Ohio Supreme Court hears arguments in case of Lorain man barred from fathering children while under probation

The Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a case involving a man ordered not to father more children while on probation for failing to pay back child support. London Chapman was ordered by Lorain County Probate Judge James Walther to take "reasonable efforts" to avoid having more children in 2016. At the time of the ruling, Chapman owed more than $200,000 in back child support to 11 of his 13 children. Chapman pleaded guilty to felony nonsupport. The case has made its way through the lower courts several times, before being taken up by the Ohio Supreme Court in January. Chapman's lawyer, Giovanna Bremke, was joined by American Civil Liberties of Ohio senior staff attorney David Carey, arguing the ban was unconstitutional and overly broad, and that the trial court "effectively castrated" Chapman by ordering him to not father additional children as a condition of his community control. Additionally, it argues ordering him to avoid procreating does not rehabilitate him, and that he does not need rehabilitation for having children, but for not paying child support. Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor questioned how lifting the ban was not within Chapman's control — as pretty much all of them, including making regular child support payments, was within his means. Bremke argued some of the reasons are outside his control, such as the death of a child, or are a large financial burden. On the other side of the issue, Assistant Lorain County Prosecutor Jennifer Goodall argued for the state, agreeing that procreation is a fundamental right, but that the ban imposed by Walther met legal guidelines. She argued that conditions of community control often curb the rights of those they're imposed on to protect the public. The ban is also tailored, including a lifting mechanism related to him making child support payments — it does not require him to make all back payments before the ban is lifted. Justice Patrick DeWine questioned the vagueness of the order, as it does not specify what "reasonable efforts" Chapman could take to avoid impregnanting a woman and violating the order. Goodall said it would be a conversation Chapman would have with his probation officer or judge, but that he must use some type of protection or remain abstinent. O'Connor asked that if the objective is to get Chapman to pay support for his children, wouldn't the order for him to be employed be enough? Goodall said not necessarily, as he may get a part-time job and choose not to get further employment — meaning he would not earn enough to support the children. DeWine also noted the statute for felony nonsupport does not change based on the number of children involved in the crime. O'Connor asked if Chapman had a full-time job, which Bremke confirmed he did and to her knowledge had been making support payments. During a rebuttal, Bremke argued that even though Chapman is making payments, the issue is not moot as the court has yet to remove the condition. Chapman has not appeared in a lower court seeking to have the condition removed. When the high court accepted Chapman's appeal, it also granted that of Lee Anderson, who was under a similar order to Chapman's for failing to pay back support. The court's ruling in Chapman's case will be used to decide Anderson's appeal. Contact Carissa Woytach at (440) 329-7245 or cwoytach@chroniclet.com.