Reproductive Freedom

Ohio Court Orders Man To Stop Reproducing


An Ohio appeals court this week upheld a ruling prohibiting a man from reproducing until he pays $100,000 in child support for his already-existing offspring.

The Chronicle-Telegram reports:

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 [Asim] 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."

In 2013 Lorain County Probate Judge James Walther ordered Taylor to stop making babies or else face prison time. Walther seems pleased with the high court's ruling, because the "appeals decision gives him the authority to impose similar restrictions on other defendants in similar cases," according to the Chronicle-Telegram, though "he said he would have liked to have seen a more detailed analysis of the legality."

Taylor's attorney, Doug Merrill, filed an appeal contending that Walther's condition that Taylor not reproduce is "overbroad" and that it violates his due process and equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and right to privacy under the Ninth Amendment.

When Walther first made the decision, Merrill suggested that "the court is now stepping into [Taylor's] bedroom" and essentially preventing him from having sex, a punishment that is unrelated to Taylor's crime of not paying child support.

Taylor plans on taking his case to the Ohio Supreme Court, which has previously struck down similar orders against reproduction. 

NEXT: 11 Cringe-Inducing Moments From Noir, the NRA's Hip New Web Series for Millennials

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Isn’t that Upgrayedd?

    1. “A pimp’s love is a very special kind of love.”

      1. It’s true it’s not like a square’s love.


  2. Um, I realize this is a quaint and old-fashioned notion but: constitutionality?

    1. You are forgetting the all-powerful “FYTW” clause. The one written in invisible ink that only judges can see with their special glasses.

    2. De facto sterilization by imprisonment can’t be unconstitutional.

      1. As long as Buck v. Bell still stands, the state has the authority to control the reproductive choices of those “society” deems unfit to have children. In fact, it seems that the judge could have ordered that he undergo some form of sterilization procedure instead of putting his cock on the honor system, so the guy should consider himself fortunate to have gotten off as easily as he has.

        1. For the record, I’m not arguing that the Judge’s decision was correct, merely that it is not in conflict with existing precedent.

          1. Buck v Bell. Fuck n Hell.

        2. “My name’s Buck, and I like to…”

      2. De facto sterilization by imprisonment…

        That’s a little overwrought, Brett. He’s not being sterilized, he’s merely being denied access to women (other than corrections officers). Actual sterilization is irreversible or requires surgery to reverse. In that sense you could claim that every unmarried prisoner was defacto sterilized.

  3. RISUG time!

    I’d certainly pay into a SnipStarter campaign for this guy, but I don’t think this should be mandated, just strongly encouraged by his peer group.

    Four kids you aren’t providing for is enough, broski.

    1. Oh hell yes. They better have this in the US in about five years when I’m done making babies for a while.

      1. Personally, I prefer my sterility to be transient and steroid-induced.

    2. But here’s the thing: RISUG is not the product of some global pharmaceutical company or state-of-the-art government-funded research lab. It’s the brainchild of a maverick Indian scientist named Sujoy Guha, who has spent more than 30 years refining the idea while battling bureaucrats in his own country and skeptics worldwide.


    3. Risug sounds like it could be the end of teen pregnancies and birth out of the single parent economic problem.

  4. What’s the libertarian position on state-mandated child support? When is it appropriate? In what amount?

    1. It’s way too high currently. If it were severely cut down to a reasonable amount, then it would stop women from marrying guys just to get more children, then divorcing to look for their next target.

      And don’t tell me this doesn’t happen. I once worked with a woman that after having her 4th child by a different guy in less than 6 years, quit work and lived off the child support. And she was bragging that this was exactly her goal. I am sure she can’t be the only one.

      1. And if they live to adulthood they’ll perpetuate the cycle. Responsible people don’t have more children than they can afford.

        1. I’ve also known couples who would have another kid and then brag about how they got a bigger tax subsidy and more welfare.

        2. I mostly agree, derpules, although there are situations where the family has adequate income and the income suddenly disappears, say your manufacturing job gets moved overseas.

          1. And I think that’s the type of situation that these programs were orginally intended for. But it’s a far cry from the welfare queen who’s having children for the sake of not having to get an actual job.

        3. Responsible people don’t have more children than they can afford.

          I’ve read that ~45% of the people walking around today weren’t “planned”. I think it would be better to say that responsible people do their best to have children they can afford, afford the children they have, and teach their kids to do the same.

      2. women from marrying guys just to get more children, then divorcing to look for their next target.

        This happened to my half-brother. Married some fat sack of shit who’s baby daddy was in prison and had a child out of wedlock with her. After she went hysterical and attacked him out of nowhere one afternoon, she called the cops and got a restraining order until the divorce was filed. This effectively made him unemployable in the laughably small town he lived in.
        So.. yeah. This shit happens quite often.

      3. Actually I think Child support amounts are highly variable.

        My oldest son’s (technically stepson but since I have raised him as my own since he was 2 and he’s 14 now I don’t use the term) sperm donor was only ever ordered to pay $150 a month in child support because he happened to be out of work at the time and has successfully managed to avoid getting served for the legally required review and the judge will not impose any changes in the amount without the father present and won’t issue a bench warrant for the deputies “failures” in serving him.

        Then on the flip side there are stories like yours. I think it comes down to biological parents of both genders who really want to can game the family courts to escape their responsibilities and make the other bio parent pay far more of the costs of raising the child than they should have to when they want to do so.

        Realistically right now it roughly costs somewhere between $8000 and $20000 a year to raise a child (depending on a whole bunch of factors) in the US, realistically that means that child support should never be less than $300 (8000/12/2 = $333)per month and never more than $850 (20000/12/2 = $833) a month no matter what.

        1. Realistically right now it roughly costs somewhere between $8000 and $20000 a year to raise a child (depending on a whole bunch of factors) in the US

          You forgot to mention the $10-15K/yr you steal from others to educate your child

    2. ^Yeah, this.

      1. (1:40 PM directed at Torontonian, though you do raise a good point, Hyper)

    3. Here’s the thing:

      The child support rules require one parent (the non-custodial parent) to contribute monetarily to the child, and in some cases will imprison that parent if they can’t or won’t comply.

      But there is no such burden on the custodial parent.

      The custodial parent can be sitting on her ass all day, earning and contributing no income, and relying entirely on government transfer payments.

      So one parent can be imprisoned for failing to earn money to contribute to the child’s upbringing, while the other parent suffers no consequence for ALSO failing to earn money to contribute to the child’s upbringing.

      I fail to see how this is fair.

      Similarly, if the parents are married, and the father is jobless and does not contribute financially, that’s totally OK. But it’s a jailable offense as soon as the parents AREN’T married. How can that be? If the child is ABSOLUTELY OWED a certain amount of money from its father, how can the marriage status of the parents have any impact on that?

      1. It’s not necessarily jailable, and custody MAY not go to the mother. If he’s a full-time stay-at-home father, he could be awarded custody of the children. If she works full-time, she might have to pay him spousal support/alimony and child support.

        1. The only way the father gets awarded custody is if the mother doesn’t want it, is a convicted serial child molester, or maybe has an addiction problem (and that last one is highly variable)

        2. The pronouns don’t matter, really.

          And the difference between civil and criminal liability also doesn’t matter that much.

          I’m more concerned about the way that a parental requirement to earn money to contribute to a child (and that’s the way the law is justified; the money is the child’s, and the custodial parent just spends it on their behalf) springs into existence, or not, based on different circumstances.

          1. I could be wrong but I am pretty sure that if I am living apart from my wife and kids, my wife can go to court and demand support. I don’t think being married totally gets you off the hook.

            Living in the same house and being married however does. There are a million sob stories from almost always fathers about dead beat ex wives driving them into poverty with child support while spending said child support on drugs or various deadbeat boyfriends leaving the children to go without. It is a fucking crime.

            I would eliminate the entire concept of child support. I would have one rule, one of the parents have to give the children a roof over their heads and if neither one does they both go to jail for neglect. Beyond that, if you marry and or have kids with a dead beat and are stuck raising the kids on your own, it sucks to be you. The state should not be in the business of throwing people in jail for debts.

    4. Well, it really depends on the situation. I do think parents should be financially responsible for their children. In some cases it is too much. In other cases, maybe not enough (especially if the mother is the non-custodial parent).

    5. I think that if a couple has children together and maintains a relationship, then the non-custodial parent has an obligation to continue to provide what he or she had been providing before.

      I’m a little less sure what should happen when the father is never really involved. Yes, everyone involved has some degree of responsibility. But I think that parental rights of some sort have to come with that responsibility.

      Mostly I think that people shouldn’t have kids if they can’t afford them. Birth control isn’t that hard to figure out.

      1. “Mostly I think that people shouldn’t have kids if they can’t afford them. Birth control isn’t that hard to figure out.”

        Most of the time it is not but that is not always true. My wife has gotten pregnant on just about every form of birth control known to man except the IUD which worked but turned her into a raging death monster (guys if your wife/SO is considering getting the Mirena IUD don’t let her, your lives could depend on it)

        1. Yeah, I actually know someone else who kept getting pregnant on birth control.

          I can’t remember what my wife’s IUD is called, but it is a wonderful thing.

    6. The mother is the one who decided to have the kid, so she should be the only one required by the state to support it.

      1. You make a fair point Nikki. As long as we have legal, abortion on demand, I don’t see how the mother doesn’t bear sole responsibility for the child. Yes, they both chose to have sex but only she chose not to get an abortion. That choice on the mother’s part seems to vitiate the man’s responsibility for the child. Unless you can show me that the man somehow prevented the mother from having an abortion or at least argued against her doing it and by implication agreed to the birth of the child, how is the man now responsible for the mother choosing to have the child?

        That logic, no matter how solid, will never hold sway because our entire legal system is built on the twin rocks of abortion and sticking it to men.

    7. I can see the obligation to support your spawn as being part of your personal responsibility. In principle, child support is OK.

      The current system? Aw, hells no.

      1. Part of the problem with the current culture (I hesitate to write it off as a “system” problem at this point) is the longer and longer infantilization of people. 26 for health insurance for example.

        And to think it used to be accepted that 13 year olds could strike out on their own just 200 years ago.

        A fucked up child support culture is one of the inevitable results of increased infantilization.

        In fact, the biggest supporters of “progressivism” are adults who have been infantilized for far too long. Adulthood and responsibility scares the shit out of them so they want government to do that icky stuff. I think the founders knew this which is why the vote (and the associated taxation) was so restricted. And of course now we have the worst possible result – a political culture that entrusts voting rights upon people who have never ever proven the slightest capability of personal responsibility.

  5. We know who to look at every time Maury tells some dipshit, “You are NOT the father.”

  6. You see, this is why we can’t govern. We just need to elect a Democrat majority now, so they can get down the work on repealing that entire pesky constitution thing. Although, stopping guys like this from breeding is going to eventually decimate their voter base.

    1. “Although, stopping guys like this from breeding is going to eventually decimate their voter base.”

      Which is precisely why I would entertain the idea of subsidized abortion.

      1. State-subsidized or privately subsidized?

  7. Why not cut his nuts off? Sterilization sounds like rewarding him.

  8. In 2013 Lorain County Probate Judge James Walther ordered Taylor to stop making babies or else face prison time.

    So if he doesn’t comply the taxpayers are on the hook for his room and board and for welfare payments to make up for whatever minimal child support he might have paid.

  9. So.. what happens when he actually does reproduce again?

    What’s the court going to do about it, arrest him or subpoena the mother, a coat hangar, and a bottle of drano?

    1. I don’t see why the court can’t order every woman in the world to not have sex with him. Wouldn’t that be more effective?

      1. But every woman has the right to choose. YOU CAN’T CONTROL MY BODY! PATRIARCHY!!!!

  10. I’m impressed that this guy has found zero women that won’t have sex without a condom. And gets them on the like, two days a month they’re ovulating.

    1. You assume that they don’t want to become pregnant. See baby farming comments above. I know that this level of irresponsibility is alien to most of the people here. But this is what it comes down to, other people want to steal our money to support the bad decisions of people like this jerk and his baby-mommas.

  11. Thing is, folks, what we have here once again, is called a slippery slope. The next thing could be a China type one child policy.

    I know if I were still young and my children weren’t all grown and out of the house now, I wouldn’t have a child and bring it into this world for any reason whatsoever. I would just immediately sterilize myself before I ever had sex with anyone.

    You don’t own your children in today’s Murika, the state owns them. So having them is just asking for trouble.

  12. And the women with whom such guys “reproduce”, do they share any financial responsibility?

    No, because: Patriarchy.

    1. Clearly, these woman thought they hit the jackpot when they met this guy.

      However, I read the linked article and we’re talking four children. Four. 4.

      I was really expecting one of those eyepopping numbers like, 17, or 25 or something. It’s four. I’m not even sure if the article specified with the same woman. So, four children.

    2. Of course they do. They’re responsible for spending all the child support they can get, on things totally unrelated to the child.

      1. Bitch set me up!

    3. And the women with whom such guys “reproduce”, do they share any financial responsibility?

      No, because: Patriarchy.


  13. OT: Bad-ass cat saves boy from dog attack.

    1. That was kind of scary. What the fuck was up with that dog? It literally sees the kid, stops, makes a calculated flank around the car and IMMEDIATELY violently attacks him. There was no slow escalation or buildup. It was almost like he was hunting.

      The kid was really small, I’m wondering if the dog was literally confused and thought the kid was some invasive animal.

      1. I’m wondering if the dog was literally confused and thought the kid was some invasive animal.

        Highly unlikely. Dogs rely heavily on smell, more so than they do sight for most things. They can distinguish other species by smell.

        While the overwhelmingly vast majority of non-abused, non-rabid dogs will not attack humans, this is that rare problem dog which society should have no qualms about putting down. Or rabid, which also wins you the put-down.

    2. Kill the dog, give the cat a lifetime supply of mice.

      1. Or ground up dog.

  14. We can control male reproduction, but control over female reproduction is unconstitutional.

  15. So they’ll prohibit this Ohio guy from reproducing but not Warty? Where’s the justice in that?

    1. And you think Ohio, much less the entire United States has enough forces at its disposal to stop Warty from raproducing?

  16. There is no way that one person has the right to force another to not reproduce. Not even sure it’s a feasible idea in practice.

    Jailtime obviously prohibits that – unless they still do “conjugal visits” – but that is a necessary side-effect, not the main point. someone has to do something to go to jail, and this is not it. Unless we’re back to debtor’s prisons.

    F those other judges on the appeals court for upholding, they essentially said “we don’t have nearly enough info on this case, but will go ahead and affirm a on-its-face ridiculous and unconstitutional decision, just because a judge did it so we are sure she must have been right”. F the idea of precedent, and F the idea that a sentence like this is assumed to be appropriate.

    1. Unless we’re back to debtor’s prisons.

      We are, although they will claim the prison time is for contempt for not following the court’s orders to pay up.

    2. What’s up with the “we don’t have enough information” excuse anyway? If they want to read the pre-sentence report, why not get a copy and read it? If it’s unavailable, they should vacate the ruling merely from lack of evidence against the guy.

    3. Yes, they still do conjugal visits, no scare quotes needed. Those are based upon the right of the non-incarcerated spouse to maintain his/her conjugal rights.

      As fascinating as is your idea to ignore precedent, that’s an astoundingly bad idea. Think about that for a while.

    4. There is no way that one person has the right to force another to support their kids.


  17. Unless he is raping women, perhaps the judge should order women to stop spreading their legs for him? That makes as much sense doesn’t it?

    Funny how reproduction is all about the “woman’s choice” right up until there is a live child. Then it is entirely the man’s fault the child exists and the mother bears no responsibility for choosing to screw a deadbeat and get herself pregnant.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.