Here is a court decision that I do not care for. This took place in Madison, Wisconsin, and
the State Supreme Court in Wisconsin ruled that a father of nine could not have
any more children unless and until he proved to the Court’s satisfaction that
he could support the previous nine children along with the new child.
This matter began in the Manitowoc County Circuit
Court in Wisconsin where one David Oakley was sentenced to three years in
prison for failing to pay $25,000.00 in child support. That’s fine, I have no problem with that.
Mr. Oakley was also convicted of two other counts of
failing to pay child support, and was given an eight-year suspended prison
sentence. In lieu of the prison
sentence, Mr. Oakley was placed on five years probation; one of the terms
and conditions being that he father no more children. Mr. Oakley did not agree to this as a condition of
probation. It was imposed on him.
If David Oakley fathers another child and cannot
support that child, he can once again be prosecuted for failing to pay child
support, and can be given a significant prison sentence. In other words, there is a remedy available
to the justice system if Mr. Oakley continues to break the law. I would suggest that a new prosecution would
be far more appropriate than banning an individual from having children until
he proves he can pay for that child.
I understand what the Court wishes to accomplish; I
just don’t think the Court is going about it in the right way. Is Mr. Oakley supposed to avoid sexual
encounters? What if he were to engage
in a sexual encounter, and the protection did not work? What if that led to Mr. Oakley impregnating
a woman; wouldn’t there then be a great deal of pressure put on the
mother-to-be by Mr. Oakley to terminate the pregnancy? I cannot imagine that those who are
“pro-life” would favor this decision.
Under this ruling, it is apparently not OK if Mr.
Oakley fathers a child and the mother gives the child up at birth. This once again would lead Mr. Oakley and
his female friend to strongly consider abortion. I can also imagine a scenario in which the impregnated woman
could use the fact that she was impregnated by Mr. Oakley as a way of
blackmailing him to get him to do certain things for her under threat of her
telling the court she is about to become a mother and that Mr. Oakley is the
father.
In a nutshell, I think this decision is fraught with peril. It appears clear that Mr. Oakley is not exactly a
responsible individual, and the three-year prison term sounds appropriate. My recommendation, however, would be that if
Mr. Oakley breaks the law again, he be prosecuted as a repeat offender, and if
convicted, sentenced appropriately rather than have the Wisconsin State Supreme
Court ban him from further fatherhood.
Charlie Unger is a criminal defense attorney in the Glendale
law firm of Flanagan, Unger, Danis & Grover, and a psychotherapist at the
Foothill Centre for Personal and Family Development. Mr. Unger writes a bimonthly column on legal and psychological
issues. He can be reached at charlie@charlieunger.com.