Blog

Criminalizing Motherhood?: Who’s to Judge

Criminalizing Motherhood?: Who’s to Judge

Should a bad mother be prohibited from having more children?

Twenty year-old Felicia Salazar admitted to a court that she failed to provide protection and medical treatment for her 19-month-old daughter. The baby was beaten by her father and suffered broken bones and other injuries. She recovered and is in foster care. The father was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

But when Salazar—who had no previous criminal record—appeared for sentencing, Judge Charlie Baird gave her a suspended prison sentence and 10 years probation with what he called the “reasonable condition” not to conceive or bear any more children during that time.

“She has a fundamental right to reproduce,” said the judge, “so I couldn’t order her to be sterilized. But she can be forced to forfeit certain fundamental rights.” The judge added that he is “not even preventing her from having intimate sexual relations. I’m only preventing her from becoming pregnant.”

Legal experts questioned the constitutionality of the sentence, while others debated its enforceability. “If Salazar becomes pregnant,” asked a law writer, “must she choose among concealing the pregnancy, abortion, or incarceration? Alternately, could Judge Baird order her to carry a pregnancy to term but then give the child up for adoption?”

The prosecutor, who had not sought the sentence, was surprised. “I think when the average person hears a story of a mom who failed to protect a child,” she said, “their instinct is that she doesn’t deserve to have a child. But we don’t get to decide that for her.”

Tell us what you think: In an effort to prevent future child abuse, should the court be responsible for deciding if a mother can have more children? What about the father in this case—should he be under court order not to father more children?

Add Comment

Comments

Agree also

As part of becoming licensed to have children, parenting classes would be required, as well as mental stability tests…

Why is it that so many children have to be hurt before parents are required to take parenting classes?

Vix | 1 year, 4 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply

parenting licenses--an alternative

In truth, I think it would be very hard to enact a law requiring parenting licenses (not that I’m against it). For one thing, many people (including the judge in this case) regard reproduction as a “fundamental right”.

What if a private foundation offered a “sterilization bounty”.
The only direct actions of government would be to:
1 Enact a law that reversal of tubal ligation or vasectomy would be illegal (except in the case of the death of a child—that is where the “licensing” could come in, and (2) agree not to tax the sterilization bounty.

The details would be that any man or woman between the ages of 18 and 45 would receive $10,000 if they would have tubal ligations or vasectomies.
(The actual surgery would paid by Medicaid or private insurance, would save them money in the long run.)

The recipient could spend it on anything he or she wanted to—college, drugs, his or her other children, spa days, whatever. No strings.

Cecily | 1 year, 4 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply

Probably would be…

Enacting any law (other than pay raises for themselves) is difficult with our government.

Offering a bounty, making reversal illegal??? Wow.

I was thinking more along the lines of implants for both male and female.

No matter how you look at it, something more needs to be done to keep people who either do not want children or are not capable of taking care of children from having them.

Vix | 1 year, 4 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply

Law

Yes, you’re right. Enacting any law (except pay raises for themselves) is difficult for them.

Implants would be okay except that they are temporary. (One person could collect the “implant bounty” more than once.)

One highlight of either bounty would be that each person would choose for himself or herself whether or not to do it. Since it would be privately funded and non coercive, there could not be rational charges of “discrimination” against any particular group.

Even people who had planned to be sterilized (or implanted) anyway would welcome the bonus. People who hadn’t thought of such things would have the opportunity to do so.

Cecily | 1 year, 4 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply

Parenting ...

We probably do not have all the facts in this case. First, it is inconceivable that this incident of violence was not a part of a long string of such incidents, much of it, probably, aimed at the woman. People who are subjected to long term violence and the loss of sanity it produces are, in many cases, unable to act, even to protect themselves or their innocent child.

As a vocational instructor for incarcerated adults, I had a female student, a long term crack user, removed from class and ordered by a judge to give up all of her parental rights to her children, in effect to no longer be a parent.

The judge in this case attempted to establish a similar injunction on behalf of, in this instance, an unborn child. I believe that decision may be stretching the power of the law, under this constitution at least, to if not beyond it’s limit. In addition, I think enforcement would be impossible and would bring about even more complex legal problems.

I do not wish to understate the complexity of that question but rather to point out that (a) with treatment and protection from violence (b) in the absence of any other circumstances (drugs, a history of criminal behavior, etc.) and © with any promising indication from the mother, there might well be a chance for successful rehabilitation on her part.

Placing her existing child, or children, in safe hands makes very good sense and a court order protecting them from any harm from either party also makes sense.

Court ordered counseling for an extended period of time with explicit mandate to monitor any conduct that might lead to yet another unwanted, endangered child. Given the serious nature of the attack on the child, even though the woman herself did not commit the violence, the court, as this case develops could eventually see clear grounds for permanent separation from her children.

Pasquale Bottiglieri | 1 year, 4 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply

sterilized

I think any mother who allows their child or any child while she watches the crime.. to be beat or harmed in any such way should be made to be sterilized.. she doesn’t deserve the right to even be around a child, just like a predator.

PAMS SWEET HUGS | 1 year, 4 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply

Tricky, but the idea is sound

My friends and I have often joked that you should need a license to have kids. We’re forced to take tests (written and driving) to get behind the wheel, but anyone can have, and raise, kids. Why not require a license? We need one to get married, why not follow up with one to have children?
Now, I know the ACLU and the rest of the lunatic left would be the first to jump on this,but I think it deserves to be discussed. Personal choice is not always personal. Laws have been enacted to regulate things that were once thought personal issues. Seatbelts, smoking bans, helmet laws, and drinking & driving were all, at one time, considered personal decisions personal decisions. But now, in most states they mandated by laws.
The simple answer as to why is because it was realized that the consequences of thier use, or lack of use, was affecting more than just the user. Second hand smoke was making people sick and costing money in terms of healthcare, manpower and resouces. Motorcycle accidents with riders w/o helmets also cost in money and man power. When a personal freedom/dicision issue starts to affect those not involved in the decision making process we have always (mostly) co-opted those personal decision and made them public policy. Why should raising children be any different? Isn’t there a cost to poor parenting borne by those around us? Social services, healthcare, foster care, mental illness, lost wages, and more things than I can list are all caused by parental neglect and poor parenting skills. Requiring licenses to have kids seems like a good idea. At least that way, society would have a better bet that the people having children understand the roles they play as parents, are moderatly equipped to make good decisions and, at the very least, would be looking out for the welfare of the child. It would help everyone become more prepared to parent and not rely on teh hit and miss system we have now.
But then, that’s just my opinion.

David Dimon | 1 year, 4 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply

In many respects ...

In many respects, I would be a member of the “lunatic left” that you speak of; however, I fully agree that people should get a license to parent. A certain amount of stability, intelligence, and common sense should be demonstrated before being allowed to bring a new human being into the world. In fact, I’m in favor of forced sterilizations in certain cases (e.g. the drug-addicted mother that keeps having drug-addicted babies that end up wards of the state, the parent who willfully neglects a child while it is being abused, the abusive parent, and most of all child molesters). If you ask me, they’ve lost their chance to reproduce, so we should take the ability away.

Staples | 1 year, 4 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply

In most cases

In most Judges Courtrooms as of late it has become the norm to take the child from the mother upon birth, just as they do with children born addicted.

stacy gregory | 1 year, 4 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply

Abuse is Abuse no matter how you look at it.

It was very terrible what that father (if you even want to call him that) did to the daughter. But it is even worse when the mother does not stand up for her daughter. Beat the dad or just get up, leave the man, and call the police. As for the judge’s ruling, I will agree to that to a certain extent. If she wants to have kids again in the future, she must (no ifs, ands, or buts in between) go to counseling, parenting school, anger management and abuse counseling. And, even after all that, it should either go before the judge again or her peers of a jury trial.

Christine Zurhellen | 1 year, 4 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply

 <  1 2 3 4 >  Last » (6 pages)

Leave a Comment

Let the world know what you think, but please do so responsibly. Comments are moderated and we will not post personal attacks, obscene language or inappropriate material. If you have a question, check out our Comment Submission Guidelines.

By clicking submit you agree to our site’s Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.