Criminalizing Motherhood?: Who’s to Judge
October 22, 2008
By Kathy McManus
Comments (53)
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 Share This
Comments
probation extraneous
If Judge Charles Bair will suspend Salazar prison sentence then why put her on 10 years probation. The father who deserved the criminal charges has received the sentence. So “what business has the lion head in the hand of an eagle”? Why should the poor innocent woman share her heartless husband’s punishment?
Child abuse is a strong law that can not be overlooked, yes I agree. but in this situation, to what degree of protection was the judge expecting Salazar to have protected her baby? I believe that before the police get this information it was this same hurting mother who dials 911?
If a man can beat up a 19 months old baby till he broke her bone, has the law considered what could have happened if Salazar could have being a good mother as supposed, to protect her daughter from this kind of person? She may have been a dead person; or don’t you think so? This is not what I think the law called child abuse is, it is what I will call “a weep for strength”. Child abuse will be if she was watching TV while her sweet heart feed his evil heart on the baby’s helpless body.
I like the fact though that the judge suspended the prison sentence, but substituting it with probation is where I have a problem. The woman is not linked to her husband’s insanity therefore, she is not a dangerous mother, so let her live as she normally used to live. Because she has not yet found her soul mate—the right man who and her will live happily and raise their kids together does make her deserve 10 years of unhappy sexual relationship.
Austine Kar | 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Trust
While I don’t think that someone should be prohibited from having children, I do think that if a parent has a history of being a bad parent, any child they have should be taken from them until they can prove they are good parents.
Also, I believed that we should offer better birth control options because birth control can prevent abortions, child abuse, and unburden the child protection services.
George Murnane | 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
She is just as guilty
In this article it stated that she did not seek medical treatment for her baby who had broken bones and other injuries. How long did her baby suffer before she decided to get her help? Her responsibility and duty as a mother is to protect her child. I stood up to my abusive ex-husband and suffered terribly in order to protect my toddler son. I was only a year older than the woman in this case. There is no excuse for her neglect. By ignoring the problem and allowing him to abuse this baby, she is just as guilty. I looked this story up further and it states that she and the father gave up parental rights so this baby is free from their abuse now. I don’t think that probation of any kind is strong enough punishment for this woman. She doesn’t ever need to have children. She and her lawyer did not object to the judge’s ruling. That makes me think that she doesn’t want kids anyway. So, this won’t be much of a punishment for her in the first place.
Jenn | 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Tough Call
By not protecting her baby and not immediately obtaining medical assistance, she was acting as an accomplice but prisons are full and incarceration is expensive.
But imposing the condition that someone not have children for ten years without imposing a preventive means is merely presenting a “paper tiger” sentence.
Mandatory insertion of an IUD would not interfere with her “fundamental right” to have children since it could be removed after ten years.
Cecily | 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
I want to ask a few questions.
Should licensing be required before allowing people to become parents? Think about it, how many children would be saved from pain and worse if people were required to obtain a license to become parents?
Everyone has the right to own vehicles, but you may only operate them if you have a license. Everyone has the right (duty?) to provide first aid, but only those licensed may practice medicine. Yes, what does one have to do with the other, consider what the roads would be like if no one were required to prove they were capable of operating a motor vehicle? What would medicine be without licensed doctors?
Now, what would the lives of children be like if people were required to be licensed to have children?
Vix | 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Tricky!
Could a comprehensive sex education, age appropriate, help irresponsible people attempt to prevent pregnancies?
Why do we have an arbitrary way of enforcing justice? Sometimes good parents go to jail because their child was truant from school. Yet, we don’t always put known narcotic users or people who abuse their spouse or children in jail. Sometimes rich people get off light on a sentence (Libby, Enron) for a crime some other state might punish a poor, disadvantaged person with a sledge hammer. No law is ever interpreted fairly across the board and that scares me.
Instead of creating some law that would possibly make things worse, could we create an initiative, that is actually funded, to make community centers (or use town halls/schools) that offer free parenting classes on a variety of topics. If you seem at-risk, come from a family of abuse, criminal activity, drugs, and are under 25, then these classes are mandatory. And an incentive to go would either be cash (part of the initiative) or needed household items. Yes, bribe them for the safety of the children and our country.
Just some thoughts. What do you think?
Aitch | 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Tricky for sure
I do think an age-appropriate “life education” curriculum beginning perhaps in pre-school and continuing through high school would save money in the long run. This might include various topics—again as age-appropriate, including sex education, self worth, the need to graduate from high school (or higher), the eventual need to support yourself, staying drug and alcohol free, and so forth.
Portions of this curriculum could even be incorporated in other courses.
If this approach was successful, lives of more than one generation could be saved, and tax money would be saved also.
Cecily | 11 months, 1 week ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Wow.
I agree that this one is tricky. Parents, adults, and nurses, doctors – all have the legal responsibility to help children that are being abused and may need medical attention. Do these laws work perfectly? Obviously, no. I don’t think that this problem has an easy answer. ANY responsible adult, parent or otherwise, who is taking care of a child-should get medical attention for children who are being abused period. Yes, if it means a child is taken away, so be it. That parent should prove they are a fit parent.
Bottom line, children are helpless, and there is no excuse for a mother knowing their child was abused by a partner or anyone else, and waiting to get medical attention for that child. That is a criminally negligent act which is punishable by law.
celeste | 11 months, 1 week ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
I agree and disagree. Yes she deserves punishment because no matter how scared she was of him she could have either tried to stop it or she could have at least taken her to the ER to have her checked just in case something was wrong. Just because she had broken bones doesn’t mean that the mother necessarily knew they were broken. She should have taken her to have her checked out, I know I would have. The only part I disagree with is that she didn’t actually abuse the kid, he did. Yes he is in prison for 15 years but yet when he gets out he can have more. I think they should have fixed him so he couldn’t. That is just wrong in 15 years he can have more but she has to wait 10, and if she wants to, may have problems because of age. They should have put her through parenting classes and such and not let her have one until she could prove that she is a good mother.
Anna | 11 months, 1 week ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Agree
I agree with Anna.
Cecily | 11 months, 1 week ago
responsibilityproject.com |
