Inconceivable

In the annals (spell check complete!) of cool and unusual punishment comes a case that begs to be pointed out (and yes, Mergatroid, the puns are intentional!). A Wisconsin court was faced with a man, one 44-year-old Corey Curtis from Racine (yep!), with a proclivity for cleavage, a bent for conception and an apparently an aversion to contraception. Having impregnated six women successfully nine times (interesting numerical combination), the lustful Mr. Curtis also found himself well-behind (sorry!) in his aggregating child support obligations. To the tune of $50,000 in missed payments and $40,000 in accrued interest.

“‘It's too bad the court doesn't have the authority to sterilize,’ Racine County Circuit Court Judge Tim Boyle said at [Mr. Curtis’ hearing… That's when the prosecutor piped up that a 2001 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling found that a judge could order people not to procreate unless they keep up to date on support payments.” Minnesota.PublicRadio.org, December 4^th.

The earlier Wisconsin case, State vs. Oakley (July 2001), involved a man with a similar proclivity to conceive, this time a criminal child support case with issues as to seven out of David Oakley’s nine children with four woman children. The majority noted that had Mr. Oakley been sentenced to prison, conception during incarceration would not have been possible. Stating that Oakley’s actions represented the “ongoing victimization of his children” and reflected an “extraordinarily troubling record manifesting his disregard for the law,” the majority had no problem imposing a no-conception order as a condition of probation. No pay, no play!

“Acknowledging that the right to procreate is fundamental, the majority explained that probation regularly impinges on constitutional liberties. In addition, the majority found the condition to be reasonably related to the state’s interest in rehabilitating Oakley because it was targeted directly at the crime for which he was convicted. Parole, the majority explained, ‘sought to rehabilitate Oakley while protecting society and potential victims — Oakley’s own children — from future wrongdoing.”” Tom Goldstein (a Washington, D.C. attorney with a practice specializing in U.S. Supreme Court appeal), writing in 2001 for CFIF.org

David’s attorneys appealed the result all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that judicial body turned its back on his plea and refused to hear the matter. So the 2001 Wisconsin case appeared to provide an unassailable remedy to the trial court in Corey Curtis’ matter. Thus, the Wisconsin trial court seemed to ex-Corey-ate Curtis, ordering him not to sire unless his child support payments were current.

We’ve also seen some courts enjoy imposing similar edicts, even against women, in other states: “In Texas in 2008, for example, Felicia Salazar, a 20-year old mother, was sentenced to 10 years probation for not protecting her 19-month-old daughter from abuse at the hands of her father. The judge ordered her not to get pregnant during her probation.” Minnesota.PublicRadio.org.

This remedy is not, however, a uniformly popular result across our great nation. For example, in 2004, the Ohio Supreme Court vacated (ouch!) a trial court order (State vs. Talty) as “overbroad” (really!) threatening a 12-month prison sentence if an equally reproductive defendant (seven children with seven women!), Sean Talty, did not take steps to cease fathering for a five year period.

The Ohio court distinguished the Talty case from the Wisconsin Oakley ruling: “‘Significantly … the antiprocreation condition in Oakley included the stipulation that the court would terminate the condition if the defendant could prove to the court that he had supported his children,’ wrote [Ohio Supreme court Chief Justice Thomas] Moyer. ‘Unlike the facts in Oakley, the trial court in the instant case did not allow for suspending the procreation ban if Talty fulfilled his child-support obligations. Indeed, the trial court cited Talty's rehabilitation and avoidance of future violations as the reasons for imposing the condition. In view of these objects, however, the antiprocreation condition is, by any objective measure, overbroad; it restricts Talty's right to procreate without providing a mechanism by which the prohibition can be lifted if the relevant conduct should change.’” SupremeCourt.Ohio.gov.

A few interesting snippets of legal analysis to lighten your load, but wouldn’t the defendants have been wise simply to move their efforts into an appropriate condom nation?

I’m Peter Dekom, and some court disaster in the heat of passion!