State v. Oakley
2001 WI 103, 245 Wis. 2d 447, 629 N.W.2d 200 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A condition of probation that infringes upon a convicted felon's constitutional right to procreate is permissible if the condition is not overly broad and is reasonably related to the goals of rehabilitation and public protection, particularly when the underlying crime involves the intentional victimization of the defendant's own children.
Facts:
- David Oakley fathered nine children with four different women.
- Oakley had a prior conviction for intimidating two witnesses in a child abuse case where one of the victims was his own child.
- Despite having the ability to work, Oakley intentionally refused to pay court-ordered child support for his nine children for over 120 consecutive days.
- As a result of his intentional non-payment, Oakley accumulated child support arrears in excess of $25,000.
- Oakley had made promises in the past to support his children but had consistently failed to do so.
Procedural Posture:
- David Oakley was charged in Manitowoc County Circuit Court (trial court) with seven counts of intentionally refusing to provide child support as a repeat offender.
- The State and Oakley entered a plea agreement, which the State later moved to withdraw. The circuit court granted the State's motion.
- Oakley then entered a second plea agreement, pleading no contest to three counts of felony non-support.
- The circuit court sentenced Oakley to prison followed by a five-year term of probation, which included the condition that he not have more children unless he could show an ability to support them.
- Oakley filed a motion for post-conviction relief in the circuit court, challenging the probation condition and the withdrawal of the first plea agreement; the motion was denied.
- Oakley, as appellant, appealed the circuit court's decision to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The court of appeals, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the circuit court's rulings, finding the condition reasonable and the plea issue waived.
- Oakley, as petitioner, petitioned the Supreme Court of Wisconsin for review of the court of appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a condition of probation for a father of nine, convicted of felony intentional nonsupport, that requires him to avoid having more children unless he can demonstrate the ability to support them, violate his constitutional right to procreate?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilcox, J.
No, the condition of probation does not violate his constitutional right to procreate. A convicted felon does not enjoy the same degree of liberty as other citizens, and conditions of probation may impinge upon constitutional rights so long as they are not overly broad and are reasonably related to the person's rehabilitation. This condition is not overly broad because it is not a permanent or total ban; Oakley can have more children if he demonstrates he is supporting his current children, and the condition expires with his probation. It is reasonably related to his rehabilitation because his crime was intentionally refusing to support his children, and the condition serves to prevent him from creating more victims and assists him in conforming his conduct to the law. The less restrictive alternative of probation with this condition is preferable to the more severe sanction of a lengthy prison sentence, which would completely eliminate his ability to procreate while incarcerated.
Concurrence - Bablitch, J.
No, the condition is valid. The decisive factor is that Oakley's crime was an intentional refusal to pay support, not an inability to pay. The condition is directly tied to his criminal and irresponsible conduct, which has caused egregious harm to his nine children. The alternatives proposed by the dissents are unrealistic, as Oakley's continued intentional refusal to pay would lead to incarceration anyway, which is a more severe restriction on his right to procreate.
Concurrence - Crooks, J.
No, the condition is constitutional. The appropriate test is not strict scrutiny but whether the condition is reasonably related to rehabilitation and not overly broad. The real victims in this case are Oakley's nine children, who may be raised in poverty due to his intentional failure to pay support. Because all usual methods of enforcement have failed, this extraordinary measure is required to protect his children.
Dissenting - Bradley, J.
Yes, the condition violates his constitutional right to procreate. The right to have children is a fundamental liberty interest that demands heightened scrutiny. The condition is not narrowly drawn because the circuit court itself acknowledged that Oakley would likely never meet the financial requirement, making it an effective prohibition. As established in Zablocki v. Redhail, less restrictive means of enforcing child support, such as wage garnishment and civil contempt, are available. This condition unacceptably ties a fundamental right to financial status and creates perverse incentives, potentially coercing a woman to have an abortion to prevent her partner's imprisonment.
Dissenting - Sykes, J.
Yes, the condition is unconstitutional because it is overly broad. While the 'reasonably related' test is correct, this condition fails because it amounts to a compulsory, state-sponsored financial test for parenthood, which is unprecedented. As in Zablocki v. Redhail, less restrictive means are available to achieve the state's objective of collecting child support, such as ordering him to maintain employment, wage assignments, and liens. Even for a convicted felon, a court-ordered prohibition on procreation without state permission is an overly broad encumbrance on a fundamental human right.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent in Wisconsin by upholding a probation condition that directly restricts the fundamental right to procreate. It solidifies that for convicted felons, the standard for reviewing such infringements is not strict scrutiny but a more deferential test of whether the condition is reasonably related to rehabilitation and not overly broad. The ruling carves out a narrow exception for egregious cases, like felony non-support, where the defendant's criminal conduct directly creates and harms victims, justifying an otherwise extraordinary judicial intervention into personal liberty.
