Man fathered 30 children-needs a break on child support

[Glass Cowcatcher]

@OnceModestTwiceShy and Didi--

To make a VERY conservative estimate, going to college full-time would cost about $2000 per class, so about 20,000 dollars a year--before you even figure in the cost of textbooks, lab fees, and other assorted costs that the state would have to pay for.

Granted, for 30 children, this is only about 50 dollars a month and only for the duration of the college classes, but it's more than they would get in child support if the state just split the same amount of money between all of the man's children.

Even if the state did put the man through college, they are ASSUMING that he would actually finish the degree, then ASSUMING that he would get a job that pays better than minimum (not the case for many normal college grads). The OP mentioned court orders to make him do so; I fail to see why he would take those orders more seriously than the ones to pay child support.

[Funky Chicken]

If the kids weren't being supported, those women shouldn't have been having more babies with anyone.

Well, they both did go on to have 1 more child each, to the same dad as their previous kids had had. Not really an issue for my doctor friend as she could earn her own money, but the young girl who was trying to get off heroin was pretty much supported and funded by her parents, and by the government (I'm in Australia where parents get a "baby bonus" payment, and also a sole parenting benefit, if child support is not being paid by the other parent). And at least here education is affordable so the children in the latter case would be able to obtain qualifications if they want, and have better chances at employment, etc. Although it's not ideal, I'd still rather my taxes go towards the maintenance of health and education for the disadvantaged than, say, funding unnecessary military interference in other countries. JMHO...

[doggie]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/ ... ate-758094

MAY 21--The Tennessee man who has impregnated a large portion of Knoxville’s female population--and reportedly fathered 30 children in the process--is a convicted felon whose babymaking ability has been hampered for the past three years due to his state prison incarceration.

The story of Desmond Hatchett’s fertility--and his related inability to pay child support--returned to the news last week when a Memphis TV station reported that the 33-year-old “was back in court this week†seeking the state’s help with his support payments. The Los Angeles Times noted that Hatchett is “struggling to make ends meet on his minimum-wage job.â€

Which would likely come as a surprise to Hatchett, who has been locked up for the last 33 months. Pictured above in a Tennessee Department of Correction photo, Hatchett was jailed after a judge revoked his probation in August 2009.

Hatchett had been sentenced to six years in prison for aggravated assault, but had the majority of that term suspended in lieu of “enhanced probation.†He quickly violated his probation terms by getting arrested for domestic violence, violating curfew, and lying about his whereabouts to his probation officer.

Now imprisoned in the Morgan County Correctional Complex, Hatchett’s sentence is scheduled to expire in November 2014. He has lost two parole bids, most recently in December 2011. And, like other Tennessee inmates, he is not allowed conjugal visits.

Hatchett has a “very long and serious criminal history†that includes “multiple assaults, multiple thefts, aggravated assault, multiple evading arrests, and several driving assaults,†according to a probation violation report. He has also been collared on narcotics charges and has shown “contempt for the rules of probation and of the court.†In fact, his rap sheet runs 14 pages.

Which apparently impresses the ladies.

When Hatchett first made headlines in May 2009, he was reported to have fathered 21 children with 11 different women (Tonnisha Hollis; Kayla Reed; Zenobia Alexander; Delishia Brown; Ashley Badgett; Latisha Page; Tanya Ray; Carmelita McDowell; Sierra Campbell; Nyesha Cooper; and Megan Cooper). At the time, he vowed “I’m done!†when asked if he planned to add to his brood.

While Hatchett was jailed a few months later--and has been locked up since--he has purportedly fathered nine more children “in the last three years,†according to the Los Angeles Times, which followed up on an original TV report by WREG, the CBS affiliate in Memphis.

As noted by WREG anchor Claudia Barr, Hatchett “was back in court this week pleading with the state to help him pay his child support.†Tennessee, Barr said, already was taking half of Hatchett’s paycheck and dividing it up between the mothers of his children. Hatchett, Barr noted, has set a Knox County record by fathering 30 children.

WREG’s May 16 report--which went viral last week--concluded with the contention that “there is nothing the state can do to make him stop having more kids.â€

Except, of course, locking Hatchett up at a 65-acre prison in East Tennessee (pictured above) that can house nearly 2500 felons like him. (1 page)

[Elle]

While Hatchett was jailed a few months later--and has been locked up since--he has purportedly fathered nine more children “in the last three years,†according to the Los Angeles Times, which followed up on an original TV report by WREG, the CBS affiliate in Memphis.

As noted by WREG anchor Claudia Barr, Hatchett “was back in court this week pleading with the state to help him pay his child support.†Tennessee, Barr said, already was taking half of Hatchett’s paycheck and dividing it up between the mothers of his children. Hatchett, Barr noted, has set a Knox County record by fathering 30 children.

WREG’s May 16 report--which went viral last week--concluded with the contention that “there is nothing the state can do to make him stop having more kids.â€

They need to revoke conjugal visits.

[deelaem]

They need to revoke conjugal visits.

The article specifically says that Tennessee inmates are NOT allowed conjugal visits.

I think it sucks that this article lists the mothers' names. Not so much for them, because I'm sure it's public information, but for their children's sake. I'm sure they'll endure a lot of cruel teasing for being "one of 30".

[geniebelle6901]

I wouldn't mind giving him a break... right in the vas deferens.

Ummm...not cool advocating forced sterilization. Would you want somebody telling you that you needed to have your tubes tied because you had too many kids?

Where is Lorena Bobbit when you need her?

Genital mutilation? Are you kidding me? Simply because he has 33 kids, somebody should cut his penis off? Not ok.

[holothuroidea]

People are born with certain rights because they, as human beings, deserve them. I consider reproductive freedom one of these rights. In cases where people abuse their rights and other people are adversely affected to the point of great suffering, we take away the the right from the abuser for the greater good.

While I would never take it lightly, I would think that a court-ordered sterilization in this case is something to discuss. He has clearly abused his right to reproductive freedom and the lives of 30+ children have been adversely effected by his inability to care for his offspring.

The only way to prevent future abuse seems to be sterilization. I don't know if it's the right thing to do, I'm not an expert on these issues, but I do think it is worth discussing.

ETA: I just want to clarify the context. This was in response to the poster who seemed offended that there were allusions to forced sterilization here. I simply don't think it's an outrageous thing to discuss on this board. I do NOT think it would be okay for lawmakers or anyone of influence to mention it.

[nonymouse]

Ummm...not cool advocating forced sterilization. Would you want somebody telling you that you needed to have your tubes tied because you had too many kids?

.

well, considering I opted to have permanent birth control placed in order to stop having miscarriages (see: Essure and hydrosalpinx) I am very much free to talk , but can't really type comfortably as my baby is sleeping on my left hand. :dance:

[Boogalou]

People are born with certain rights because they, as human beings, deserve them. I consider reproductive freedom one of these rights. In cases where people abuse their rights and other people are adversely affected to the point of great suffering, we take away the the right from the abuser for the greater good.

While I would never take it lightly, I would think that a court-ordered sterilization in this case is something to discuss. He has clearly abused his right to reproductive freedom and the lives of 30+ children have been adversely effected by his inability to care for his offspring.

The only way to prevent future abuse seems to be sterilization. I don't know if it's the right thing to do, I'm not an expert on these issues, but I do think it is worth discussing.

That's a rather frightening thought. Should sterilization of the women he had the children with also be discussed? They know what he is like and continue to have children with him, supposedly causing "great suffering". I didn't think that in this day and age anyone really thought forced sterilization was a good idea or even something to be discussed. Who else is abusing their reproductive rights?

[holothuroidea]

That's a rather frightening thought. Should sterilization of the women he had the children with also be discussed? They know what he is like and continue to have children with him, supposedly causing "great suffering". I didn't think that in this day and age anyone really thought forced sterilization was a good idea or even something to be discussed. Who else is abusing their reproductive rights?

It is a frightening thought. We also don't know about any suffering the children are or are not facing.

I was just responding to the poster who seemed offended that people even alluded to sterilization. I think allusions to it are perfectly reasonable. Do I think it would be a good thing to do? Well, it depends on a lot of things. I would say almost difinitively no, it would not be a good thing to do.

You infer that there is a slippery slope, a very dangerous one, and I agree with you.

I just don't think that people mention it in a situation like this is at all shocking or inappropriate. It's not like we are in any power to do anything, for us on this board the topic would be simply philosophical so yes I do think it's worth discussing, as are a lot of things that are not necessarily favorable.

I think if lawmakers started talking about forced sterilization I would be outraged.

I hope the context of my post is clearer now. :oops:

[valsa]

That's a rather frightening thought. Should sterilization of the women he had the children with also be discussed? They know what he is like and continue to have children with him, supposedly causing "great suffering". I didn't think that in this day and age anyone really thought forced sterilization was a good idea or even something to be discussed. Who else is abusing their reproductive rights?

I agree. The problem with allowing someone to decide who can and cannot have children is that there will always someone out there who believes that someone else shouldn't be having children. If the right wing nutcases had their way, I would never be allowed to have children (can't let gays and/or atheists have kids, after all)

The only people I've ever seriously given thought to possibly needing to be sterilized are people who lose parental rights to child after child after child due to abuse or neglect, and even then it's far too much of a slippery slope to ever think it would be a good idea to give the government that much power.

As far as we all know, this guy and the 11 women he's had kids with are not abusing or neglecting the children. Morally, I don't see much of a difference between having one or two kids you can't provide for and having 30 (it's akin to someone murdering one or two people versus murdering 30 people) Though the degree of severity is greater, the underlying act is the same.

[holothuroidea]

I think it depends on whether his ability to reproduce is really a danger to others.

However, we'd also have to consider whether it would be just to also revoke his right to autonomy and self determination in order to preform a medical procedure without consent.

The more I think about it, the more repulsive the idea is.

But if, in order to stop him from impregnating more women, the alternative to sterilization were life in prison that seems somewhat extreme (well, maybe not given his rap sheet as a previous poster mentioned). I wonder if he had the choice, which would he choose?

I think that we should make the option of sterilization appealing to this man. Make it free. Other than that, though, what is there to do? having X amount of children isn't a crime regardless if you can provide for them or not. Nor should it be.

[BlondeAgent007]

i worked with a woman who had her first child taken away due to abuse. The child was found to have a broken collarbone. I don't know many other details, her stories never matched. She will never have parental rights returned to her or her husband. They recently had another child and tried to make out of state to keep CPS at bay. It didn't work- they found her and took that child too. Apparently she won't ever be allowed to keep any of her children because she has been deemed unfit. I don't think people's reproductive rights should be taken away, but in her case, my beliefs are challenged.

[valsa]

But if, in order to stop him from impregnating more women, the alternative to sterilization were life in prison that seems somewhat extreme (well, maybe not given his rap sheet as a previous poster mentioned). I wonder if he had the choice, which would he choose?

But why would he need to choose? He's done nothing that breaks the law. It's no different to give him a choice between sterilization and prison and give someone like me a choice between sterilization and prison- neither one of us has broken the law.

ETA: You mention his ability to reproduce being a danger. How? And to whom? Is it the number of children he has? Then why wouldn't we go after people like the Duggars or the Bates? Technically, those families have a much higher adult-to-child ratio than this guy (2:19 (or 18, considering Josh is out of the house) versus 12:30) Is it because he can't monetarily provide for all his children? Because I know a lot more poor people who will need to be given that choice then.

[holothuroidea]

But why would he need to choose? He's done nothing that breaks the law. It's no different to give him a choice between sterilization and prison and give someone like me a choice between sterilization and prison- neither one of us has broken the law.

ETA: You mention his ability to reproduce being a danger. How? And to whom? Is it the number of children he has? Then why wouldn't we go after people like the Duggars or the Bates? Technically, those families have a much higher adult-to-child ratio than this guy (2:19 (or 18, considering Josh is out of the house) versus 12:30) Is it because he can't monetarily provide for all his children? Because I know a lot more poor people who will need to be given that choice then.

I agree that he hasn't broken the law. I am not making a point for forced sterilization, I was just defending that it is not an invalid point to make in this context. If you go back to my original posts, I was never in favor of anything of the sort and nor did I snark about it.

I did not say that his ability to reproduce was a danger, I merely brought up the question. I don't think that it is. The only people who would be able to say are the mothers and children, whether they feel like they were abused or manipulated into sex with him, or whether his children have been neglected as a result of the amount of children he has to support. And even then, I don't think it's right to force sterilization on him.

I think maybe you should direct your questions to those who alluded to forced sterilization. :)

[margiebargie]

Why not propose voluntary sterilization as an option? For men its a simple procedure and it's reversible.

I wouldn't support forced sterilization even in a situation as egregious as this.

[holothuroidea]

Why not propose voluntary sterilization as an option? For men its a simple procedure and it's reversible.

I wouldn't support forced sterilization even in a situation as egregious as this.

That's my stance, and I think it should be free.

[geniebelle6901]

But if, in order to stop him from impregnating more women, the alternative to sterilization were life in prison that seems somewhat extreme (well, maybe not given his rap sheet as a previous poster mentioned). I wonder if he had the choice, which would he choose?

No law as been broken here. Nothing has been presented that he raped or abused any of the women he slept with. So, no forced sterilization is not called for in this instance. His rap sheet on the other hand, while, is raises my eyebrows, It doesn't mention that he abused or raped any on of his baby mamas. If having a rap sheet were the standard for sterilization then a heck of of a lot of people, including women should be included in that as well.

Now, what about the Lorena Bobbitt reference? That strikes me as more horrifying. I could maybe, probably understand someone saying that out of anger because he had raped somebody, but just for fathering 33 kids? Umm...no. A similar statement got me into hot water months ago when I mentioned putting a rapist is a cell with....well...everybody remembers that one, so I won't repeat it again.

Anyway, unless this guy all of a sudden becomes rich, I don't see his baby mama's getting anything in the way of child support...ever. That's sad but true. As my grandma would say, you can get blood from a turnip.

[formergothardite]

I agree that that joke is in very very poor taste. Now if the poster comes and says that they weren't joking and really meant that then they will be up there with what you said genie. I get why people are frustrated but forced sterilization on people is not the way to go. Being poor and having kids shouldn't mean the government can not allow you to have any children.

[bellamonster04]

A quick Google search is all it takes for these women to know that he has 30 kids and no money but women are still not only willing to have sex with him but UNPROTECTED sex...that is disgusting. The real problem is the lack of self-worth these women apparently have. They don't value their lives at all and risk walking away with something much worse than an unplanned pregnancy. :?

[geniebelle6901]

Ok, so now that we have discussed the reproductive rights of this guy, does anybody care to address the Lorena Bobbitt reference, meaning genital mutilation?

[aldisbrand]

A quick Google search is all it takes for these women to know that he has 30 kids and no money but women are still not only willing to have sex with him but UNPROTECTED sex...that is disgusting. The real problem is the lack of self-worth these women apparently have. They don't value their lives at all and risk walking away with something much worse than an unplanned pregnancy. :?

I had a child out of wedlock with a very poor man who I knew could never support the baby. But I loved him very much and he loved me. Money or even his inability to commit meant nothing to me. I would not change anything. I loved him, I love the baby.

Maybe, the women weren't disgusting. Maybe they were in love. Maybe this man gave the women something they needed.

I know, I know. . the "I was in love" excuse seems thin to some people, but maybe it is a strong reason for someone else.

[samithemage]

Ok, so now that we have discussed the reproductive rights of this guy, does anybody care to address the Lorena Bobbitt reference, meaning genital mutilation?

I feel like this "joke" was probably extreme hyperbole to express disgust with a situation that they could not control. It may not have been in good taste, but i doubt it was meant seriously. It's the sort of joke all of us are probably guilty of, but realize in hindsight that it was in poor taste. I know you have been accused of having such poor taste, so you can probably understand how easy it is to get carried away with a hyperbolic joke such as this.

[valsa]

I had a child out of wedlock with a very poor man who I knew could never support the baby. But I loved him very much and he loved me. Money or even his inability to commit meant nothing to me. I would not change anything. I loved him, I love the baby.

Maybe, the women weren't disgusting. Maybe they were in love. Maybe this man gave the women something they needed.

I know, I know. . the "I was in love" excuse seems thin to some people, but maybe it is a strong reason for someone else

I think those people need more going on in their life. And to stop being selfish. Bringing another thinking, feeling human being into the world, one you knew from before conception you could not financially or emotionally* provide for, just to fullfil your own needs is the worst kind of selfishness. "I was in love" is a good excuse for being with a person romantically, not brining a child into the relationship.

* It is possible for a person who is not committed to their partner to still be as much of a parent to the child resulting from that union as they would have been if they were committed to the child's other parent. However, it is very difficult and, imo, very rare.

[geniebelle6901]

Yes, I did suggest something horrible for a rapist, but I have apologized for those statements, and meant it. However, in this case, It didn't sound like a joke to me. No LOL or laughing/smiling faces, or anything to indicate a joke. So until the original poster comes forward and says she/he meant it as a joke, I'm assuming what was posted is what was meant. And if she didn't meann it, I would one of the first to accept her apology, having made an outrageous statement like that before.

To be honest, this whole thing is wrong. A man fathered 33 kids. Yeah, it's stupid, crazy, and tabloid fodder. Recommending or even suggesting sterilization is wrong. How would the women of FJ feel if the government suggested you had your tubes tied or a hysterectomy for non medical reasons? So, if it's not ok for the government to suggest sterilization to women, then then same should apply to men as well.