“I put this condition on for one reason and one reason alone,” Walther told Asim Taylor during the sentencing hearing. “It’s your personal responsibility to pay for these kids.”
But Taylor’s attorney, Doug Merrill, argued that Walther’s order violated Taylor’s basic rights, including his right to procreate and engage in sexual intercourse. He said the only way his client can guarantee compliance with Walther’s order, which requires Taylor “to make all reasonable efforts to avoid impregnating a woman,” is by abstaining from sex.
“The court is now stepping into his bedroom,” Merrill said.
If Taylor violates the terms of his probation, Walther said he will send him to prison for a year.
Merrill also pointed to a 2004 Ohio Supreme Court decision in which the state’s highest court struck down an order from Medina County Common Pleas Judge James Kimbler barring a defendant in a criminal nonsupport case from having any more children.
The court ruled that Kimbler’s order that Sean Talty couldn’t have any more children was overbroad because it didn’t contain a mechanism from getting out from under the order, even if Talty made good on his responsibilities to his children.
Walther’s order addresses that discrepancy, stating that if Taylor “can prove to the Court that he is able to provide support for his children he already has and is in fact supporting the children or until a change in conditions warrant,” he would lift the ban on Taylor having more kids.
When Taylor, 35, was indicted in August 2011, he was accused of owing a combined $78,922 to four children. Walther said Taylor, who pleaded guilty last year, now owes $96,115.
But Merrill argued that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. He said Taylor’s crime wasn’t having children but failing to support them.
Walther, however, said that Taylor needed to take care of the children he already has before having any more.
“This is a matter of common sense and personal responsibility,” the judge said.
“The court can’t dictate common sense and personal responsibility,” Merrill replied.
Taylor said little during the hearing, but afterward he insisted that he wasn’t a bad parent.
“I take care of my children,” he said. “I just don’t pay them through child support.”
Merrill said after the hearing that his understanding is that even though Taylor isn’t making child support payments that his client is involved in the lives of his children.
Walther said during the hearing that if Taylor was paying for his children in other ways, he needs to stop doing so and make payments thought the county’s Child Support Enforcement Agency.
Merrill said his client will appeal the anti-procreation order, which, if it survives a full legal challenge, will become far more common in sentencing hearings around Ohio. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has upheld similar court orders.
Merrill also said that he remains concerned that if Taylor does impregnate a woman, that woman might feel pressured to have an abortion to prevent Taylor from going to prison. That could conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision that guarantees a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.
(Story by Brad Dicken, Elyria Chronicle-Telegram; Video by the Elyria Chronicle-Telegram)
Comments
It is commom sense but it will be overturned because it violates his rights to be a deadbeat scumbag if he so chooses. I mean if the law can't stop deadbeat, drug abusing, child abusing, child neglecting women from having children how can the law prevent men from fathering children they don't want to support? It makes sense to be able to do so but civil rights laws protect these people when they shouldn't.
In other news, the judge has ordered a meth addict to stop using, and DUI convict to walk home when he's drunk. Problem solved, right?
It is commom sense but it will be overturned because it violates his rights to be a deadbeat scumbag if he so chooses. I mean if the law can't stop deadbeat, drug abusing, child abusing, child neglecting women from having children how can the law prevent men from fathering children they don't want to support? It makes sense to be able to do so but civil rights laws protect these people when they shouldn't.
Uh-oh we know what is gonna happen next.
SUE JUDGE
Well he must have something else going for him to be ABLE to have women sleep with him....sounds like it has NOTHING to do with his wallet!
You know it takes two to tango , but what can I say ? I love the dumb girls too ; )))) JUST KIDDING .....
It's about time! Thank you Judge Walther.
Keep it in the family.This guys siblings,parents,cousins etc. should shoulder the welfare of these children.The mothers family also should share the burden.Believe me that it won't be long and less of these stories would be appearing.Don't be alarmed at my suggestion.This way perfect strangers like you and I are funding this creeps lifestyle.Make them pay so we don't have to!
Why is a probate court judge handling a non-support case? Isn't that the job of the Family Court? Did Ohio change the state law AGAIN or what?
This isn't the judge that was accused by a female magistrate of sexual harrassment/misconduct and creating a hostile work enviroment, is it? Oh no, wait I believe that was a Lorain County judge named David Berta.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L...
But I'm me, a him!
Get a job, fella and start paying the support. I don't care how much it is, just start paying the support. Even if you pay $5 a kid, start paying it. I get tired of reading how these guys like making babies but don't stick around to pay for them. They like the welfare but not the babymama or the responsiblility and I have to pay for it. Well, I am tired of doing the work for you. So go flip burgers at Micky d's.
At least we know that Obamacare will take care of these people. Yep, we are paying plenty!
At least we know that Obamacare will take care of these people. Yep, we are paying plenty!
Lop off his nuts.
The "right to procreate" is a constitutionally protected privilege (privacy right) under Griswold v. Connecticut.
All I can say is "what a joke!" Seriously, does this Judge think he has some sort of "Obama-Power" that he can just take away someone's Constitutional Rights with a slap of the Gavel? I understand what point the Judge is trying to get across but he is probably going to wish he had never said it. It's pretty sad if a person in prison can have conjugal visits but your going to order a "Deadbeat Dad"(I hate this term and think it should be considered slander) to abstain from sex and hold jail time over his head(or heads). If a Judge is going to order this then the State needs to start making it where women on Welfare that have more than 3 or 4 kids should be held responsible and not allowed to have anymore kids until they can hold down a job for a period of time and be able to support themselves without the aid of Welfare, sounds fair to me...?
Dont worry folks, have no fear, our government has plenty of money to keep passing around to these deadbeats and the innocent children they shouldn't of brought into this world.
Just because one is ABLE to have a kid, doesn't mean they can keep producing at the cost of the tax payer. If you cannot afford a kid(s), you shouldn't have them.
How does your right to breed become my responsibility to feed?
Everyone gets one "oops". After that with each additional child your support decreases. More kids less money. It won't take long for the deadbeats to figure that out. Problem solved.
Nueter him.
Yo it be his right to make mo babys! He be needin to have tha mommas put fatha unknowen so he dont be payin nuttin