Man who had 30 kids with 11 women wants child-support break

[sgt.null]

By Rene Lynch

May 18, 2012, 1:30 p.m.
You have to say this much for Desmond Hatchett: He has a way with the ladies.

The 33-year-old Knoxville, Tenn., resident has reportedly set a Knox County record for his ability to reproduce. He has 30 children with 11 women. And nine of those children were born in the last three years, after Hatchett -- who is something of a local celebrity -- vowed "I'm done!" in a 2009 TV interview, saying he wouldn't father more children.

But Hatchett is back in the news this week because he's struggling to make ends meet on his minimum-wage job. His inability to make child-support payments on such a meager salary also means he's back in court again and again, most recently to ask for a break on those payments.

"Yes, we've got several cases with Mr. Hatchett," Melissa Gibson, an assistant supervisor with the Knox County child support clerk's office, said with a sigh.

Hatchett's attorney, Keith Pope, did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Under the law, there's nothing officials can do to force Hatchett to keep his pants on.

"If there's something out there like that, I'm unaware of it," Gibson told The Times, before adding, "It definitely needs to be."

Gibson said Hatchett is believed to hold the Knox County record for most children. (He'd hold a similar record in most counties in the U.S., which might explain why news of his predicament was pinging around the Internet on Friday.)

Gibson said she couldn't say whether any of his children receive public assistance. The youngest is a toddler; the oldest is 14. Asked in a TV interview whether he can "keep up with it all," Hatchett said he knows all their names, ages and birthdates.

Also in a TV interview, Hatchett tried to explain -- in a PG-rated way -- how he managed to end up with so many kids: "I had four kids in the same year. Twice."

When Hatchett is working, he is required to turn over 50% of his wages for child support -- the maximum allowed under law. Child support payments are based in part on the ages and needs of the children.

Some of the mothers of Hatchett's children get only $1.49 a month, reported WREG in Memphis.

[Holsety]

I can just imagine people advocating for a "30 child policy."

[SoulBiter]

I voted no... You know it takes two to tango. These woman are also as much to fault as he is.

Secondly, where do you draw the line. I know some people that should have never been allowed to pro-create even once....

[aliantha]

While I would never support forced sterilization, I could get behind some sort of court-mandated male birth control device for this guy. Is there an anti-Viagra they could make him take? Or a male chastity belt? Or, hey, women can get implantable birth control capsules -- is there something like that for guys?

He needs a new hobby, that's for sure.

[sgt.null]

I voted no... You know it takes two to tango. These woman are also as much to fault as he is.

....

i have no problem sterilizing them as well.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I voted "yes". Someone this irresponsible should not be allowed to have even 3 children, much less 30.

This seems to be the complete opposite of my usual "personal liberty" theme--and it is--but the flip side of freedom is responsibility. If you refuse to have the one trait--responsibility--then you voluntarily choose to give up the other--freedom (reproductive freedom, in this case).

[Cail]

I don't see how you could possibly advocate this guy being sterilized if you're pro-choice. Isn't reproductive freedom for everyone?

[sgt.null]

welcome to the club Hashi.

we can't even agree to drug test welfare receipients without liberals getting in a tzzy about it.

welfare needs to pretty much end.

[lorin]

I maintain that there is only one way to deal with people like this. Money. Offer them a set amount of money to get fixed. I know these people, I work with these people. You cannot involuntarily sterilize people, it will never ever happen. BUT if you offered a breeder 5 grand to voluntarily get clipped or tied they would take it in a heartbeat. We could save so much in future dole outs.

But hell, what do I know.

[sgt.null]

lorin - i agree, cheaper in the long run.

[hierachy]

what a playa

but seriously, whether or not he can support his children financially his line is going to carry on yeah... haters gonna hate but we'll see who's still laughing in a few hundred years

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I don't see how you could possibly advocate this guy being sterilized if you're pro-choice. Isn't reproductive freedom for everyone?

Yes, it is for everyone which is why I regret flip-flopping in this particular circumstance. This guy is so irresponsible that, in my opinion, he should not be allowed to father any more children.

The next inevitable question is this: if I think this guy should be sterilized for fathering 30 kids, then how many children is "too many"? A rational person or couple won't have more children than they can afford...but we all know that you can't always plan out children, unless you take matters into your own hands like I did.

I have stated before that women who have three abortions should be mandatorily sterilized--they clearly do not want children so take away their ability to do so. To mirror this position, I would state that if a man fathers three children by three different women--when those couplings are not multiple marriages and they were not reasonably planning on creating a stable environment for the children--then he should be vasectomied (what is the word for making a verb out of a noun? "to vasectomy someone", I should just use "sterilize").

I will probably regret that position at some point because it goes against my Libertarian political beliefs. I might even be presented with a sufficient logical argument for changing my mind; if that happens, then I will simply have to shrug and say "okay--you are correct". Until then, I maintain my position even though it is a little distasteful. I rationalize it by saying that preventing more unwanted children is better than letting people irresponsibly breed like rabbits.

See? I don't always have all the answers. Now there is a little honesty for you.

[High Lord Tolkien]

The story is weakly reported.
He is making minimum wage yet has a lawyer?
No info on the breed mares?

[Holsety]

I have stated before that women who have three abortions should be mandatorily sterilized--they clearly do not want children so take away their ability to do so. To mirror this position, I would state that if a man fathers three children by three different women--when those couplings are not multiple marriages and they were not reasonably planning on creating a stable environment for the children--then he should be vasectomied (what is the word for making a verb out of a noun? "to vasectomy someone", I should just use "sterilize").

Those are not really mirroring policies in a rational sense. On a purely numeric level, there is some resemblance, and the ultimate consequence of the "three strike" policy is the same. However, having three abortions to avoid having children is a fundamentally different act from conceiving three children out of a "stable environment" (the matter of marriage I'm dismissing altogether because I don't believe that marriage is proof of a stable environment for children, or even an intent to create a stable environment for children). Therefore, to have an identical "punishment" is, while not necessarily incorrect, requires further logic than what you presented. The two do not complement each other in any sort of persuasive sense. In fact, they are actually at odds with one another - sterilizing someone who gets abortions in order to avoid having children irresponsibly makes little sense if you are trying to keep people who have children willy-nilly from having more children than they can handle.

It may also be worth mentioning that I'm not certain your policy would apply to the individual we are examining at present. No problems are cited with his record of making child support payments - although he claims they are a burden on him, it seems like he is paying the maximum possible required by law. Furthermore, while it is indeed difficult to imagine this man keeping up with all his kids regularly (unless the mothers are closely congregated), to say that he has failed to provide a stable environment is different from saying he doesn't have the intent to provide a stable environemnt - if he does keep up with them, then that seems to weigh in his favor according to your policy. And if he was making more due to say, longer hours as opposed to a higher salary (assuming a relative lack of upward mobility in terms of wages, which I admit may be unrealistic), his probably already tenuous relationship with his children would probably further suffer. My point, more or less, is that if you wanted to be inclusive of this guy - which seems to be a safe assumption given that you're posting in this topic - you'd have to probably have a rubric describing a "stable environment" and sterilize him not based on his intent to satisfy that rubric, but his actual ability to. Which is even more invasive in terms of government's control of the population. I could say more, but I think I'll leave it at that.

And, t o weigh in shortly on the woman sterilization policy, I think it's based on laughably absurd logic and hopefully was intended as some sort of satiric statement. Abortion expresses a clear decision not to have a child at the time of the abortion, and in some cases might even express the decision not to have the child in question, which is not the same thing as an all-encompassing desire not to have children. There is no point in sterilizing people you suspect never plan to have children anyway without their consent - only people who never plan to have children, or perhaps even more pointedly are worried about conceiving children and never plan to have children would consent to being sterilized. The only justification for sterilizing people for having abortions is poetic justice, and is the sort of policy I would expect an inconsequential villain to pursue if he became a government bureaucrat.

Finally, if you wanted to you could have said, "then he should be given a vasectomy" XD

He is making minimum wage yet has a lawyer?

In NJ, I think that representation is free from child support enforcement if you're lookking to get it lowered...

[sgt.null]

Holsety - there is an amazing range of birth control available to anyone not wishing to make babies. so a woman having three or more abortions would seem to be using abortion as a form of birth control.

I am also against the octomom.

it is irresponsible of these people. and damned selfish.

i am anti-abortion but pro birth control. likely making me a bad Catholic.

[Orlion]

i am anti-abortion but pro birth control. likely making me a bad Catholic.

Nah, it just makes you Cail

[Avatar]

I don't see how you could possibly advocate this guy being sterilized if you're pro-choice. Isn't reproductive freedom for everyone?

I'm all in favour of reversible sterilisation and the requirement for a license to have children.

Would love to be able to sterilise people. We can't though. It would be an abuse of some right or other.

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

And, t o weigh in shortly on the woman sterilization policy, I think it's based on laughably absurd logic and hopefully was intended as some sort of satiric statement. Abortion expresses a clear decision not to have a child at the time of the abortion, and in some cases might even express the decision not to have the child in question, which is not the same thing as an all-encompassing desire not to have children. There is no point in sterilizing people you suspect never plan to have children anyway without their consent - only people who never plan to have children, or perhaps even more pointedly are worried about conceiving children and never plan to have children would consent to being sterilized. The only justification for sterilizing people for having abortions is poetic justice, and is the sort of policy I would expect an inconsequential villain to pursue if he became a government bureaucrat.

hrm...Holsety for the win.

My goal with this was to prevent unnecessary abortions and try to maximize the probability that children end up in stable environments but the points you raise point out the flaws.

*shrug* Okay--you are correct. <-- Hashi being true to his word.

A little rethinking is in order here. <-- *gasp* It is possible to debate things on the Internet without flaming or trolling and even wind up changing someone's mind. Write this down in your calendar because it doesn't happen often.

Finally, if you wanted to you could have said, "then he should be given a vasectomy" XD

I tend to be a little verbose, unnecessarily so at times. I blame the coffee I drink.

[SerScot]

Hashi,

Never forget the Maxim, "bad facts make bad law". Using this circumstance as the basis for a general rule will lead to very bad things.

Liscencing childbirth and forces sterilization is far more power than I want the state to have.

That said did anyone else think of the introduction to "Idiocracy" when they read this story.

[Cail]

That said did anyone else think of the introduction to "Idiocracy" when they read this story.

Ohgoshyes.