High court hears oral arguments in Lorain child support case

The Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral arguments July 21 in the case of a Lorain man who was barred from having more children as a condition of his probation for failure to pay child support.

London Chapman was ordered in 2016 by Lorain County Probate Judge James T. Walther to “make all reasonable to avoid impregnating women” while on community control until he could establish support for the children he already has.

Chapman has 13 children.

At the time the order was issued, he owed more than $200,000 in child support payments.

The case was accepted by the High Court in January after an appeal in Ohio’s Ninth District Court of Appeals was denied in September 2019.

Chapman’s attorney Giovanna Bremke, with support from the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, told the Supreme Court that by ordering Chapman to not have any additional children, the trial court effectively “castrated.”

Bremke and the ACLU also argued the term “reasonable efforts” was overly broad.

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor said the order did not require payment of Chapman’s obligations in full or being 100 percent current and questioned why the different circumstances addressed by the order was not within his ability to control.

Bremke noted there were a number of circumstances outside Chapman’s control, including the death of a child in addition to a large financial burden.

Attorney David Carey of the ACLU argued procreation is a fundamental constitutional right.

“It is beyond dispute that procreation falls within the exclusive category of fundamental rights, and in fact is among the oldest rights recognized under that doctrine,” Carey said. “But, the constitutional question here is whether that right loses its constitutional protections in the context of probation and community control.”

Justice Patrick DeWine questioned why procreation differed from restrictions on gun ownership for individuals convicted of certain crimes.

Carey responded the government has to demonstrate a specific articulated interest.

“The state’s interests here are not in preventing Mr. Chapman from procreating, they’re in securing resources for his existing children,” Carey argued. “So, there’s nothing in this condition that controls his debts, controls his expenditures, assigns or garnish his wages.

“He could adopt a child and not be in violation of this condition and simultaneously ... it’s over broad in the sense that he could donate sperm to a sperm bank, and be in violation of this condition having nothing to do with the state’s interest. And that that is the hallmark of failure to narrowly tailor.”

Lorain County Assistant Prosecutor Jennifer Goodall said she agreed with the notion that procreation is a fundamental right.

However, Goodall argued the targeted community control provisions placed on Chapman to protect the public indeed were legal.

DeWine questioned how Chapman would know if he had violated the order with its vague language leaving “reasonable efforts” not clearly defined with Goodall suggesting using protection or practicing abstinence.

Goodall also said the order could not be satisfied simply through employment alone because it is unclear if Chapman would be able to meet his obligations in support of his children.

In January, the state Supreme Court also accepted the case of Lee Anderson for nonpayment of child support.

Bremke also represents Anderson.