Evelyn Holmer


This Note discusses the constitutionality of antireproduction restrictions as they relate to the purposes and goals of probation, in the context of the Talty, Oakley, and Tramnell decisions. This Note addresses the ramifications and implications of these restrictions in relation to the deadbeat parent crisis, and it proposes more adequate means to accomplish the competing goals of child welfare and adherence to constitutional doctrine. Section II introduces and dissects the fundamental right to procreate as it is found under two concepts: the right itself and the right to privacy. Section III discusses the purposes of probation, generally, and articulates two leading ways state courts deal with antiprocreation restrictions in probation sentences. Section IV provides the factual and procedural backgrounds of Tramnell, Oakley, and Talty. It further provides a full analysis of the Oakley and Talty rationales. Section V discusses how the Oajley and Taltry courts respectively misapplied, expressly and impliedly, the constitutional review of these probation conditions. Section VI sets forth the ramifications and implications of Taltry and Oakley. Section VII illustrates how the Indiana case of Trammell v. State, where the appellate court used a "less restrictive means" analysis, properly struck down an antiprocreation condition, and calls for a nationwide adoption of a less restrictive means test. This section also makes the call for, and proposes, more legislation that directly compensates the children involved in these situations.