Karma Kicks Party Mom with a Roundhouse!

[Jester]

So this woman in Florida decided to go out and party on Halloween. No problem with that idea. However, she decided that while she was out partying and enjoying the holiday, it would be perfectly acceptable to leave her four childre, aged 2 to 11, one with cerebral palsy, unattended and unsupervised in a hotel room. One of the children was strapped into a stroller, upside down, totally helpless. This part, I had a bigger problem with.

So did the judge, apparently. See, one of the guests at the hotel where this Mother of the Year candidate left her children saw one of the kids, and alerted authorities. The woman, Kimberly Lightsey, was arrested and charged with four counts of child abuse. Under a plea deal that kept her out of jail, the judge ruled that she would lose the custody of her children, could not have unsupervised visits with them, would receive 13 years probation, and the judge added an interesting twist: while she was on probation, she was not allowed to have any more children. If she did? Bam! Jail time.

Now the ACLU is looking at this case and considering filing an appeal on Lightsey's behalf, due to the part about not having any more children. I am normally an ACLU kinda guy, and I have no problem with them FILING this appeal, but I dearly hope they lose. See, the judge gave her a choice: the plea deal, or jail. She got to keep her pathetic ass out of jail, and she agreed to the terms of the plea deal. So I say, right on Your Honor!

You can read more about this story here.

Now, I don't often watch Fox News, and I don't always agree with them, and I find Bill O'Reilly to be a pompous blowhard most of the time. But I have to say, I absolutely agree with him and the other two talking heads in the video that accompanies this piece.

I'd love to hear people's comments on this, but PLEASE keep the debate and commentary to the legal case, the judge's decision, and the woman's actions--this is not the place to comment on Fox News, whatever you think of them. If you want to talk about them or their reaction to this story, start your own damn thread.

Thank you, drive safely!

[bara]

I applaud the judge. Since this was a plea deal I dont see how they can appeal it, but Im not a lawyer. Actually, I think more of this sort of thing should be done with both sexes.

[Rageaholic]

Yeah, I think most judges are punitive bullies, but in this case, the punishment was well deserved.

The only thing, how is this going to be enforced? And if she does disobey and decide to have a kid, what are they going to do?

[s_stabeler]

My only objection to it is as a precedent: if someone can be forced to not have kids by the courts in this case, then what about it happening to someone for a different crime? in a divorce? ( I'm taking the kids, and stopping you having any more, so there- the vindictive spouse's paradise.)

in short, I don't support the woman, but am kind of concerned about the possibly precedent.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

in short, I don't support the woman, but am kind of concerned about the possibly precedent.

That's a bit different I think. She agreed to not have children in the plea deal. The judge did not force her to not have children.

If she really wanted it, she probably could've tried to get her lawyer to try and deal out to either have the pregnancy restriction shortened or removed. Or she could've gone to jail. She agreed to not have any more kids though.

Just like violent criminal offenders agree to not try to buy any weapons, never have weapons on them, or those people on probation whose restrictions are "You cannot drink alcohol" or "you must be on your medication." They choose to agree to them.

[telecom_goddess]

She'll be on probation so it's totally enforceable. It's my understand they have to see a probation office periodically yes? And if not then maybe they put that in her case so they COULD monitor her pregnancy or lack thereof. And if she gets pregnant then I don't know, is it automatic jail or can she get an abortion instead?

[Andara Bledin]

Except that she isn't being forced by the courts to not have kids. She was given the choice to not have any kids in exchange for not going to jail.

The alternative is no plea and she spends time in jail which is detrimental to everybody involved.

^-.-^

[TheHuckster]

I simply can't believe she had the choice between jail time and losing custody, and chose losing custody of her kids. To me, that shows just how low and uncaring she is to them.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

And if she gets pregnant then I don't know, is it automatic jail or can she get an abortion instead?

I think the technical wording means if she were to actually give birth to another child.

I do not know if she could exchange giving the child up for adoption with not having to serve jail time though, she might have an accident (it happens) and doesn't believe in abortion.

[violiav]

Why not just get her an IUD?

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Why not just get her an IUD?

I'm not sure. Since there are other ways to avoid pregnancy without having to be on a specific medication/have an IUD, that might be seen as overstepping boundaries.

I am not sure, just speculating. Also it is possible the IUD can slip out of place, and if it does, pregnancy can happen. So like I said, no method other than straight up medical sterilization (bye bye uterus), is 100% guaranteed.

[Jester]

The only thing, how is this going to be enforced? And if she does disobey and decide to have a kid, what are they going to do?

From what I understand, if she has another child, she will go to jail, I believe for five years, though I am not certain of that. And she would certainly have her newest child taken from her as well.

in short, I don't support the woman, but am kind of concerned about the possibly precedent.

It is not a legal precedent per se, as it is not part of her sentence, but part of a plea deal she agreed to. I have no doubt that if a judge unilaterally imposed that as part of a sentence, it would be overturned before the ink on the sentence order was dry.

The only argument I can see that might work in her appeal is that she was given inferior legal advice, which led to the restrictions in the plea deal. Beyond that, I don't see how they can overturn it. But again, it is not a precedent, because she agreed to the plea deal to avoid jail.

Same as if I were arrested for Drunken Idiocy, and rather than go to jail, I agreed to a plea deal agreeing that I would not drink any alcohol for the duration of my probation.

If she really wanted it, she probably could've tried to get her lawyer to try and deal out to either have the pregnancy restriction shortened or removed.

Actually, as I understand it, she CAN petition for a shortening of it down the road. Let's say she gets her life together, becomes a responsible citizen and adult, gets plenty of documentation for same, as well as plenty of character witnesses to attest to same, she could petition the court down the road for a reduction of the probation, and/or the termination of that part of the deal, and probably even to regain custody of her original four children. Just like any other "contract," this one can be renegotiated if "good faith" is shown on her part.

I simply can't believe she had the choice between jail time and losing custody, and chose losing custody of her kids.

Um, she didn't have that choice. She was going to lose her kids no matter what. Her choice was jail time or the plea deal. If she goes to jail, she loses her kids. If she agrees to the plea deal, she cannot have future children, and she loses her kids. But I think no matter what happened short of an acquittal, she was going to lose custody of her kids. The question before her was what ELSE would happen to her. Her custodianship of her kids was gone, period.

Why not just get her an IUD?

Because there is no guarantee that she will use it or that it will work. Not that the plea deal is guaranteed, of course, but it does carry a threat of a jail sentence, which is often a pretty good deterrent.

[Nekojin]

There are many things that the Constitution protects, but unlimited child-bearing is not among them. The punishment fits the crime - she abused her ability to have and raise children, she is being restricted from having and raising any more. It could fall afoul of the rules about "cruel and unusual punishment" in the 8th Amendment, but I doubt it - it may be unusual, but I certainly don't see it as cruel.

I honestly don't see the prevention of procreation to be an invalid punishment option. Rapists should have it as part of their punishment (only part, of course, because rape is only partly about sex, and there have been cases of impotent rapists in the past), and people who are so neglectful of their children that Child Protective Services has to step in and take them away should be considered (not automatic, because CPS has been known to be over-zealous in the past).

[fireheart17]

Also it is possible the IUD can slip out of place, and if it does, pregnancy can happen. So like I said, no method other than straight up medical sterilization (bye bye uterus), is 100% guaranteed.

Alternate method: Implanon. It goes into her arm instead of her uterus and releases hormones. Works exceedingly well at preventing pregnancy and mum could easily use the 3-year period as a time to review how she's getting her life together. The only way the Implanon can fail is if the doctor fails to insert it correctly, the actual implant itself turns out to be a dud or the timing is off when it's inserted (unless you're switching over from another contraceptive, it needs to be inserted within the first 5 days of your period to ensure it's effective)

I honestly don't see the prevention of procreation to be an invalid punishment option. Rapists should have it as part of their punishment (only part, of course, because rape is only partly about sex, and there have been cases of impotent rapists in the past), and people who are so neglectful of their children that Child Protective Services has to step in and take them away should be considered (not automatic, because CPS has been known to be over-zealous in the past).

I'm wondering if those "impotent rapists" are just claiming that they're impotent to prove their innocence? I have heard of chemical castration for rapists and sex offenders however, so technically they DO have something there....

[Greenday]

I'm pretty sure this falls under cruel and unusual punishment. If the ACLU sues on her behalf and loses, I'd be extremely surprised.

I honestly don't believe she should have any more kids since she's proven she is unable to be a halfway decent parent as it is, but it's a pretty crazy punishment to give her, even if it's a "choice".