Dictatorship in OH at it's finest! Setting a precedent?

I don't know... Sounds like an order to me.

Judge James Walther of Lorain County Probate Court told Taylor:

"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."
...
But can the judge enforce it?

That probably will be for higher courts to decide.

Source

The appeals Court upheld the ruling. This is from today.

Asim Taylor owes about $100,000 in child support, and an appeals court in Ohio has upheld an unusual sentence meant to make sure that bill doesn't grow: Justices reaffirmed that the Elyria man can't have any more kids until he pays up, reports the local
...
That means Taylor, who is in his mid-30s and has fathered four children, could go to jail if he impregnates someone during the five years he's on probation, 19 Action News reports. He plans to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court on the grounds that he has a constitutional right to procreate, says his attorney.

Source

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Thanks BH. I'll have to dig a bit deeper. From what I understood, the statements made by the judge were more of his "after-the-fact" personal opinions and not part of the official ruling.

But I have been known to be wrong.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
But I have been known to be wrong.

It's so rare, I had to jump on it. LOL

Seems the case is still active in that the guy is going to the Ohio Supreme Court.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It seems you're correct. It was part of the ruling, but it's interesting to see that the appeals court didn't really address the legality of the decision. They pretty much let it stand as is without making a clear decision.

originally posted by: buster2010
Sounds good to me. Why should a deadbeat dad just keep cranking out kids for the government to take care of? People keep crying about how many people that are on government assistance but don't want to do anything to stop it. The government shouldn't be in peoples bedrooms but when you are doing things that will eventually involve the government like having another kid for them to take care of then they should have a right to intervene.

Should he have more kids? No. But deadbeat dad? Why do you call him that? Because of his inability to pay a fine imposed by a court, regardless of his situation? The family court system is heavily biased against men. Heavily. It is a racket. Men get screwed all the time. They lose custody of their own kids, they get ordered to pay exorbitant child support and alimony even if their wife cheats on them. What if the guy is unemployed and has little to no income? There's a lot of that going around.

I am unable to read the article, so I am speaking in generalities. People should be more responsible, but they also shouldn't be cheating and divorcing, either. And the government shouldn't be ordering men to pay money they have no way of paying, then throwing them in jail for not paying it, or whatever.

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Telling dead beat dads not to breed is a good thing. Now if we can only extend the ruling to the human garbage on shows like teen mom.

Having read the articles and the posting the following can be stated:
This man has 4 children. The question should be asked, by how many women does he have these children with? Based off of the reaction, one could say he has multiple women that he fathered children with. And yet he takes no action, has given no support to help raise or provide for those children. Instead he has chosen to walk away from the responsibility of his and leaves it to the state. While many of us would say the court should not intervene, the reality is where do you think the support for those children are going to come from? The very tax paying citizens of the county and state of Ohio, who have to clean up this persons mess.

If he was providing support to these children, then the courts have over stepped its bounds, but if he is not, and is just being indiscriminate about his actions, then the courts have to step in and put a stop to his activities, to prevent more of a burden on people who should not have to pay for his actions. It may not seem fair, but I think that in this case, the court has the right and obligation to stop this man from being so reckless and prevent him from bringing in more lives that he walks away from.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

He is ordered to pay it! Which means if he doesn't he will be going to jail....So I am sure there will be a garnishment from his checks. Does this still make it right to order him to not have anymore children? You are saying if he pays then he should be allowed to have more kids but if he doesn't pay he shouldn't be allowed? How is a court allowed to make this decision?

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein
When I see this case, and am reminded of so many like that. This man, who fathered 4 children, with different women, what responsibility has he shown to help with those children?

While you may not agree with that ruling, then please explain to me, why as a tax paying citizen, that I should help pay for his children and clean up his mess?
No one else made that mess, no one else was there when this man and those women had sex and a child was conceived, so then why should the people of Ohio be responsible for paying for said children or cleaning up that mess? They have no say in the raising of those children, no means of having a hand or say in how those children are to be cared for or what values those children will be instilled with. And what kind of lesson will those children have when they listen to the venom that their mothers will speak or say when talking about their father? There is no difference between what this man is doing and say Desmond Hatchett. You remember Desmond, the man who fathered 30 children with 11 different women. And he pays very little in the way of child support to help those children. Or how about Octomom, who deliberately got pregnant, and is in and out of court, unable to care for the children she brought into the world?

We talk about how society is going to pot, how bad things are going, yet no one stops and thinks that it starts somewhere and this is one of the causes of such, and who suffers for it? The children, who now have to live and look, and ultimately, while their mothers, are working hard, have no one at home, or have little guidance. And what is worse, is that if these children get into trouble, they will turn around and blame the lack of a father as reason for their outcome as a reason for the way they turned out.

So if this man is going to father children, without taking responsibility, then what responsibility or reason should the people have to clean up the mess and pay to support children that they did not bring into this world? I could see if the man and woman were are on hard times, had 4 children and were doing the best that they could, but this goes beyond what should be.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

I TOTALLY see your point. Really, I do. But what happens if he impregnates another woman? How will this be enforced?

I don't think "we" should pay for these kids either, but I think the answer is more complex than an order from a judge. Perhaps he should be imprisoned and not allowed conjugal visits or his paycheck should be garnished... I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't see how the judges order can be enforced.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Neither do I know what the solution should be, but the first part is to admit that there is a problem, and that this problem exists. And solutions need to be designed not to affect just one person, but all who would do the exact same thing. Maybe perhaps, just maybe, if it was creative enough the solution will be that people take the time to think about their consequences of their actions, and use a bit of protection, keep the legs closed and not be so willing to take risks that they should not be taking.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
keep the legs closed and not be so willing to take risks that they should not be taking.

A man can father a child just fine with his legs closed... In fact, I think that's how it's mostly done. (Just kidding)

But yes, a workable solution has to be found because society should not be further burdened by men (and women) having children they cannot afford.

originally posted by: th3dudeabides
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Telling dead beat dads not to breed is a good thing. Now if we can only extend the ruling to the human garbage on shows like teen mom.

there is no such thing as human garbage - there are only human beings.

Of course anyone who considers that a person can be garbage might not be a human being....

I always wondered at what point do you demand a vasectomy and tubes tied as part of any kind of subsistence program when it deals with having kids that can not be cared for.

originally posted by: buster2010
Sounds good to me. Why should a deadbeat dad just keep cranking out kids for the government to take care of? People keep crying about how many people that are on government assistance but don't want to do anything to stop it. The government shouldn't be in peoples bedrooms but when you are doing things that will eventually involve the government like having another kid for them to take care of then they should have a right to intervene.

Well for one thing, whatever you think of him, its not your decision, not the judges, for he is not owned property but a free sovereign being. So you guys can toss around at night and dart judgmental thoughts his way all you want, but I assure that they only boomerang back and hit your behind in the end.

This needs to be overturned, or simply DEFIED. I would never obey an unlawful, unconstitutional, criminal decision by a rogue judge. EVER. They work for me I judge them, everyone is their employer, they get to judge their employees performance. They serve, and when they're rogue, you never follow bad orders or crimes.

I did write an essay on nuremburg trials and that is one of the big lessons of that time period. Just because someone writes up a "law" or passes a decision, does not make it legal. And real law, common law, constitutional law, international law, and even common sense, tells you not to follow bad orders or criminals. In fact its a crime to enforce an unlawful legislation.

You don't have to like this guy or approve of him, but he is not your lesser. And you don't own him.