U.S.

Court To Dad: No More Kids

By Abel Riojas

July 11, 2001 / 11:43 AM EDT / CBS

Wisconsin's state Supreme Court, splitting along gender lines, ruled Tuesday that a man who owes $25,000 in child support can be ordered not to father any more children while he's on probation.

In 1999, David Oakley, the 34-year-old father of nine, was placed on probation for five years by a county circuit judge and ordered not to father more children, unless he showed means to support them all. He faced eight years in jail if he failed to comply.

"I think what people should understand is individuals need to support their children," said Manitowoc County District Attorney Jim Fitrzgerald.

The court, four men and three women, divided cleanly along gender lines, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Axelrod. The all-male majority called Oakley "completely irresponsible" to a point that "any child he fathers in the future is doomed to a future of neglect, abuse, or worse."

"Here is a man who has shown himself time and again to be totally and completely irresponsible," wrote Justice William Bablitch for the majority. "It is overwhelmingly obvious that any child he fathers in the future is doomed to a future of neglect, abuse, or worse."

The three female justices disagreed, saying that having children is a basic human right guaranteed by the Constitution.

"We feel this is the case that's going to provide another tool for prosecutors to make sure that people fulfill their legal obligations to support their children as well as their moral obligations," said Fitzgerald.

Read The Decision

Click here to read the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling barring David Oakley, a deadbeat dad, from having any more children for five years unless he changes his ways.

The high court is the first in the nation to declare such a ban legal, even though it would be difficult to enforce and could end up coercing women into having abortions, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote.

"It places the woman in an untenable position: have an abortion or be responsible for Oakley going to prison for eight years," Bradley wrote.

Oakley has nine children by four women - sons ages 4, 5, 10 and 12, and daughters ages 3, 12, 16 and two who are 13. In his appeal, he argued the ban violated his constitutional right; a federal appeals court ruled against him earlier.

Law professor Richard Rilds says these justices have now given the nation a momentous case to test profound issues.

"At some point, the courts have recognized a line where rights can't be denied even for those who've been convicted of crimes when they are on probation."

Prosecutor Thomas Balistreri said the ruling applies only to people like Oakley who refuse to pay child support, not to those who cannot pay.

"It's not a crime to be unable to afford to pay child support," he said.

Oakley's lawyer, Timothy Kay, said in a statement the decision could open a "Pandora's Box" if it is expanded to other child support cases. Kay is considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Julie Sternberg, of the American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project, agreed that the decision could set a precedent in Wisconsin and subvert the rights of fathers who cannot pay child support.

"No matter how insupportable this defendant may or may not be, to require that he not have children as a condition of his sentence is clearly a violation of the Constitution," she said.

In its decision, the high court noted that Oakley would have been unable to have children anyway if he had received a longer prison term instead of probation.