Hot on HuffPost Parents:
Should Kids Call Stepparents 'Mom' And 'Dad'?
Erika Christakis: Who's the Pervert? Is Hitting a Child More…
Unmarried Missouri couple and children face eviction
Filed under: Media
I lived in Missouri, so I regarded this story with great interest. Several readers have given us tips about this today. Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving have three children together, and they are facing eviction because of a city ordinance that prohibits more than three people from living together if they are unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption. Shelltrack and Loving applied for a permit that would allow them to live together. It was denied. The city council tried to overturn the ordinance. The motion failed. As a Missourian, and as a United States citizen, this story alarms me greatly. I lived with my partner and my three children, before we were married, for over three years before we did marry. College students in my town live together, four to six students to an apartment, and so far as I know, they are not married. Even if this ordinance does exist in my town, it is not enforced.
It is the combination of enforcement and the ordinance's existence that make me largely suspicious here about what is going on with this particular family. I don't think it is a coincidence that the couple are two different skin colors. This is not an issue of morality: Shouldn't we, in our increasing conservative climate, be encouraging two parents to co-raise their children? OH, but WAIT. They aren't MARRIED. And somehow we could maybe ignore that-- but THEY DON'T LOOK LIKE EACH OTHER. He is black, she is white. They live together. They have children. Hmmm... how can we punish them for that? Ahhh, they aren't married and we have this convenient ordinance here...
Again. I live in a college town. The ordinance may exist to prevent fraternity and sorority houses from springing up in residential neighborhoods. But to enforce an eviction for a FAMILY wherein three MINOR children are related by blood, but the parents are unmarried? Well, it smacks of racism in this case, but in ANY case, it just plain stinks.
Please spare me the morality of, "Why don't they just get married." I know exactly why they don't get married: Because that is not right for their relationship. And they shouldn't be forced into a relationship just so they can exercise what should be a given right to live together. They are a FAMILY.
How long are we, as US citizens, going to continue to let our government into our bedrooms? Would it really be better for anyone in this society if one of those parents were forced to move out? Or if the family is NOT legally allowed to live together because they cannot buy a house?
*Update: Apparently I am not the only one who thinks race played a role here...
Your<span>Voice</span>
Ask Us Anything About Parenting
Recently Asked
- Hi I'm going to be a mommy for the first time. Would it be okay to name my first child, if a boy, after my father's name?
- My son and me had the puberty and masturbate talk and some of the question he ask was ?can you show me how to masturbate?? and ?he ask me to tall him ...
- Trusty auction ( as the owner of the property am i required to attend auction, and approve the sale?












ReaderComments (Page 2 of 2)
5-17-2006 @ 8:14PM
Angie said...Fascism because they won't spend $10 on a marriage license? I'll bet their dog has a license. . .
Reply
5-17-2006 @ 9:25PM
Jane Doe said...You're really missing the point, Angie.
Look up the definition of fascism. This is not about getting a license, and, frankly, it's not for you to dole out punishments to unwed couples.
Here's a short cut: Fascism is a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism
or
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Reply
5-17-2006 @ 11:28PM
expatraveler said...I completely agree too, absurd, insane and probably racially related. The states need to get with the times or they will be left behind. Personally this drove me to be an expat for life. Sorry but I won't be back either... Stuff like this boils my blood and well if they don't accept you, I'll go where I'm welcome instead.
Reply
5-18-2006 @ 12:09AM
Dee said...Couple of things:
1. Missouri is not a common law state. So, no this couple does not have a legally recognized relationship by the state of Missouri.
2. Black Jack is a suburb of St. Louis, and while there are lots of colleges in the metro area, none in very close proximity to Black Jack. It is not a college town so I'm guessing this law was not designed to keep frat houses out of the burbs. There must have been some other motivation behind this law. Whether it was racial in nature or not, I can't say.
2. I live very nearby, and to my knowledge, Black Jack is a fairly racially mixed area. I wouldn't think that interracial couples are all that out of the ordinary there.
3. Despite the above, I still think race could definately be an issue in this case. Like anywhere else, many people in this area welcome diversity and some do not.
4. The city council is just plain wrong to deny a housing permit to an obviously stable couple who are just trying to raise their kids and live their lives. Governments need to stay out of our bedrooms. They shouldn't have to conform to anyone's definition of family. They ARE a family.
Reply
5-18-2006 @ 9:35AM
Alice said...I posted a comment of my views on this subject a while back on Is America Burning, and for anybody interested in reading, I've Cut n' Pasted the bulk of that comment here:
Love for one another, one's children is NOT 'proven' with a scrap of paper, a few signatures and two rings, and it is certainly NOT 'proven' in the eyes of God - in fact, bar the fact that it helps people legally because of certain backward, bigoted ?traditions? that have been upheld, it means nothing to God or anyone else. Not really. Not in the grand scheme of things. Some people may feel it is important, and that is their God given right, but that does NOT mean that being in love, living together and (possibly) having children suddenly means more if the people involved are married, because it simply doesn?t. NOTHING can mean more than pure, true love - it is impossible.
Love is love, plain and simple. It can be between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man, parent(s) and child(ren), grandparent(s) and child(ren), aunt(s)/uncle(s) and child(ren), friend(s) and friend(s), human(s) and animal(s), human(s)/animal(s) and God... Marriage does not equal love. Right now marriage equals a leg up, a trump card in the eyes of the law enforcers because that is the way it has always been.
And in conclusion to this, let us just remember that the people causing the problems here are NOT the loving families living together and 'proving' their love, commitment and support toward one another and their children daily in thought and word and deed - the people causing the problems are those afraid to admit that somewhere along the line someone deciding what was right and wrong, good and bad, and better and worse got it WRONG.
Thank you for reading, and goodnight.
Reply
5-18-2006 @ 12:21PM
Sharon said...How sad, what's next, wearing a scarlet letter?
Reply
5-18-2006 @ 3:40PM
Jared said...Everyone seems to have a lot of opinions about a place in which they don't live. This isn't simply taking place in 'Missouri'; we're talking about north St. Louis, which is hardly a bastion of racism. This is not an issue of race.
They are in violation of a city zoning ordinance. Cities all over the country are allowed to define zoning categories in whatever way they choose, to reflect the needs of the community. These decisions are made by appointed and elected officials, in public hearings.
I'd have a big problem if someone wanted to move into my city and change the community's laws simply to suit their needs. Shelltrack and Loving need to ask themselves, if the community's values do not reflect their own, why choose to live there? I wouldn't. The housing market is good in Florissant, and there plenty of other, affordable houses.
As far as living in sin, well, that's between them and God. But either you've made a commitment, or you haven't. As I so often tell my son, pee or get off the potty. You don't need a wedding to get married, unless the wedding is more important to you than the marriage.
If this city ordinance *is* a moral judgement against cohabitation, how is others' condemnation of *that* basis any less of a judgement?
Reply
5-18-2006 @ 5:22PM
Jane Doe said...Well, Jared, what if the city ordinance said that only married couples could drink from particular water fountains?
Reply
5-19-2006 @ 1:30PM
Elizabeth said...Did anyone else read the "related article" that has more details? I love this quote:
"Larry Hensley says Shelltrack and Loving should conform or move. He says that's what he did 20 years ago when he moved from neighboring Florissant, which barred him from keeping bees in his backyard."
Because keeping bees and keeping children is just the same. Right.
Reply
5-19-2006 @ 2:02PM
Sheena said...I was thinking the same thing as Cary (commenter #4) - how does this city ordinance apply to this family? Since there are only two individuals unrelated to each other - not three! I was totally confused when I heard this story on the news...
Reply
6-23-2006 @ 9:32AM
Ronni said...Where in Missouri does this couple live? I live in Missouri and I've never been aware of this law ever. I agree the 2 races combined have everything to do with this. This is so wrong and we the people of Missouri need to stand beside this couple and each other on this issue. I live with my boyfriend but my goodness we are a white couple. You know I don't care if a couple is purple and pink it's not for us to judge others just because we disagree how they live. I would appreciate if someone can email me and tell me where this couple lives. And again I probably over looked it somewhere....
Reply