Judge tells woman to stop having kids

[WryBread]

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/09/12/0912salazar.html

Do you think this judge reads DD and that's where he got the idea?


"Travis judge tells woman to stop having kids"
Constitutionality of order in child injury case is questioned by experts.
By Steven Kreytak

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF


Friday, September 12, 2008

A judge in Travis County has ordered a woman to stop having children as a condition of her probation in her case of injury to a child by omission, an extraordinary measure that legal experts say could be unconstitutional.

The order was for Felicia Salazar, 20, who admitted to failing to provide protection and medical care to her then-19-month-old daughter last year. The girl suffered broken bones and other injuries when she was beaten by her father, Roberto Alvarado, 25, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Alvarado and Salazar relinquished their parental rights, and the child, who has recovered, was placed in foster care.

On Sept. 5, state District Judge Charlie Baird sentenced Salazar, who had no criminal history, to 10 years of probation after she reached a plea bargain with prosecutors. In Texas, judges set conditions of probation. In addition to requiring Salazar to perform 100 hours of community service and to undergo a mental health assessment and setting other typical conditions, Baird told Salazar not to have any more children.

In an interview Wednesday, Baird said Texas law gives judges the discretion to set any conditions of probation deemed reasonable. He also said that neither Salazar nor her lawyer, Kent Anschutz, objected.

"When you look her background, the circumstances of this case," he said, "a reasonable condition of her probation was that she not conceive or bear any children."

Anschutz said he is considering his options on behalf of Salazar. He described her as concerned about Baird's order.

"Although I fully understand the sentiment and perspective of the judge in this matter, I question the enforceability of that particular condition," he said.

Salazar couldn't be reached for comment.

The requirement that Salazar not conceive or bear any children is "probably not constitutional," said Douglas Laycock, a University of Michigan constitutional law professor.

Laycock, a former professor and associate dean for research at the University of Texas School of Law, said in an e-mail that the courts have recognized a fundamental right of people to make their own decisions about becoming parents.

"The state rarely tries to stop people from becoming parents, so there has not been much occasion to litigate that," he said. "But undoubtedly there is a constitutional right to have children ... and I doubt that one conviction for injury to a child is enough to forfeit that right."

Conditions of probation are enforced by putting a defendant in jail or prison when they are violated.

It is doubtful whether Baird would or could do that if Salazar has children, said Keith Hampton, a veteran Travis County defense lawyer who is a second vice president of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.

"I really don't see how that is going to be an enforceable order," Hampton said, citing court rulings that have expressed an unenumerated constitutional right to procreate. "It may be a good thing that this defendant heard someone in authority tell them 'We don't think you should have any more kids.' "

Hampton said that Salazar could appeal the conditions of her probation, even before Baird attempts to enforce them.

Baird said he has never made a similar order in his more than 20 months on the District Court bench in Travis County. Other lawyers, including Allison Wetzel, the prosecutor in the case, say they are not familiar with any similar orders.

John Schmolesky, a criminal law professor at St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio, said conditions of probation must serve to protect the public or rehabilitate the defendant.

"This one might logically have a connection to protecting the public," he said of Baird's order. "Obviously if she neglected her kid, if she doesn't have any more, she can't neglect them."

But, Schmolesky said, "if I were a betting man, I would say that an appellate court would strike that one down."

Baird noted that by putting Salazar on probation, he sentenced her to 10 years in prison and suspended that sentence.

"If I put her in prison for 10 years, she could not conceive or bear children," he said. "I don't know how this is unreasonable for probation."

Laycock, the Michigan law professor, said that in a past Wisconsin case, a father of nine who was convicted of intentionally failing to pay child support was ordered to have no more children as a condition of probation. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin upheld that condition.

"So there's room for argument here," Laycock said. "But I would think that if she challenges this order, it will be struck down.

"On the other hand, if she got probation instead of jail, she may be happy with this and not want to challenge it."

[OMalley]

There was a judge in NJ, years ago, who told a woman she had to get on birth control to continue to receive Welfare payments. She had been on welfare for years & just kept having more kids she couldn't afford. I thought it was great. Not sure what happened with that case though. I imagine the ruling got overturned...

[crickett]

If this creature were to get pregnant while on probation, she would be in violation of her probation terms. Then she would have to spend the 10 years in prison for violating the terms of her probation.
Personally, I hope this is upheld. She LET her boyfriend beat an innocent little toddler! The child suffered in terror and pain. The poor toddler had broken bones and, no doubt, internal injuries. And, if not stopped, SHE WOULD HAVE LET HIM KILL THAT INNOCENT BABY! Then she would have cried "Poor me, I was scared of him" to the court.
Well, poor her. She's an adult. She is the child's poor excuse of a mother. She had a duty to protect that innocent little child.
OHHHHHH.....This just makes me SO mad! Sorry, I'm going on and on....

[polis]

Personally, I think it is unconstitutional for the judge to make such a requirement. There was a time where the was a movement to sterilize those we didn't seem fit to spawn, and it didn't take because everyone has a right to reproduce.

Sure, we all think the lady shouldn't be allowed kids. She let a guy beat her kid. She needs therapy and with that hopefully she would recognize she is unfit to be a mom and make that choice.

Now if you want to punish her, ten years in jail is better, because that will ensure she not spawn while not breaking a constitutional right, something our nation pride's itself on.

[Shroomer]

I am sure this wont enforceable, but maybe just maybe, the judge got through to this woman and she will take his advice if anything. She is 20 years old, I didnt read how many kids she has. She clearly isn't a responsible parent. After 10 years maybe she will grow up.

I think this judge did the right thing, she may know it too and not fight it. Unless of course she needs another welfare check.

[TheImperialCerealKiller]

This judge is great. I think more judges should follow his lead. :hail:

[Just my luck sucks]

There was a case a very long time ago where a judge order an abusive mother to have a birth control implant, or go to prison. If I remember correctly the order was upheld as the "mom" had agreed to the sentence. I also think this should be made routine when women harm their children or can not support them, without welfare.

I can't recall the Judge's or the woman's name at this time. I think I need more coffee.

[prettyuglyish]

Personally, I think it is unconstitutional for the judge to make such a requirement. There was a time where the was a movement to sterilize those we didn't seem fit to spawn, and it didn't take because everyone has a right to reproduce.

Sure, we all think the lady shouldn't be allowed kids. She let a guy beat her kid. She needs therapy and with that hopefully she would recognize she is unfit to be a mom and make that choice.

Now if you want to punish her, ten years in jail is better, because that will ensure she not spawn while not breaking a constitutional right, something our nation pride's itself on.

People convicted of crimes lose many of their consitutional rights. Felons can't vote, they lose the right to bear arms, are subject to search & seizure at any time for any reason, etc. I don't believe the Constitution says anything specifically about procreation. It's always been an argument regarding interpretation.

[silvahalo68]

I live in Travis county and not surprised to hear a ruling of this sort by Judge Charlie Baird. He is known for being very hard on pieceofshit M*F who breed and brake or kill their children....that goes for letting an abuser abuse your child.

[Rotten Apple]

"The state rarely tries to stop people from becoming parents, so there has not been much occasion to litigate that," he said. "But undoubtedly there is a constitutional right to have children ... and I doubt that one conviction for injury to a child is enough to forfeit that right."

Well DER asshat, she only had one child to injure at the time. Wanna let her have a couple more to injure before we say enough?

[ImmortalOne]

Hmmm my post must've gotten eaten... I was agreeing with Prettyuglyish though. Felons lose their rights all the time. IF they don't want to lose these benefits and these rights, then they shouldn't do the crime. Its pretty simple actually. I hope and wish more judges made rulings like this, it would stop creating more victims for sick fucks like people who we read about all the time.



--- couldn't stay away I guess *sigh* ---

[polis]

People convicted of crimes lose many of their consitutional rights. Felons can't vote, they lose the right to bear arms, are subject to search & seizure at any time for any reason, etc. I don't believe the Constitution says anything specifically about procreation. It's always been an argument regarding interpretation.

That is true. However, we have the wonderful supreme court that rules and essentially gives how certain issues are effected by the Constitution, and the state supreme courts interpreted this way.

Here are some excerpts of som State Supreme Court rulings, and to make it easier than post rulings from all the states, I will be looking in the US Supreme Court Cases.

The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).

The several states have no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985).

Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).

Convicts may have lost to right to vote in most states, BUT they have not lost the right to procreate, even behind bars:

"the right to procreate survives incarceration.''

* California regulations forbid conjugal visits for prisoners serving life sentences.
* But the Supreme Court has several times affirmed the "fundamental'' nature of the right to procreate -- for instance, in 1942 it struck down Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act, saying that prisoners have a constitutional right to retain their procreative abilities for use after incarceration.
* Furthermore, no "legitimate penological objectives'' are served by not recognizing Gerber's procreative right.

Source: George Will, "An inmate's right to procreate," Townhall.com, November 8, 2001; Opinion, Gerber v. Hickman, Case No. 00-16494, D.C. No. CV-99-01315-FCD, September 5, 2001, United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit.

http://books.google.com/books?id=HIryzOq5XOEC&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303&dq=constitutional+right+to+procreate&source=web&ots=xsIU4HadMc&sig=Mn9q6GKRceMp95rOQ6K7sPYVUEs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result Read number 7, the fundamental right to artifical insemination

[lilbay]

I want to send this judge a fruit basket or something
It is about time they got it right

If the woman does not like it and appeals she can than just take her funky arse to jail for that 10 years that is how i look at it.
i think 10 years not having a kid is darn good compared to sitting in jail for that 10 years.

Sadly though i am aware that Yes it will likely go south if chazllenged Darn it!

I think that Parents who harm kids should in fact lose the right to have kids.
I mean hell if a person abuses an animal They tell them not to have any more animals.

In this situation we are speaking about children. Come on at some point there has to be something done about this crap.

One only has to look at daily headlines we see here daily, now add to it the other cses that are a little less shocking, or not posted on news sites anywhere, or that we miss some how. The numbers grow daily and it scares the crap out of me. Is there any wondder we have so many kids now killing people and just generally acting OFF.
These are the products of that abuse that has been going on. Think about the amount of parents who have abused and now those kids are our 20 somethings who are well sorry but many in their twentys here lately are a scary bunch
I am NOT justifying the actions of any person but we all know it is a cycle and that cycle eventually needs to be Stopped.
It is nice to see a job at least Try to stop it a little bit.

There is just too many children being put through a living Hell because some whackjob happened to have the right to give birth or insert a swimmer into an egg while out drunk one night.

[silvahalo68]

In my book, having a child & becoming a parent is a blessing and a privilege NOT a right.

[ImmortalOne]

The right to "Procreate" is the right of those whom do not eat their young. We are not animals. Felons lose more than just voting priviledges (something that truly seems a little strange to me... who cares if they vote for one evil or the other like the rest of us?). But many cannot have camera phones, cannot have internet, cellphones, they cannot drink, be around drugs (duh), have any kind of weaponry, and some even have to PROVE where they live.

Drunk drivers lose their rights to drive.
Sexual predators lose their right to have camera's and internet.
Felons lose their right to bare arms.
Animal abusers lose their right to own ANY pet.
Criminal's in jail usually don't get to have children, or at least keep them... so why should they be allowed to be free and have them AND keep them?


So... why not protect kids and child abusers lose their right to create more victims? We aren't talking forced sterilization, we are talking jail time if they get pregnant and have a child. We are talking jail time for the guy who abuses one kid, then gets another woman pregnant. WHY would people want more kids if they already have been punished for beating/burning/killing another child -- unless they WANT to create more victims.

[polis]

Criminal's in jail usually don't get to have children, or at least keep them... so why should they be allowed to be free and have them AND keep them?


So... why not protect kids and child abusers lose their right to create more victims? We aren't talking forced sterilization, we are talking jail time if they get pregnant and have a child. We are talking jail time for the guy who abuses one kid, then gets another woman pregnant. WHY would people want more kids if they already have been punished for beating/burning/killing another child -- unless they WANT to create more victims.

I think i mentioned that even in jail, they are allowed the right to artificial insemination.

Eh the law doesn't deny a person a right to spawn, so until the law changes...one can only frown upon assholes spawning.

[ImmortalOne]

I think i mentioned that even in jail, they are allowed the right to artificial insemination.

My husband says that is not something he is aware of (and he would know a good deal about stuff like that - at least from a male point of view)...

It seems rather pointless because the children of prisoners are taken away anyway. Certainly another flaw in our system that needs to be changed. Period.

[polis]

My husband says that is not something he is aware of (and he would know a good deal about stuff like that - at least from a male point of view)...

It seems rather pointless because the children of prisoners are taken away anyway. Certainly another flaw in our system that needs to be changed. Period.

I agree, it's pointless that they have the ability to get that done since they can't raise the child but it's done. just as it was pointless to let serial killers like ramirez marry, when he's never going to get released.

eh, our system is funny. nonetheless, that is how it is

[lilbay]

Sadly it is very true there are cases where prisoners have fought and won the right.
This POS for instance who killed a man for a pack of cigarettes won his right to impregnant his beautiful little scam mer there while she too was locked up.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23425623-details/Killer+in+prison+wins+right+to+father+a+child+by+a rtificial+insemination/article.do

While that is in the UK above here is one in the US. The article also lists a few precedents for the case.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3DF163FF933A15751C0A9669582 60

My whole thing though in the article the want to be Mother shows her real edumacated side in her comment about her sisiter having a baby
''My sister had another baby,'' she said, ''and that waked up my mother's instincts all over again.''


I still say it is not so much a right as a privledge.
One that once you show it is one you are not capable of handling that ypou should than lose.

[ImmortalOne]

I think part of those stories are incredibly disturbing for several reasons.

There is an obvious difference in male and female birthing and bareing of children. I can see the artifical insemenation for a female outside of the prison system (after all she is his wife - which is what the US argument is based off of - and she is not locked up from what I was understanding.)

I think that the general populace is then scared into voting (such as the the UK case) on the basic fundamental right because they do not want want it to spread to the general population. That is to say they do not want the government to start control of something like that with prisoners, to move to every Jones family in that country, to require approval to have children. We do not want to see what some of the horrors are said to happen in China and other countries to happen here in the States.... because we got pregnant. And I honestly think that is the concern.

Also I assume that there is the mind set that once a criminal has been in jail and released, they are therefore "rehabilitated". Which is supposedly the purpose of jails and such to begin with. Which again becomes a problem with abusers, they really cannot be be rehabilitated, and really should never have access to more victims.

[brokenandtwisted]

In all fairness she should stop having children. The constitutional law professor said it was "probably unconsitutional". Probable, but exact to say the least. :)

[RockRGrl]

Brilliant! Good work judge!