Print Page | Close Window

Ohio court upholds barring deadbeat from fathering

Printed From: Black Hair Media Forum
Category: Lets Talk
Forum Name: Talk, Talk, and More Talk
Forum Description: In this Forum, the talk is about everything that can be talked about.
URL: http://Forum.BlackHairMedia.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=370731
Printed Date: Nov 20 2017 at 2:13am


Topic: Ohio court upholds barring deadbeat from fathering
Posted By: JasmineE02
Subject: Ohio court upholds barring deadbeat from fathering
Date Posted: May 15 2014 at 12:06pm

Ohio court upholds judge’s order barring deadbeat dad from fathering more kids


An Ohio appeals court upheld a judge’s decision to bar a man from having any more children until he made good on child support payments for those he already has.

Lorain County Probate Judge James Walther issued an order last year prohibiting Asim Taylor from having any children for the five years he was on probation for failing to pay the $100,000 in child support for his four current children.

“I put this condition on for one reason and one reason alone,” Walther told Taylor at the time of his sentencing. “It’s your personal responsibility to pay for these kids.”


If Taylor violates the terms of his probation by impregnating another woman, he faces an automatic jail sentence of one year. Judge Walther also stipulated that he would remove the ban if Taylor paid the child support he already owed.

Taylor’s attorney claimed that the prohibition was unconstitutional, because the only way Taylor could meet the order’s demand that he “make all reasonable efforts to avoid impregnating a woman” was abstinence.

“The court is stepping into [Taylor's] bedroom,” Taylor’s attorney argued. “The only way he can insure not impregnating a woman is to not have sex and I do not believe the court has the ability to do that based on the case law. Based on his fundamental rights, I don’t believe the court has the ability to do that.”

The Ninth District Court of Appeals disagreed earlier this week, with Judge Donna Carr writing that “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.”

“Taylor has here demonstrated that he is not inclined to support any of his children,” she continued. “There is no reason to believe that he would be inclined to support any future children.”



Replies:
Posted By: thewonderfulwa
Date Posted: May 15 2014 at 12:07pm
I agree.


Posted By: ModelessDiva
Date Posted: May 15 2014 at 12:11pm
good.

now they need to do this to the rest of these deadbeats out here..

mothers and fathers..


Posted By: carolina cutie
Date Posted: May 15 2014 at 12:12pm
*sips tea*

Evil Smile


Posted By: ModelessDiva
Date Posted: May 15 2014 at 12:14pm
 
*snatches CC's tea*
 Big smile


Posted By: maysay1
Date Posted: May 15 2014 at 12:21pm
Works for me.

If you are forcing the state to provide for your children financially (through WIC, welfare, housing subsidies, day care subsidies, free lunch, tax breaks, food banks, medicaid, etc) then the state gets a say in what you do.

Don't want the state involved in your bedroom business? Take care of your responsibilities.


Posted By: iliveforbhm
Date Posted: May 15 2014 at 12:22pm
Dumb idiots allowed the courts in your life. If you would just take care of the child then you wouldn't have nothing to worry about.


Posted By: nebhnebh
Date Posted: May 15 2014 at 12:28pm
I don't see anything wrong with this at all.


Posted By: Benni
Date Posted: May 15 2014 at 1:24pm
Well this is good.

Hopefully it will set a precedence for more 'deadbeats'



Posted By: MissDarkEyes
Date Posted: May 15 2014 at 1:27pm
Originally posted by JasmineE02 JasmineE02 wrote:

Ohio court upholds judge’s order barring deadbeat dad from fathering more kids


An Ohio appeals court upheld a judge’s decision to bar a man from having any more children until he made good on child support payments for those he already has.

Lorain County Probate Judge James Walther issued an order last year prohibiting Asim Taylor from having any children for the five years he was on probation for failing to pay the $100,000 in child support for his four current children.

“I put this condition on for one reason and one reason alone,” Walther told Taylor at the time of his sentencing. “It’s your personal responsibility to pay for these kids.”


If Taylor violates the terms of his probation by impregnating another woman, he faces an automatic jail sentence of one year. Judge Walther also stipulated that he would remove the ban if Taylor paid the child support he already owed.

Taylor’s attorney claimed that the prohibition was unconstitutional, because the only way Taylor could meet the order’s demand that he “make all reasonable efforts to avoid impregnating a woman” was abstinence.

“The court is stepping into [Taylor's] bedroom,” Taylor’s attorney argued. “The only way he can insure not impregnating a woman is to not have sex and I do not believe the court has the ability to do that based on the case law. Based on his fundamental rights, I don’t believe the court has the ability to do that.”

The Ninth District Court of Appeals disagreed earlier this week, with Judge Donna Carr writing that “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.”

“Taylor has here demonstrated that he is not inclined to support any of his children,” she continued. “There is no reason to believe that he would be inclined to support any future children.”
I'm sorry...Maybe I'm missing something. Is there a problem with this?


Posted By: melikey
Date Posted: May 15 2014 at 1:37pm
Uncomfortably close to forced sterilization.


Posted By: melikey
Date Posted: May 15 2014 at 1:43pm
It's like a test case for the government to regulate who is worthy of procreation.

Put him jail for not taking care of his kids. Not for having them.


Posted By: maysay1
Date Posted: May 15 2014 at 1:52pm
I think the court is trying to avoid putting him in jail because that means he won't be able to take care of his children.

I don't see this as different from any other probation/parole that limits your movements. You already can't consort with felons, live in certain places, have a curfew, etc.

He just has these limitations while he's under the supervision of the court. Don't want to have limitations, then don't commit crimes. Simple.


Posted By: Gkisses
Date Posted: May 15 2014 at 2:17pm
Originally posted by melikey melikey wrote:

It's like a test case for the government to regulate who is worthy of procreation.

Put him jail for not taking care of his kids. Not for having them.



True but putting him in jail doesnt bring any benefits for the kids. If hes out he can work on it and still have a relationship with the kids.

This shouldn't even be necessary. I mean damn take care of ya kids.


Posted By: naturesgift
Date Posted: May 16 2014 at 1:40am
Something needs to be done about the child support system


Posted By: Midna
Date Posted: May 16 2014 at 1:42am
Only a year in prison if he does impregnate a woman?

Please, that's just government sanctioned shelter for 12 months.



Posted By: BBpants
Date Posted: May 16 2014 at 1:51am
hmmmmmm....I'm not sure about this one


Posted By: liesnalibis
Date Posted: May 16 2014 at 2:00am
But y'all got mad when they were encouraging female prisoners to get their tubes tied. I have no issues with either. People need to get it together.


Posted By: sexyandfamous
Date Posted: May 16 2014 at 4:05am
I am glad he is not allowed to procreate and he isn't spending taxpayers' money on his expenses at jail. He needs to learn what is a condom!


Posted By: keepgrowing
Date Posted: May 16 2014 at 7:55am
I had a friend whose dad was put to jail from Friday evening to Sunday and allowed to be free Monday thru Friday to work until his child support money he owed was paid.



Print Page | Close Window