If the judge were really determined to prevent this woman from bearing another child during her probation period, there are a number of surgical procedures which could ensure this - some are more reversible than others.  But doubtlessly that would be considered too draconian.  But even though this woman could still have a child if she so desired, it would then be possible to penalize her if she does.  So, what happens if (not that I would wish such a thing upon her) she were to be raped, and became pregnant against her will?  She would wind up violating the court order through no fault of her own.  It would be a very ambiguous legal situation.  And of course, she could always CLAIM to have been raped, even if she had actually become pregnant by means of consensual sex.  It is also medically possible (although rare) for women to reproduce asexually - an ovum can be fertilized by a polar body, which (for those of you who forget) is a by-product of ovogenesis.  So a number of biological complications are at least possible.

What if the person in question was named Juan Salazar, instead of Felicia.  Supposing he had custody of his kids and was in an abusive relationship with his wife/girlfriend/significant other.  Supposing she outweighed him by 50 pounds and had a nasty, aggressive nature to her.  Supposing she began beating one of the children to the point that she broke bones, caused contusions, etc?  Supposing Juan could only bring himself to hovering in the corner while the mayhem occurred because he remembered how she nearly beat him to death a couple of times and the police and the hospital all sneered at him because men don't get beaten by their women?

So the girlfriend/wife/whatever goes to jail for 15 years (a doubtful proposition because everyone knows women get treated more leniently than men for the same crime) and Juan is left to hear the judge's sentence (because he realizes he really didn't protect his child).  If the judge says, ten years probation and you can't father any children during that time, is everyone on board with that sentence?  Wouldn't a condition like that be even harder for the court to enforce?  I mean it's not like fathers are necessarily there when their babies are born, much less around them while they're growing up, right?  You say, let the mother have it and raise it.  But, given Juan's past history of choosing lousy life partners, who's to say the state should automatically let the mother keep the kid?  Perhaps, without a stabilizing factor like a mate in the house, she might snap, especially during that period of time when she's susceptible to post partum whatever.

Lastly, and addressing the case at hand, why did the judge just put the condition she couldn't have any children of her own?  Why didn't he go for a broader proscription, like she'll not be allowed to be in company of children under a certain age for the next ten years.  She's already demonstrated she didn't have enough inner stuff to protect her own, why should she be able to babysit or work in a day care or public school?

Illegitimi non carborundum.