Right Or Wrong? Judge Bans Ohio Man From Having Anymore Kids Until He Pays $100,000 In Due Child Support For His 4 Kids
Back in January of 2013, 35-year-old (at the time) Asim Taylor’s status of being a “deadbeat dad” was such a problem, that Judge James Walther told him that he couldn’t have anymore kids for at least five years until he could prove that he was financially providing for the four children he already had. You see, Asim Taylor owes almost $100,000 in back child support for his four children. According to The Chronicle Telegram online, Taylor was put on probation for this, and a disgusted Judge Walther told him this during his sentence hearing last year (among quite a few other things):
“I put this condition on for one reason and one reason alone, It’s your personal responsibility to pay for these kids.”
It’s unclear if Taylor’s children were being supported in any way by the state, but Walther was tired of him ducking and dodging his financial responsibilities. If he violated this order, Taylor would be put in prison for a year. At the time, Taylor’s lawyer, Doug Merrill, said that such a ruling violated his client’s right to have sex and procreate. He argued that the only way his client could make sure that he doesn’t procreate again is to abstain from sex–again, a violation of his right to engage in intercourse. And if a woman were to get pregnant by him, she would feel pressured to abort the child, which he said would go against Roe v. Wade. He vowed to appeal the ruling. At the time, Taylor was told that if he could prove that he was taking steps to provide for his children financially or that he already had been doing so, the bar would be lifted. But during the ruling, he admitted that he wasn’t: “I take care of my children,” he said. “I just don’t pay them through child support.” Flash forward to a few days ago when an appeals court handled the case. They decided to uphold the ruling from Judge Walther and Judge Carla Moore said this according to the Daily Mail UK:
“Indeed, we have little to go on other than what the trial court said in its journal entries, which is itself limited. We therefore have no choice in this case but to presume the regularity of the community control sanctions and to affirm.”
It also didn’t help for appellate court member Judge Donna Carr that he had a history of not owning up to his responsibilities and has shown a lack of remorse for the whole situation.
“Where, as here, 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. There is no reason to believe that he would be inclined to support any future children.”
Carr and the rest of the court said the original ruling was not unconstitutional, because similar judgments had been handed out in other places, including a ruling made by Wisconsin’s Supreme Court. Are you smelling a precedent being set? I’m not sure where I stand on this whole situation. On the one hand, it makes sense that if you can’t take care of your children financially, you shouldn’t continue to make more (though many still do). And the ruling is only for five years, giving him enough time to work and start shelling out the dough. However, the control aspect of it–the ruling is called an anti-procreation condition for goodness sake–seems wrong. No, it’s not on the same level as forced sterilization, but still…something about all this rubs me wrong. But what about you? Talk about it.