would be a good mom, why would she try to poison her child just prior to bearing it? Mind you, being tested positive means that the drug has not been passed away from the body, which conversely means that it had been taken recently.
Anyway, I agree with you! I'm sure that when she was drugged, she could take great care of her children. Perhaps when she would be high and breastfeeding them, she would transfer the drugs with milk. Maybe she would forget that she has a child on her laps and suddenly decide to stand up.
'Oh, the child fell down? Meh.'
It's definitely too drastic to take away her child at birth. She would definitely be a good mom, having been given the chance. But now will we ever find out?
(Oh, and if my reply to you sounds sarcastic, it's meant to. If it seems schizophrenic - it's a rethorical figure to emphasise the irony.)

 

Fyi, cocaine stays in your system up to 3-4 weeks after you used it, so she might be the kind of person that "parties" once a month. What's the big deal with that ? Millions of people around the world do that, that still doesn't make them drug addicts.

Like i said, obviously she's not too bright, and lacks responsibility, but taking her child away isn't the right thing to do. Some education and guidance might open her eyes, she's not a criminal for crying out loud, just a confused human being.

 

I think the big deal here can be summed up by the first sentence of the first quote of this thread:
"The youngest child and two others tested positive for cocaine at birth.."

Am I missing something here? Does this not clearly indicate a problem if multiple children are testing positive for cocaine at birth?

 

From a Christian standpoint, We are commanded to go forthe, be fruitful and multiply. We are also commanded to refrain from sexual activity outside of legal and lawful marriage. Therefore, the court is not out of line in requiring a more responsible use of the ability to procreate.

 

Well, as ethically tenuous as this line is, I don't disagree with the court's verdict. This lady obviously can't provide a suitable environment for her kids to grow up in. Sure, we may have a right, even a duty, to procreate, but with that "right" come a number of obligations, which we seem to have conveniently forgotten. It's not particularly nice to do this, but I find it peculiarly ironic that in an age of increasing reliance on the law and the legal profession to resolve matters, we expect the institutions of justice and resolution to remain static and unchanging, with the same remedies and sanctions applied. This verdict speaks to me of a new line of judicial thought: there is an unspoken agreement between citizens and the state; you have rights, but you have duties too, and you must meet them in order to merit those entitlements.

Maybe I'm bitter - I spent the holiday season working at a Christmas-themed production and the staff unanimously agreed that you should have to pass a Parenting Test before you can have children (for a whole host of reasons). This woman's kids have no chance at all with her in her current state; I am far more sympathetic to the kids and to any potential future offspring of this woman than to her until she takes back some sort of control over her life. I am sorry for her distress, but her desires do not supercede the needs of her biological children, and if she truly wants them back, she should make an effort to change her behaviour.

 

I'd expand upon this a bit; it's my belief that a significant proportion of the population is simply not suitable to raise children.

Of course, it's nigh-impossible to figure out an objective scale to measure who is and who isn't, so government intervent, aside from education, simply isn't an option.

 

How do you define "not suitable" to raise children?
Depending on the culture, you can say that of anyone.

And if that road is taken we can say that black people may not have children as they're not suitable to raise them. Substitute the blacks with jews. Or average whites. Or americans. Or asians. Or europeans. Nevermind the australians. Or africans.

 

@Pacman, I don't give a rats arse if that woman used cocaine only once at a party, 4 weeks before she gave birth. She endangered her child, she did it even multiple times!
I would even call her inresponsible and unsuitable to take care of her children if she drank more than 4 cups of coffee in a day, or drank a beer when she was pregnant. Gee, why not jump in a rollercoaster while she's at it.

 

I agree with the courts' decisions but they should prevent her from having any more children, not just order her to stop. She's had SEVEN and all have been taken from her care due to neglect or plain useless parenting.

No question about it, this women should never have been allowed to have children in the first place let alone be allowed to have them now.

 

@ Morgoth

That's why i said that the woman needs guidance, some serious attention. Put the child under supervision until the woman shows signs of rehabilitation. Maybe that never happens, maybe it does, but she deserves a chance to make things right. doesn't everyone ? Or are you one of those "all drugusers go to hell" type of crybabies ?

 

I didn't say it, but I don't agree with the decision being permanent, if she ever becomes a good responsible parent, then she may have rights over the children again, as long as the children and their foster parents don't object.

And people can snove, drink, smoke their brains to the next level for all I care, as long as they don't endanger other people.

 

FYI, two of her children were tested positive for cocaine at birth. How big a deal is this?

Please read the article first, thank you. The judge ordered the woman not to have any more children until she reclaims all the seven children she already has from caretakers and other temporary custodians. This is exactly what we call a chance to make things right. If she does have a baby, it will be put under supervision, as you say, but the woman will go to prison for contempt of court. But you would know all this if you read the article.