David Andreatta

@david_andreatta

Some people just shouldn't have kids.

That was the thrust of a decision issued by Monroe County Family Court Judge Patricia Gallaher directing a dysfunctional, drug-addicted prostitute to stop having babies — at least until she can properly care for the latest child she brought into the world.

The subject of her opinion, a 35-year-old woman known in court papers as Brandy F., already has four children, all of whom are in foster care and three of whom were born addicted to drugs.

"A child's right to his or her own parent surely is greater than a parent's right to have more children without even the ability to raise them," Gallaher wrote.

Hard to disagree there.

Unfortunately for neglected children everywhere and those who have yet to be born to people who'll be parents in a biological sense only, Gallaher's order is probably a nonstarter.

With rare exceptions for deadbeat dads, higher courts have repeatedly reversed restrictions on reproductive rights.

► Judge to addict: No more babies until fit to care for them

The bottom line is the bench can't set rules for the bedroom or the back seat or the back alley where the likes of Brandy F. procreate only to have their offspring caught by the social services safety net that responsible taxpayers keep taut.

Gallaher knew this, which is why she devoted half of her 27-page order to justifying her decision.

She went so far as to implore the Fourth Department Appellate Division to reconsider a precedent it set in 2007 when it overturned what she called a "common sense, no more pregnancies order" issued by former Family Court Judge Marilyn O'Connor in a case called Matter of Bobbijean P.

That order, imposed on a drug-addicted couple with seven children, sparked a long overdue national debate when it was handed down in 2004. Gallaher was O'Connor's law clerk at the time.

Gallaher's decision has not been appealed yet, and there's little reason to believe Brandy F. will mount one.

Not only was Brandy F. a no-show at an initial hearing to determine whether her newborn son should be removed from her custody, she failed to attend all but one subsequent hearing, and that was only because she got arrested and dragged to court.

But the Monroe County Public Defender's Office, which represented Brandy, has signaled it may appeal on her behalf. So has the New York Civil Liberties Union.

They'll cry "unconstitutional" and accuse Gallaher of invoking population control to solve a social problem while ignoring that the population of unwanted children is the single, biggest problem facing our society and perhaps the world today.

Document: Family Court Ruling

In countries ravaged by famine, there are simply too many mouths to feed because men and women who shouldn't be having kids keep having them.

Here in the United States, where neglected children rarely die of starvation, those children are a financial drain.

Monroe County alone, according to its budget, anticipates placing 565 children into foster care this year at an annual cost of between $20,000 and $30,000 per child.

Studies show that when those children age out of the system they're more likely than their peers to end up in jail, homeless or pregnant. That means more tax dollars diverted to courts, caseworkers, police and welfare programs like food stamps and Medicaid.

These poor children deserve help. The sad circumstances of their lives are no fault of their own. But who could make a convincing case that the world needs more of them?

This matter has already been won in the court of public opinion.

The only beef to be had with Gallaher's order is that she didn’t have the courage to write it sooner.

She rendered her decision days before her retirement from 10 years on the bench, where, she acknowledged in her opinion, she dealt with countless men and women like Brandy F.

To that extent, her order, however impassioned, was less rooted in reality than it was a parting shot intended to reignite a debate started by her old boss.

"This judge will not pretend that having babies under such circumstances is alright (sic), or be too afraid of being modified or reversed to try again to promote the fundamental new idea of Matter of Bobbijean," Gallaher wrote.

"Having no more babies while taxpayers are paying for caseworkers and courts to work hard to help a parent get his or her children back is a good thing and should be asked for and ordered as a matter of routine."

Then why didn't you, judge? Why did you wait until you were out the door?

The answer, of course, is because there's nothing anyone can do to stop people who just shouldn't have kids from having them.

David Andreatta is a Democrat and Chronicle columnist. He can be reached at dandreatta@gannett.com.