Judgetodeadbeatdad:Ifyouhaveanother

Judge to deadbeat dad: If you have another kid, you’re going to jail

posted at 4:41 pm on May 15, 2014 by Allahpundit

•  Share on Facebook

The ruling applies only if the deadbeat fails to pay what he owes. If he does, he can have all the kids he wants. But since he owes upwards of a hundred grand, I think “no more babies” is the realistic takeaway here.

The order actually came down more than a year ago. It’s in the news this week because the appeals court finally issued their decision on it. Upheld — on a technicality.

The decision, released Monday by the 9th District Court of Appeals, did not provide a legal explanation on whether Walther’s order was appropriate. Instead, two of the three judges on the panel wrote that without a copy of a pre-sentence report on Taylor completed by the county Adult Probation Department, they didn’t have enough information to examine the virtues of Walther’s order.

“Indeed, we have little to go on other than what the trial court said in its journal entries, which is itself limited,” Judge Carla Moore wrote in the majority decision. “We therefore have no choice in this case but to presume the regularity of the community control sanctions and to affirm.”…

Given his past failures to financially support his children, [the third judge] wrote that Walther’s order made sense.

“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,” Carr wrote. “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.”

The Ohio Supreme Court overturned a similar order 10 years ago because it gave the deadbeat dad no means by which to have the order lifted. It was an unconditional ban. This new one is conditional, i.e. make the payments you owe and you can knock up whoever you like. In fact, it may be even more conditional than that. According to the judge, “The defendant is ordered to make all reasonable efforts to avoid impregnating a woman during the period control or until such time the defendant can prove to this court that he’s able to provide support for the children that he already has.” If he and his partner could somehow prove that they were using contraception, would that qualify as a “reasonable effort” even if she ended up pregnant?

But never mind that. What you want to know is whether this is constitutional. Answer: Maybe. The state can’t forcibly sterilize people to prevent them from procreating (anymore) but at least one state supreme court has upheld orders like Walther’s, penalizing people for having more kids if they haven’t provided for the ones they have already. That would be Wisconsin’s, in 2001:

The case split the court, 4 to 3, along gender lines. All four male justices joined in the ruling, issued on Tuesday, finding the condition a reasonable mechanism to deal with a father who has consistently and intentionally failed to pay the child support he owes. The three female justices opposed it as an unconstitutional intrusion on a basic right to procreate…

The opinion defended the restriction on Mr. Oakley as “narrowly tailored to serve the state’s compelling interest of having parents support their children.” It noted that the condition would expire in five years, when probation ends, and said the alternative of sending Mr. Oakley to prison would further victimize his children, ages 4 to 16.

But the female justices said the order violated Mr. Oakley’s fundamental right to procreate and, as Justice Diane S. Sykes put it, basically amounted to “a compulsory, state- sponsored, court-enforced financial test for future parenthood.”

More than a decade later, court orders warning deadbeats not to have any more kids or face jail time were still being issued in Wisconsin. My hunch is that SCOTUS would overturn that if and when a case along these lines makes it up there; the Court’s four liberals would naturally vote with the deadbeat dad in the interest of keeping reproduction rights (which, of course, include abortion) inviolate, and Kennedy would probably join them. He trends libertarian on social issues and famously refused to overturn Roe v. Wade in the Casey decision back in 1992. Even if there are five conservative votes on the Court to uphold this, though, they might be reluctant to see orders like this proliferate, which would be a natural consequence of the high court taking a case on it and affirming it. Having lower-court judges handing down orders on who can and can’t have kids, even in the narrow realm of deadbeat dads, might make appellate judges squeamish for slippery-slope reasons even if they conclude there’s nothing unconstitutional about it per se.

•  Share on Facebook

Tags: asim taylor, child support, children, deadbeat dad, judge, procreation, reproduce, walther

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Judge:No,parentscan’tbeforcedtofinancially

Judge: No, parents can’t be forced to financially support their disobedient 18-year-old child

posted at 4:41 pm on March 5, 2014 by Allahpundit

C’mon. In the new America, you’re not really an adult until you’re 26. Maybe longer, depending on the next unilateral executive rule change.

This case had to end this way, didn’t it?

Rachel Canning, a senior at Morris Catholic High School, went to court to force her parents, Sean and Elizabeth Canning, to pay her child support, her private school tuition, medical and related bills, college expenses and legal fees. Canning is an honor student and athlete, but her parents have stopped paying her bills because, they say, she would not obey their rules…

Her parents countered that she voluntarily left home because she didn’t want to abide by house rules, such as being respectful, keeping a curfew, doing a few chores and ending a relationship with a boyfriend they said was a bad influence…

She said the Cannings treated their daughter in an “abnormal” way that made it “untenable” for her to stay in the house. For instance, Helfand said, Sean Canning would not allow Rachel to have a boyfriend while a senior in high school. Rachel Canning also claims her parents are abusive, contributed to an eating disorder she developed and pushed her to get a basketball scholarship…

The judge also cited certifications submitted by the Sean and Elizabeth Canning about their daughter’s alleged history of staying out and drinking during the week. Once, he said, she was driven home by her boyfriend’s parents at 3 a.m.

Rachel claims that her father was “inappropriately affectionate” with her, which, if true, makes her new financial predicament an egregious injustice and, if false, makes her the Bad Seed. (The verdict is already in online.) She’s stuck now with a $5,300 tuition bill for her first semester of senior year of high school. One odd wrinkle at first blush about this very odd case is that the outcome seems to turn heavily on perceptions of the girl’s behavior even though that’s seemingly not the issue. The issue, you might think, is purely whether a mother and father can be held responsible financially for a child who’s reached legal age. Watch the clip below and you’ll find the judge scolding her for being disrespectful to her parents, a reference to a witheringly profane voicemail message Rachel left for her mother awhile back. If she had been a perfect angel, ruthlessly booted from the house on her 18th birthday by her cheapskate parents, should the ruling have gone the other way?

Actually … yeah, probably:

Though Canning is 18 years old, New Jersey law does not consider a person to be emancipated unless that person has left “the scope of his or her parents’ authority,” according to [lawyer Stephanie Frangos] Hagan.

“A parent is not obligated to contribute to the support of an emancipated child,” said Hagan. “A child is emancipated when he or she is beyond the control of the parents. Is she truly beyond the scope of her parents’ authority, as a result of her own voluntary acts? That’s for the judge to decide.”…

“To be clear, my clients never abandoned nor abused their child and they have asked her to come home. They simply sought to exert their own parental judgment and reasonable household rules which she is not willing to accept,” [the parents' attorney, Laurie] Rush-Masuret said in court Tuesday.

If the issue is as simple as “is she of legal age or isn’t she?” then all the behavioral stuff is beside the point. Mom and dad have an absolute right to cut her off when she’s 18, whether she deserves tough love or not. But apparently it’s not as simple as that; be an angel and remain within your parents’ “control” and they’re still on the hook to support you. There … must be an age limit to that idea (I hope), but in this case it’s immaterial. That’s why the judge cares so much whether she’s been disrespectful or disobedient. The more rebellious she is, the stronger the parents’ argument that she’s effectively emancipated herself and is on the hook for her own tuition going forward. Long story short: If you want to mooch off mom and dad, be nice.

Tags: 18 year old, family, judge, New Jersey, rachel canning, support, tuition

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Judge strikes down Nebraska law through which the state approved the Keystone XL route

JudgestrikesdownNebraskalawthroughwhichthe

Breaking: Federal judge strikes down Chicago’s ban on handgun sales

Breaking:FederaljudgestrikesdownChicago’sbanon

Federal judge: The NSA’s phone metadata program is constitutional

Federaljudge:TheNSA’sphonemetadataprogramis

Denied:AnotherjudgesmacksdownObamaadministration’s“unwarranted,”

Denied: Another judge smacks down Obama administration’s “unwarranted,” “cavalier” use of executive privilege

posted at 12:01 pm on December 19, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Back in September, a federal judge ruled that, why no, the Justice Department cannot legitimately argue that the judiciary somehow has no place to — you know — adjudicate the Obama administration’s dispute with Congress over their executive-privilege pull in the ongoing Fast & Furious-related documents case, and indeed, that “dismissing the case without hearing it would in effect place the court’s finger on the scale, designating the executive as the victor based solely on his untested assertion that the privilege applies.” The Justice Department has yet to let go of their ridiculously power-trippy assertion on that one, but in the meantime, another federal judge has issued a similar indictment of the Most Transparent Administration, Evah‘s prevailing “we do what we want” attitude on a separate executive-privilege case.

The Justice Department has been arguing that a guidance memo issued to federal agencies in 2010 (something really mundane-sounding called the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development) was immune to a 2011 Freedom of Information Act request because it was circulated on a “need to know” basis and was therefore subject to executive communication privileges (even though it was never actually a classified document). The judge was notably unimpressed with that argument, however, and called out the administration’s “troubling” dodge of federal transparency requirements while pointing out that the documents in question didn’t even contain any “evidence that the [directive] was intended to be, or has been treated as, a confidential presidential communication.” The judge was not shy about taking jabs at the Obama administration’s penchant for undue secrecy, either, via Politico:

Acting on a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the Center for Effective Government, U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle concluded that the presidential order is not properly within the bounds of the so-called “presidential communications privilege.” The judge went further, calling “troubling” the sweeping nature of the government’s argument’s in the case.

“This is not a case involving ‘a quintessential and nondelegable Presidential power’ — such as appointment and removal of Executive Branch officials…where separation of powers concerns are at their highest. Instead, the development and enactment of foreign development policy can be and is “exercised or performed without the President’s direct involvement,” Huvelle wrote in her opinion (posted here.)

Huvelle noted that she ordered the document delivered to her under seal last month and said she disagreed with the government’s contention that the order is “‘revelatory of the President’s deliberations’ such that its public disclosure would undermine future decision-making.” She also found that “‘the President’s ability to communicate his [final] decisions privately’ … is not implicated, since the [order] was distributed far beyond the President’s close advisers and its substance was widely discussed by the President in the media.”

I’m really not sure what the administration’s logic was here, unless they once again just assumed they’d be able to get away with whatever the heck they felt like. As the judge put it, “the government appears to adopt the cavalier attitude that the President should be permitted to convey orders throughout the Executive Branch without public oversight… to engage in what is in effect governance by ‘secret law.’” Wouldn’t be the first time. Or the thousandth.

Tags: administration, Barack Obama, checks and balances, executive privilege, judge, judiciary

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Quotesoftheday postedat10:41

Quotes of the day

posted at 10:41 pm on December 9, 2013 by Allahpundit

A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday.

The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple “because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage.”

The order says the cake-maker must “cease and desist from discriminating” against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes…

“At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses,” Judge Spencer said in his written order. “This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”

***

According to the complaint, Phillips told the couple that the store policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods for a same-sex wedding, based on his religious beliefs.

Phillips told the men, “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.”…

Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, told The Associated Press that the judge’s decision was “reprehensible” and “antithetical to everything America stands for.”

“He can’t violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck,” Martin said. “If Jack can’t make wedding cakes, he can’t continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system.”

***

In July of 2012 my son and his fiancé invited me to join them at a bakery for a cake tasting and to discuss a design that was recommended by their event planner. What should have been a fun and special moment turned into a day I will never forget. The three of us walked into Masterpiece Cakeshop, and a man at the counter motioned for us to sit at a small table and then joined us. When the man asked whose wedding this was for, and my son said “it is for our wedding,” the man said that he does not make cakes for same- sex couples’ weddings or commitment ceremonies. When my son said “really?” the man tried to justify his stance by saying he will make birthday cakes or other occasion cakes for gays, just not a wedding cake.

I just sat there in disbelief. All of the levity that we felt on the drive to the bakery was gone. As I left that bakery, my heart was breaking for my son and his fiancé. What should have been a joyous occasion had turned into a humiliating occasion…

The decision that Judge Spencer made has renewed my hope that no other couple in Colorado will face discrimination by a business owner based on their sexual orientation. It was never about the cake. It was about my son being treated like a lesser person.

***

There will be no accommodation between gay rights activists and those seeking religious freedom to opt out of the gay rights movement. Gay rights activists demand tolerance for their lifestyle, but will not tolerate those who choose to adhere to their religious beliefs.

Increasingly, courts around the country are siding with the gay rights movement against those relying on the first freedoms of the country. While many would prefer to sit this out, they will be made to care.

Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominate and then it seeks to silence good. We are more and more rapidly arriving at a point in this country where Christians are being forced from the public square unless they abandon the tenets of their faith. In our secular society, Christianity is something you do on a Sunday and who you sleep with defines you.

For Christians defined by their faith, this paradigm of being defined by your sexual preference instead of your faith is deeply troublesome and will see more and more of these stories crop up.

***

But Judge Spencer shot down the constitutional arguments, noting that the Supreme Court has “repeatedly found” that those engaged in commercial activity are subject to state discrimination laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. “Conceptually, [Mr. Phillips's] refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage,” wrote Judge Spencer…

Wedding professionals in at least six states have run headlong into state antidiscrimination laws after refusing for religious reasons to bake cakes, arrange flowers or perform other services for same-sex couples.

The issue gained attention in August, when the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that an Albuquerque photography business violated state antidiscrimination laws after its owners declined to snap photos of a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony.

***

“If the service or the product is expressive, if it sends a message, and the government says you have to make it, create it, and carry it for someone else, that is forced speech,” Ms. Martin told KNUS-AM talk-show host Peter Boyles.

Ms. Martin also warned that “this is just the first step.”

“If they can make Jack speak someone else’s message when they want it spoken and where they want it spoken, that is a government that we should all fear,” she said…

“It’s about the government telling you what you’re supposed to feel and believe. It doesn’t have anything to do with gay or straight,” said Mr. Boyles on Thursday’s program. “This is about this man’s right to say no, and what comes from that. This is what political correctness, authoritarianism is all about.”

***

Tags: bakery, Colorado, discrimination, First Amendment, gay, judge, marriage, religion, same sex, wedding

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

SupremeCourttodecideonMichiganaffirmativeaction

Supreme Court to decide on Michigan affirmative action fight — again

posted at 1:41 pm on October 14, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Back in the 2003 case of Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 vote that the University of Michigan Law School could indeed grant admissions preferences to minority applicants in the interests of fostering diversity on campus — but then in 2006, 58 percent of Michigan voters supported a ballot initiative that amended the state’s constitution and thereby prohibited Michigan’s public-education institutions from providing preferential treatment to anyone on the basis of race of ethnicity.

The issue that will hit the Supreme Court this week in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, then, is whether or not state voters are allowed to effectively ban affirmative action from public-school admissions. In March 2012, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals just barely decided that the contested “Proposal 2″ is unconstitutional, arguing that the measure forbids minorities from seeking admissions preferences but allows others, such as alumni/donors/athletes, to request favored treatment from state universities — which the judges supposed is in and of itself a form of racial discrimination. SCOTUS is now taking on the challenge to that decision, via the WSJ:

Michigan’s attorney general, Bill Schuette, scoffs at that finding. “In Michigan, the only thing we’re discriminating against is discrimination. Period,” Mr. Schuette, a Republican, said last week. While racial diversity remains a worthwhile aspiration for public universities, “we’re saying we want to achieve this goal by constitutional means, not by any means necessary,” he said.

That remark was aimed at a group that challenged Proposal 2 within hours of its adoption: the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary. The Detroit-based group, which takes its name from a phrase popularized by Malcolm X, the slain 1960s activist, describes Proposal 2 in court papers as a “legal sword” that champions of “white privilege” can “wield whenever and wherever a university admits what the opponents believe are too many minority students.”

“We don’t believe in the colorblind Constitution,” the coalition’s attorney, George B. Washington, said in an interview. “We’re making what we think is a straightforward defense of the rights of black and Latino young people” to seek admissions preferences from university officials—something now prohibited in Michigan unless Proposal 2 were repealed.

Mr. Washington’s group has not always seen eye-to-eye with mainstream civil-rights organizations. The American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a separate challenge to Proposal 2, and on Tuesday the argument against the initiative will be divided between Mr. Washington and a veteran ACLU attorney, Mark Rosenbaum.

Seven states (California, Florida, Arizona, Washington, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire) have similar bans on affirmative action, so the justices’ decision could have implications for their own admissions practices. Justice Kagan recused herself, meaning that the decision will fall on the remaining eight justices and that Kennedy is probably the man to watch, via SCOTUSblog:

When the Justices convene on Tuesday for the oral argument, Justice Elena Kagan will not participate, presumably because she was involved in the case in some way when she served as the Solicitor General of the United States.  (She also did not participate in the Fisher case, for the same reason.)  Kagan’s recusal means that, if the Court were to divide four to four, the lower court’s decision would stand, although it wouldn’t apply to the rest of the country.  But the Court’s five most conservative Justices will cast votes in the case.  Because they have previously advocated for using race less in the government’s decisions, it is hard to see where the opponents can find enough votes in their favor.  And if the ban survives, more states could follow suit, rendering the Court’s discussion of when the Constitution permits universities to choose to use affirmative action moot in those states.

Tags: affirmative action, diversity, education, judge, Supreme Court, universities

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair