Coming up on "Need to Know", a family court decision in Monroe
county has stirred nationwide debate.-
Can the government tell a person not to have a child?-
We will look at this issue and have our weekly business section
with Ellen Rosen of the Democrat and chronicle.-
Stay right here for "Need to Know."-
-
>> I think the judge was right.-
That is fair.-
Why are you going to continue to have sex and have kids if you
can't take care of them to pawn them off on the government?-
-
[Captioning Made Possible by the U.S. Department of Education]-
(For "Need to Know")-
-
>> Thanks for joining us.-
I'm mike Bibby.-
The generosity and Al Qaedaness of society has been abused
enough.-
The respondent's existing children have been neglected enough.-
And this court will do what it can in this particular case to
end the pattern of behavior.-
These words and one of the more provocative decisions in recent
memory by judge Marilyn Hoffman O'Connor in March and made
public this month.-
The case dealt with the neglect of baby identified as Bobbijean
P.-
O'Connor recounted a history of drug abuse by her parents.-
The explosive part of the ruling she ordered that the mother
and father not conceive any children until Bobbijean and her
siblings were out of foster care.-
The ruling startled the legal community.-
Sieve libertarians and those charged with protecting the
welfare of children.-
Among the key elements of the O'Connor decision was the
argument that there is no essential right to conceive a child
but to conceive and then raise a child.-
As part of the 13-page ruling O'Connor doesn't order any
particular type of birth control method for the parents.-
But her decision does suggest that a Monroe county Health and
Human Services department program pay for any family planning
counseling and services they may need to adhere to the order.-
O'Connor's ruling made headlines around the nation but the case
of Bobbijean P. is not unusual in the world of family court.-
"Need to Know's" Julie Philipp explains the background looking
at the backlogged family court system and the perspective of
those that have been in it.-
-
>> Regular civil cases entail generally issues related to
property or money.-
In family court the issues relate to people's lives.-
Family court is not a place that people think of when they
think of being a lawyer and it is a place that many lawyers
avoid.-
-
>> But Rochester attorney Jim Hinman has been practicing in
family court for almost 25 years.-
-
>> There's no question that most people who come to family
court see things that they would like to pretend do not exist
in society and they would like to just sweep it under the
Republican.-
Cases of children who are severely abused by their parents.-
Young people who are carrying guns at age 13 and knives because
they think they have to in order to defend themselves on the
street.-
The indication of a mother prostituting her six and
seven-year-old children to get money for drugs.-
The drug abuse and misuse is becoming increasingly problematic
for families and children this Monroe county.-
-
>> Case in point a woman identified in documents as Stephanie
P. and a man identified by the Rochester democratic chronicle
as Rodney evers Sr., two drug addicted parents who continue to
have children only to turn them over to foster care.-
-
>> It was here two weeks ago that judge O'Connor ordered the
couple not to have any more babies and while the sentence is
unique the case is far from it.-
-
>> My parents they didn't care.-
Drugs, alcohol, whatever it took to have fun.-
They kept popping out kids.-
Nobody stopped they will.-
All of us started out in the system.-
A local judge took Terry Konzel away from his parents.-
-
>> I had an older brother and two younger brothers.-
The adoption agency knew about and a year or so later we found
out we had a sister and then another year after that there was
another brother.-
-
>> 24-year-old Konzel runs a hot dog stand.-
He really doesn't know how many siblings he has.-
And he hasn't seen his biological parents since he was four.-
Plus he remembers.-
-
>> There were times we didn't eat, dirty clothes.-
It didn't matter.-
My dad beat me up all the time.-
I wasn't big enough to do anything about it.-
There was always drugs and alcohol.-
I got started -- I got scars on my body today that I remember.-
And I can get into the details but nobody wants to hear that.-
-
>> Torri Cowens' mother was addicted to drugs, too.-
Now a young mother of four herself she has struggled to turn
her life around spending time in family court and getting help
from a number of social service agencies.-
This week she graduated from the suny Rochester economic
opportunity center.-
-
>> I have seen a lot of women who struggled, who struggled to
overcome trying to move on and other women who didn't, it
didn't help.-
-
>> For every success story we have in family court we have
stories that are not as successful.-
Some of them end tragically.-
-
>> You become frustrated and discouraged.-
But the day I lose hope is the day I will probably stop
practicing.-
Because family court is court of hope.-
Every new case presents a new opportunity.-
A new opportunity to make a difference in someone's life.-
-
>> In the interest of full disclosure Jim Jill ran against
judge O'Connor for the family court job and judge O'Connor said
she could not be part of the program because she is still
dealing in the matter in a number of ways.-
With us now to talk more specifically about judge O'Connor's
rule are Joyce Parker partner for the family law practice at
Harris beach and serves on the board of children awaiting
parents.-
Barbara DeLeeuw executive director for the American civil
liberties union of Rochester and Genesee valley and Chris
Affronti attorney and chairman of the family law section of the
Monroe county bar seekers.-
I would like to begin the conversation by reintroducing someone
we interviewed, Terry Konzel.-
He said that as a child he had been in the foster care system.-
Here is what he said about the O'Connor ruling.-
-
>> I think the judge was right.-
That is fair.-
Why are you going to continue to have sex, continue to have
kids and you cannot take care of them to pawn them off on the
government?-
I mean, one way or the other they are going to be taken or you
are going to give them up.-
Why do it?-
Because it feels good?-
Not worth it.-
-
>> Mrs. DeLeeuw, I want you to respond to his comments.-
Is this ruling a way to protect children from being neglected?-
-
>> I would take issue with the way it was handed down but I
would agree that people need it take care of their children.-
The question for subcommittee whether it should be the right of
the courts to take away furnishedal privacy rights.-
-
>> What I want to get at if I can, Mrs. Parker is this a
clear-cut violation of privacy?-
Is it?-
-
>> Well, at first I thought it was.-
That it was blatantly unconstitutional and as much as people
might admire it it would be overturned immediately.-
But the more I looked at it the more I thought this could be
upheld.-
There are cases that involve conditions of prebase for lack of
paying child support in Wisconsin and in Ohio that actually
support this precedent including one where the U.S. Supreme
Court didn't take cert -
[-
>> So it could be upheld.-
So if it can be upheld where toss it go?-
Clearly there are plenty of people who think this has gone too
far.-
It is beyond what we should be doing in the courts.-
Where would it go?-
Would it stay in place?-
-
>> I think it can definitely stay in place.-
It will be, in this case the court decided the best way to
protect any ear children that the family will have by prevent
being the parents from having further children.-
-
>> If it stays in place does that mean it a mechanism for all
future judges to use?-
Is this the thing other judges will use?-
-
>> It is certainly a mechanism and what judge O'Connor did is
cited a provision of the social services law that requires
E.S.S. to provide family planning services for parties.-
And if is a section that has not been cited, only considered on
two prior occasions.-
You can look at this as being a logical extension, saying not
only to the department provide family planning advice but on
top of that as part of that these parents should not have any
other children until their children they have are returned to
them or adopted.-
-
>> What is the aclu's reaction that it is going to be in
place?-
-
>> I would take exception to my colleagues and suggest it would
be jofrlede.-
I think the case history -- overruled.-
I think the case history has supported the right to privacy and
reproduction and I would say this would be to encourage and
support the family to make other decisions but not the right of
the court to do that.-
-
>> But in a legal sense what I'm hearing is it cannot be
overturned unless I'm wrong both parents in this case did not
come before the court.-
So there is no mechanism for appeal.-
I think I have that correct.-
-
>> That's possible.-
But when it goes to be enforced it may be challenged at that
point.-
I think that one of the things that is important about the
decision is this is a condition, called a disto position
order.-
And the primary way it will be enforced is the children won't
be returned to the family if they have further children that
they are trying to dope W. it is a plan of rehabilitation which
is a win-win situation for everybody.-
-
>> But I would suggest in judge O'Connor's ruling she didn't
cite the care of the children.-
What she cited was the cost to the state, how much it costs to
have a child in foster care.-
There's a great detail about that with numbers cited.-
I would like to take the conversation a step higher around say
what happens in the family that the working family that is
paying taxes but have disabled kids that require a lot of state
money to educate.-
Would we say they should not have a child because the cost to
the state is so great?-
-
>> In all honesty I have asked people what do they think of the
case.-
A lot of people say way to go.-
We shouldn't be spending more money.-
They take it from that point of view of we put enough in the
system.-
This woman, in this case, hasn't learned her lesson.-
Why should we continue to pay.-
-
>> I think we are on a slippery slope and if we use the analogy
of working family paying taxes and have children that require a
lot of state intervention much more than they are paying in
taxes, would the judge rule they should not have children?-
-
>> I think under these circumstances absolutely.-
These parties were given army opportunity.-
They have had they children in foster care.-
They have had had certain recommendations made to be in drug
treatment programs and declined, they have had a chance to
visit with the child and declined.-
Under these set of circumstances, the court has said these
parties should not be parents any more until they can parent
the children they have.-
-
>> Mr. Affronti I want to get more specifically at enforcing
this ruling and enforcement of it.-
The way I understand, the only thing that can be done is
holding the mother in contempt or the father in contempt and
jailing them.-
What happens then?-
Now we have -- let's say the mother is pregnant and defies the
order and ruling.-
Now she is in jail and pregnant.-
-
>> That will be the interesting issue.-
That is -- there's been a lot of discussion I have had with
other attorneys about how that will happen because there was a
recent article in the Democrat and chronicle that indicated the
mother was in fact pregnant again and it is important to keep
in mind this came down March 31 although it hit the books in
the last two weeks or so. so this decision is about a month and
a half old at this point in time.-
The order had to get served on the parties and at that point in
time the order becomes effective upon them.-
So, you would have to prove this was a violation subsequent to
the time it was served.-
-
>> In other words they have to figure out whether she became
pregnant after the court order or happened -- -
>> After she was served with the court order.-
Thank is an important distinction.-
-
>> Can the court then try to find out?-
Can the court order that we have to determine that?-
-
>> That may well be necessary to the enforcement of the order.-
-
>> And I would suggest that is an invasion of privacy.-
-
>> OK.-
So now where are we?-
Let's say the court orders that.-
Let's say, with the aclu step in in?-
Because I can it is hard for you -- -
>> I think with the aclu we would have to be involved with the
client and have to have request for the service.-
But I think at a certain level we could intervene perhaps at
the appellate level.-
-
>> So could the court order the woman to be tested so we can
determine when this child was conceived to find out whether it
breaks the court order?-
-
>> This will be the problem in terms of real invasion of her
civil liberties.-
But there could be a stipulation that she became pregnant prior
to the service and people could accept that stipulation on the
record.-
So it wouldn't necessarily go it a pregnancy test as to what
the stage of scress station is.-
But for medical care if she doesn't get early preNatal care
that is part of how you treat the pregnancy.-
When she got pregnant, what the expected date of birth is.-
-
>> What a stick ji situation.-
If they have to -- what a sticky situation.-
If they have to bring her back in.-
The slippery slope argument you can hear, Mr. Affronti.-
-
>> They could also determine after the child is born.-
They could attempt to determine when the date of conception
was.-
That would protect the mother's civil liberties.-
-
>> The ruling that we see did not call for abortion.-
It didn't prescribe any birth control.-
Does that mitigate invasion of privacy?-
-
>> Not as far as the ACLU is concerned.-
We feel this is true intrusion into the rights of privacy
guaranteed by the constitution and when a government agency, a
court in this case, attempts to do that there needs to be a
very high benchmark and the idea that there is absolutely no
other way to achieve the outcome, I think we missed the point.-
What is the outcome.-
We want them to stop having children.-
But is it the rule of the court to do that and have they proven
there's no other way to to it.-
-
>> You have to admit that public reaction has been it is about
time.-
It is about time.-
This come keeps having children.-
She won't do -- she won't take care of them or do anything for
herself.-
She is not trying to better them and a lot of people are saying
it is about time.-
How do you reconcile that?-
-
>> I would suggest we are a constitutional democracy and we are
ruled by principle of law, not by public opinion.-
So the question becomes whether courts should be setting social
policy or whether there are other agencies.-
-
>> It's not just the issue of having children.-
It is the issue of raising the children as well.-
That is where judge O'Connor takes a step across and what she
is trying to do is emphasize that the two don't necessarily go
hand in hand.-
There is no problem with the parents having additional
children.-
They need to parent those children as well.-
And they should not necessarily parent them to have them.-
Then have somebody else, society raise them for them.-
That's the point of the decision.-
-
>> Mrs. Parker, I would like to talk about whether this case
has the opportunity to set a legal precedent.-
Does it?-
-
>> I think so.-
I think it will be determined in part by how it is enforced and
whether it is enforced.-
But it is already getting public debate and that's what is
important.-
We have to talk about these issues and recognize these
problems.-
And I would disagree that the object is to get this woman to
stop having children.-
The object is to have children be well cared for, to have
parents be functioning for them.-
And these are the issues that we really have to address in
society.-
-
>> You say this might be a legal precedent.-
But you say it is dependent on how it is enforced.-
Can you explain what you mean by that?-
In other words, if this goes horribly wrong nobody will touch
it?-
-
>> No, just because of the legal posture about whether the
mother was served prior to pregnancy and whether it is ever
appealed or challenged in the Fundidoraal legal principle.-
It may just stand in the legal books, something that other
judges looked to but not challenged.-
-
>> Mr. Affronti you said it was a wake-up call for society.-
So, maybe I should direct this to you.-
It is wake-up call for society.-
We need to have this debate.-
-
>> I would absolutely agree with my colleague that we need to
have the debate and I can we need to frame it in terms of what
our jected outcomes are.-
-
>> What's wrong with the ruling?-
-
>> I don't know that it is the one that should be used.-
We have not talked about other systems that may have failed
this family and perhaps need to be reviewed, reorganized and
used in a different way that would allow families to be
supportive.-
-
>> Except these parties were granted almost every opportunity
they could to have relationship, to be involved, and they were
given the chances and they declined them or washed out of them
there was a prior history of alcohol and drug abuse problems.-
They failed to participate.-
Remember, there were prior findings of neglect so there were
prior plans established with respect to the other children.-
There were certain responsibilities they have with respect to
them.-
The responsibility is to help them become better parents and
better citizens.-
They declined to do that.-
I think the judge here got to the point to say enough is
enough, this cycle of neglect has to stop.-
This is the only way solution she could come up with.-
-
>> I would suggest these decisions inversely affect minorities,
poor people, young people and isolated people Rand to say the
opportunity was extended doesn't say what was done.-
We know that there was some opportunity for drug rehabilitation
but what does that mean?-
Was that a casual conversation, by the way you should go into
drug treatment.-
Was it incarceration.-
A court order?-
Nothing of that was shared in the disposition.-
-
>> My experience is families like this are given multiple
opportunities to be helped and that the early issues are has
the social services system provided the help.-
You will notice that judge O'Connor in this decision actually
approved goal of return to the family.-
That is still the goal of the case.-
-
>> In other words, everything works out to the end all those
kids come out of foster care and are adopted -- -
>> No, that would be a naive point of view and we have to deal
with the hard case where is the parents don't take advantage of
opportunities but we have to deal with the problems.-
They don't go away whether the decision is affirmed or
overruled.-
-
>> And we need look at the precedent that it is setting and
what doors would be opened.-
The analogy I gave of a family that had children that were a
burden to the state in other ways even though they were not
neglectful has to be looked at.-
-
>> I want to talk about something larger than the case.-
We are seeping the Rochester city council adopting a how law
that will restrict panhandling on the streets, which is a sort
of government telling us how to behave.-
This is an action the judge telling us how to brave.-
The F.C.C., you can bring that in, telling broadcasters how to
behave.-
Are we seeing the government regulating our behavior?-
-
>> I don't think so.-
I think the government has always been involved in these
decision.-
I think it is important with with this decision to remember
that these children were removed from the family and the court
didn't just reach out in society and say this family shouldn't
have children.-
I would distinguish the case of the disabled children from that
one.-
If the family is caring for the disabled children and doing
what they can as parents if nothing more than visiting the
children in the setting, which was not the case in judge
O'Connor's case, that's a whole different case than what judge
O'Connor was saying.-
-
>> But I would suggest that the judge you used as her rationale
the cost to the state.-
Not the rationale of caring for the children.-
The vast majority of the information I read talked about the
cost to the state.-
-
>> At the same time you can take a step back and think about
interference.-
Are these parents interfering or having these children
interfering with something else and that is the same thing
about society and panhandling.-
Is that interfering with other people.-
Here having other children will be interfering with society's
ability to care for them, interfering with their ability of the
children to grow up in a family.-
-
>> This is the conversation that can go on for ever.-
I want to thank you for sharing a little bit of the
conversation between the three of you with everybody else.-
You can join the conversation.-
Email us any time at NEEDTOKNOW@WXXI.org or call us at
258-0250.-
Now let's open up the business section with THE DEMOCRAT AND CHRONICLE
-
>> Joining us is Ellen Rosen business editor for the Democrat
and chronicle.-
Thanks for being here.-
I'm fix sayed on the airline prices so we have another airline
coming into town.-
Will it cut costs to fly from Rochester?-
-
>> Experience shows that every time a low fare carrier came in
fares have benefited particularly when they fly to areas that
Rochesterians want to fly.-
Some helped us to New York, others down south and this one to
Dulles which Washington is popular destination.-
Flights right now have been expensive so I imagine you will
have people lining up.-
-
>> This one is independence air.-
-
>> Yes.-
-
>> So they are going to fly to Dulles, and Jacksonville.-
-
>> It works like a lot of these.-
Had he hub out and they will fly to Dulles then a lot of other
places.-
-
>> And they are flying out of other places.-
-
>> Buffalo.-
-
>> One thing I wonder is if we will see an airline that takes
us from say Rochester to Albany that will be cheaper.-
-
>> That is a difficult.-
The pricing is very high on the short hops.-
-
>> I want to talk about development.-
Money for development.-
In this kiss money to invest in Charlotte that really is tax
credits.-
Can you talk more about that and that news.-
-
>> We don't know for sure it is going to Charlotte.-
We know Brian prince one investor in the fast ferry they have
the fund called the Renaissance fund and they have gathered a
large pool of money and a large federal grant that they will
use to develop in low income areas and they say Rochester is a
priority but they may do work this other cities.-
-
>> He didn't just name Rochester, New York but a number of
places.-
-
>> Right.-
But he said Rochester is a priority so it gave people a lot of
hope that they will see it.-
-
>> And the gentleman, Brian prince, is part of the fast Jerry
development so that is why we bring up Charlotte and that is
something we would like to see happen.-
Talk about venture capital in Rochester.-
Years ago, five or six years ago when I used to cover the
county government jack Doyle talked about needing venture
capital badly in the Monroe fund was an effort to do that.-
Of course, private folks are really the reason that venture
capital growth has changed.-
-
>> Well, it has.-
It was a couple of years ago that was the emphasis was
difficult and it is still difficult for companies to get
venture capital.-
But there are people trying to address it.-
And the new fund that was announced looks at a different kind
of venture capital fund.-
You are not talking about seed money where you have an idea and
you go there to get started and do R&D.-
This is companies that are a little bit along and need money to
stay put, to ramp up manufacturing or get something going.-
So it is aimed at the companies who have a little type in the
trenches or to attract businesses that are looking to
relocate.-
-
>> That's important for this area.-
-
>> It really is is and makes us competitive with a lot of areas
like California and Boston where people have been going because
we have a lot of the venture capital firms and they say I like
your idea and I will fund you but only if you move to a major
metropolitan area.-
Now we have the money here so maybe they won't have to move.-
-
>> So people who typically invest are folks with a lot of
money, folks who are willing to take a gamble and apparently we
attracted that.-
-
>> We have gotten a big infusion from the state pension fund
which was announced.-
The $25 million that they will invest with New York money right
in New York.-
They are hoping to grow the fund to like $75 million.-
And self others put in some.-
-
>> You talked with Dan carp.-
I would like to talk on that, he mentioned Kodak park areas
future.-
-
>> He talked about basically that he is seeing some turnaround
from their strategy, the digital strategy and he is pleased
with what he has seen.-
In terms of Kodak park, the future is unknown but he did say
that they are not looking to sell off the property wholesale
but there are various things they will use there so it will be
a piecemeal and as you go.-
Sort of as we move along.-
The company doesn't have a grand strategy.-
-
>> Kodak had a very strong first quarter.-
I know that you asked about layoffs.-
Things are not going to change in terms of how many they are
going to lay off probably because it is part of why they are
doing so well.-
-
>> Basically what he said they will accelerate or decellerate
the amount of layoffs based on how the company does but he
doesn't see anything to change the initial plans.-
The bottom line is for the kind of company they want to move
to, digital, it is less person intensive and needs fewer people
than a film making company.-
-
>> We pull up to the gas pumps and see the gigantic 2 on the
sign.-
$2 per gas.-
What does that mean for Rochester business?-
-
>> Not just for business but consumers because forle of them
this is an added cost and they practices it on to consumers
particularly companies that rely on delivery, you will probably
see airlines raise prices, the guy that cuts your lawn has to
pay more so he may raise the prices.-
-
>> Right.-
And -- -
>> Doesn't seem to be cutting back travel plans.-
-
>> No, that is the political bit of good news.-
And I know that across the board the nation is dealing with it
but we should point out that New York's taxes on gas.-
-
>> They definitely add to the price of a gallon of gas but oil
is selling so high, it high everywhere.-
-
>> So it was $1.50 and they would be at that competitive
disadvantage.-
Tell us what is coming you Sunday?-
-
>> We will have a fifth part to the Kodak in Rochester,
changing picture series.-
This looks at people who have left the area and what it meant
to the community.-
On the business page retiree benefits which companies are
having to cut when they are faced with economic difficulties.-
-
>> Your input is valuable to this program as well.-
Please give us your comments.-
Email us at NEEDTOKNOW@WXXI.org or call us at 258-0250.-
Next week we have a one-on-one conversation with Elliott
Spitzer New York's attorney general.-
Then likely to run for governor.-
Join us then.-