Judge Orders Man Owing $96K in Child Support To Stop Having Kids

Watch out, deadbeat dads. A judge in Elyria, Ohio has ordered a father of four to stop having kids after he racked up nearly $100,000 in child support payments.

  • Share
  • Read Later
Elyria Chronicle

Judge James Walther sentences Asim Walter to stop having children on Wednesday, January 23, 2013.

Watch out, deadbeat dads. A judge in Elyria, Ohio has ordered a father of four to stop having kids after racking up nearly $100,000 in child support payments.

Asim Taylor, 35, was sentenced to an additional five years’ probation on Wednesday after failing to pay child support for his four children. Taylor was originally indicted back in August 2011, accused of owing $78,922 to the mothers of his four children. Taylor pleaded guilty, and now owes more than $96,000 in child support payments.

(MORE: Michigan Man Owes Half a Million Dollars in Child Support)

“I put this condition on for one reason and one reason alone,” Judge James Walther told the defendant at his sentencing, according to the Lorain county Chronicle-Telegram. “It’s your personal responsibility to pay for these kids.”

Taylor’s lawyer, Doug Merril, plans to appeal the case on the grounds that it violates Taylor’s right to privacy, citing a previous Ohio Supreme Court decision.

“It’s not a question whether or not if he wants to have more kids. It’s a question of whether or not the government should be telling somebody that they can or they can’t,” Merrill told Kansas City’s KCTV-5. “I’ve heard from at least one of the mothers that he does do what he can to help support the child.”

(MORE: Halle Berry Ordered to Pay $240,000 in Child Support)

The case is unusual, but not unheard of: in Wisconsin, two different judges have issued similar no-children orders in recent months. Taylor is scheduled to reappear in court in July.

7 comments
RichardDriscoll
RichardDriscoll

Judge James Walther should be careful, lest someone follows the implications of his recent pronouncement.  As you might have read, plaintiff Asim Walter has four children, which he is unable to support, and he is behind by $96,000 in child support payments.  Judge Walther ordered him to not have any more children, arguing that it is his "personal responsibility to pay for these kids.”

So, what should Walter do?  We might first note that Walter seems to be having sex with one or more women, and that it is the women who are having the children, not Mr. Walter.  So, should Walter stay away from such women?  Should he become celibate?  

Yet the sneaky little question is whether the "no children" ruling extends to the women themselves. If "no more children" applies to Water, then any woman who joins with him is a collaborator in producing another child and also stands in violation of the law.  

In penalizing Walter, the judge is opening the door to punishing his co-conspirators as well. Are women not allowed to have as many children as they wish?  Stay tuned.

 Dr D

 drD@masquerades00.com 

 

GeorgeMcCasland
GeorgeMcCasland

Did the reporter think to ask for the DNA proof that he actually has four children? They are not mandatory in being ordered to pay child support, and men, especially black men, so not trust the family court system. They assume that any consideration of their rights will be shove right up between the gluteus medius & gluteus maximus muscles, so they do not even attend the initial paternity and child support hearings. Child Support is ordered by default, and than regardless of paternity, they have to pay. Statistically, at least one child is not his and could be getting child support from someone else. Plus, black men are not forcing women to get pregnant by them. Black Men are wearing a large red target on their crotch that only women wanting to get pregnant by a Black Man can see.

bibleverse1
bibleverse1

Vasectomies are cheaper than child support.

GeorgeMcCasland
GeorgeMcCasland

@RichardDriscoll A well thought out comment, and raise potential issues that I had not considered, even in my work with fathers. This is not the first such ruling in the last year, and I believe this point should be made. Further, how would women's organizations respond if the newly pregnant woman was held accountable, and could she than be forced to have an abortion, or place the child up for adoption?

GeorgeMcCasland
GeorgeMcCasland

@bibleverse1 The ability to not impregnate a woman does not prevent a man from being ordered to pay child support. There is a Kansas case in which a 21-yeaqr-old man was ordered to pay child support for his 15-year-old daughter, born when he wqas six years old. A military man, who is trying to get a child support order overturned, was in Germany when the child's mother got pregnant, and 9 months later named him as the father. He could net get back to the US to fight the order, so a default order was entered. Once ordered, it has to be paid, regardless of paternity.

RichardDriscoll
RichardDriscoll

@GeorgeMcCasland @RichardDriscoll  Thanks for the compliment.  We are so strongly supportive of women that we hardly recognize that it is the women who are actually producing the babies.  Repeat this anywhere you hear about deadbeat dads, and see if anyone catches on.  

1979greenpeace
1979greenpeace

You're comment caught my attention.  As it turns out, my child support order mysteriously disappeared.  The issuing court is unable to locate it in my file, which has since been archived.  However........the child support order was mailed twice, to my local CSED, which will not acknowledge receipt, and did not enforce it.