Judge Tells Man Behind on Child Support for 9 Kids: No Procreation

State   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Dec 7, 2012   |   12:23PM   |   Racine, WI

A judge has special instructions for a man who is desperately behind on child support: you are no longer allowed to procreate.

Corey Curtis of Racine, Wisconsin was sentenced on Monday after pleading no contest in October to jumping bail and failing to pay child support. Curtis owes $50,000 in child support and $40,000 in interest and he was given probation only after agreeing to the judge’s request to not have any more children.

The 44-year-old man has fathered nine children with six different women, according to news reports.

Judge Tim Boyle of Racine County said he was disappointed he didn’t have the legal power to force the man to be sterilized and the prosecutor told Judge Boyle he did have the ability to restrict Curtis from having additional children, unless he could show ability to pay, as a condition of probation. Boyle agreed with adding the condition to the probation.

“It’s too bad the court doesn’t have the authority to sterilize,” Racine County Circuit Court Judge Tim Boyle said at a hearing.

The prosecutor cited a 2001 case that was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In that case, a 2001 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling found that a judge could order people not to procreate unless they keep up to date on support payments.

MPR News found the 2001 ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which also concerned a father of nine children accused of failing to pay child support. The U.S. Supreme Court denied cert in the case.



As the report said:

In July 2001, Wisconsin Supreme Court justices upheld a Court of Appeals ruling that affirmed the probation condition stemming from a Manitowoc County case. In that case, a man had been charged with seven counts of intentional failure to support his nine children, according to the Supreme Court ruling in State vs. Oakley.

The justices ruled in that case that defendant David Oakley’s constitutional right to procreate wasn’t eliminated. He still could reproduce — if he made child support payments, according to the ruling.

“This case is about a man who intentionally refuses to pay support regardless of his ability to do so. That was the dilemma faced by the sentencing court, and that is what led to the court’s order,” wrote Justice Jon Wilcox.

The case shows how the father’s failure to be dedicated to one woman leads to a devaluation of human life.