Poll: 12 year old girl wins case against dear old Dad for grounding...

[Trace2010]

Wow, guess he has to divorce his daughter now.

no need, the mother have full custody of the girl now, and the judge said that since she was living with her mother now, the mother have the full power to decide to ground her or not in the future

Wow, where'd you read that the article I read was about two paragraphs. I wonder if he was upset, she didn't exactly sound like a good daughter but I'd imagine he'd still want to see her.

Why? If he can't trust her to follow his rules, how can he hope to teach skills, discuss issues, or influence his daughter's decision-making without simply spoiling her?

This father cannot protect his daughter from herself in his house. She has become a legal liability to him- if he is not allowed to control her behavior or punish her based upon the rules of his house, then why should she be there in the first place?

 

[Reaperman Wompa]

But...But...GODDAMMIT Canada. You used to be so cool, like the Australia of the Northern hemisphere, and since our shitty new laws, the Australia of the world.

Now it's following in the trend of stupid decision making by people entrusted to not be fuckwits. WTF!!

 

[ranc0re]

Wow, guess he has to divorce his daughter now.

no need, the mother have full custody of the girl now, and the judge said that since she was living with her mother now, the mother have the full power to decide to ground her or not in the future

Wow, where'd you read that the article I read was about two paragraphs. I wonder if he was upset, she didn't exactly sound like a good daughter but I'd imagine he'd still want to see her.

Why? If he can't trust her to follow his rules, how can he hope to teach skills, discuss issues, or influence his daughter's decision-making without simply spoiling her?

This father cannot protect his daughter from herself in his house. She has become a legal liability to him- if he is not allowed to control her behavior or punish her based upon the rules of his house, then why should she be there in the first place?

The girl's an idiot, yes, but biological connections run pretty deep. She is his flesh and blood, and he'd probably still want to see her, regardless of how she is.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Is this really what the legal system is being used for now? Petty disputes between relatives?

Fuck.

 

[ranc0re]

But...But...GODDAMMIT Canada. You used to be so cool, like the Australia of the Northern hemisphere, and since our shitty new laws, the Australia of the world.

Now it's following in the trend of stupid decision making by people entrusted to not be fuckwits. WTF!!

Don't worry, it was in Quebec. Quebec has a separate system of law from the rest of the Canadian legal system. I hope to god this gets appealed in the Supreme Court when the father takes it there. The rest of Canada is still pretty cool... unless Harper fucks it up.

(I'm not Quebec-bashing here, I like Quebec. Just they do have a separate system of law.)

 

[cathou]

Any updates not in the article you can clue us in on...?

that's the translated judge ruling :

The parental authority returns to both parents and in case of conflict between the parents, returns to the court to cut by virtue of the article 604 in the best interest of the child.
...
The girl was punished enough by being prevented, some days earlier, from participating in another extracurricular activity of the end of year (dance show of the end of year) and that the refusal to authorize the participation at the trip would isolate the girl of her peers while these get ready to explore new things in life. Also, it's now the mother that have the legal autority of taking this kind of decision since the child now live exclusively with her"

the way i understand it, it's more a fighting between the mother and the father.

the judge also said that it was an exceptional mesure and that it wasn't an invitation for every kid to sued their parents if they are grounded.

Also it was not an original ruling, but an appeal. The fact is that the trip was in june. The father had the legal custody of the girl but she decided to live with her mother in mai. So what this ruling said is that her mother was able to take the decision because the girl was living with her full time when she gave the permission to go to that trip.

sorry it's a french link, but it explain a lot better...

http://matin.branchez-vous.com/nouvelles/2009/01/punition_a_lencontre_de_sa_fil.html

for what ranc0re said, yes, civil laws (but not criminal laws) are not quite the same because we have the french civil system.

 

[Trace2010]

Any updates not in the article you can clue us in on...?

that's the translated judge ruling :

The parental authority returns to both parents and in case of conflict between the parents, returns to the court to cut by virtue of the article 604 in the best interest of the child.
...
The girl was punished enough by being prevented, some days earlier, from participating in another extracurricular activity of the end of year (dance show of the end of year) and that the refusal to authorize the participation at the trip would isolate the girl of her peers while these get ready to explore new things in life. Also, it's now the mother that have the legal autority of taking this kind of decision since the child now live exclusively with her"

the way i understand it, it's more a fighting between the mother and the father.

the judge also said that it was an exceptional mesure and that it wasn't an invitation for every kid to sued their parents if they are grounded.

Also it was not an original ruling, but an appeal. The fact is that the trip was in june. The father had the legal custody of the girl but she decided to live with her mother in mai. So what this ruling said is that her mother was able to take the decision because the girl was living with her full time when she gave the permission to go to that trip.

sorry it's a french link, but it explain a lot better...

http://matin.branchez-vous.com/nouvelles/2009/01/punition_a_lencontre_de_sa_fil.html

UPDATE: A sad state of things to be sure. REMEMBER KIDS: DIVORCE IS GOOD!!

 

[Trace2010]

Wow, guess he has to divorce his daughter now.

no need, the mother have full custody of the girl now, and the judge said that since she was living with her mother now, the mother have the full power to decide to ground her or not in the future

Wow, where'd you read that the article I read was about two paragraphs. I wonder if he was upset, she didn't exactly sound like a good daughter but I'd imagine he'd still want to see her.

While I agree with you there, poetic justice would be if mom didn't have internet access!!

Why? If he can't trust her to follow his rules, how can he hope to teach skills, discuss issues, or influence his daughter's decision-making without simply spoiling her?

This father cannot protect his daughter from herself in his house. She has become a legal liability to him- if he is not allowed to control her behavior or punish her based upon the rules of his house, then why should she be there in the first place?

The girl's an idiot, yes, but biological connections run pretty deep. She is his flesh and blood, and he'd probably still want to see her, regardless of how she is.

 

[Trace2010]

Any updates not in the article you can clue us in on...?

that's the translated judge ruling :

The parental authority returns to both parents and in case of conflict between the parents, returns to the court to cut by virtue of the article 604 in the best interest of the child.
...
The girl was punished enough by being prevented, some days earlier, from participating in another extracurricular activity of the end of year (dance show of the end of year) and that the refusal to authorize the participation at the trip would isolate the girl of her peers while these get ready to explore new things in life. Also, it's now the mother that have the legal autority of taking this kind of decision since the child now live exclusively with her"

the way i understand it, it's more a fighting between the mother and the father.

the judge also said that it was an exceptional mesure and that it wasn't an invitation for every kid to sued their parents if they are grounded.

Also it was not an original ruling, but an appeal. The fact is that the trip was in june. The father had the legal custody of the girl but she decided to live with her mother in mai. So what this ruling said is that her mother was able to take the decision because the girl was living with her full time when she gave the permission to go to that trip.

sorry it's a french link, but it explain a lot better...

http://matin.branchez-vous.com/nouvelles/2009/01/punition_a_lencontre_de_sa_fil.html

for what ranc0re said, yes, civil laws (but not criminal laws) are not quite the same because we have the french civil system.

So why did the dad have the ability to say no in the first place?

 

[AceDefective]

Little *****... I hope the father disowns her and refuses to have anything to do with her ever again.
But really... american law is a fucking joke. That judge needs to be fired.
Also if I was an american and had a kid shit like this would change my tactics. Sure, no grounding from now on. Now if you piss me off I will just punch you in the gut. Hurtsl ike fuck but leaves no bruises. No bruising = no case.

umm this happened in Canada so do the reserch befor pointing blame

 

[cathou]

So why did the dad have the ability to say no in the first place?

because he said no before the girl moved with her mother.

at 12, usually, the kids can choose if they want to live with their mother or father in a divorce, even if the court ruled that it's one or the other that have the legal custody of the kids.

and in that case, the school was asking the permission of both parents for the trip. but her father was sayting no, and her mother was saying yes. so the school couldnt let the girl go to the trip because of that. so she sued to go the her trip, because the argument is: my dad dont have the right to punish me if i dont live with him...

so the judge decision can make sense actually

 

[Syphonz]

Wait this was in Quebec right? Doesn't surprise me...

 

[ranc0re]

Any updates not in the article you can clue us in on...?

that's the translated judge ruling :

The parental authority returns to both parents and in case of conflict between the parents, returns to the court to cut by virtue of the article 604 in the best interest of the child.
...
The girl was punished enough by being prevented, some days earlier, from participating in another extracurricular activity of the end of year (dance show of the end of year) and that the refusal to authorize the participation at the trip would isolate the girl of her peers while these get ready to explore new things in life. Also, it's now the mother that have the legal autority of taking this kind of decision since the child now live exclusively with her"

the way i understand it, it's more a fighting between the mother and the father.

the judge also said that it was an exceptional mesure and that it wasn't an invitation for every kid to sued their parents if they are grounded.

Also it was not an original ruling, but an appeal. The fact is that the trip was in june. The father had the legal custody of the girl but she decided to live with her mother in mai. So what this ruling said is that her mother was able to take the decision because the girl was living with her full time when she gave the permission to go to that trip.

sorry it's a french link, but it explain a lot better...

http://matin.branchez-vous.com/nouvelles/2009/01/punition_a_lencontre_de_sa_fil.html

for what ranc0re said, yes, civil laws (but not criminal laws) are not quite the same because we have the french civil system.

Shoot, this happened right across the river from me? Craziness. And thanks for the link, it cleared up a lot about the case. Makes the girl seem a bit less self-centred, but still...

 

[ranc0re]

Wait this was in Quebec right? Doesn't surprise me...

What's with all the animosity to Quebec anyways? Have you ever been there?

 

[cathou]

Shoot, this happened right across the river from me? Craziness. And thanks for the link, it cleared up a lot about the case. Makes the girl seem a bit less self-centred, but still...

yes, seriously, the english journalist did a lousy job with his article and it's very misleading...

Wait this was in Quebec right? Doesn't surprise me...

What's with all the animosity to Quebec anyways? Have you ever been there?

welcome to the escapist. in less than a week, i saw enough to sickend me...

 

[Trace2010]

So why did the dad have the ability to say no in the first place?

because he said no before the girl moved with her mother.

at 12, usually, the kids can choose if they want to live with their mother or father in a divorce, even if the court ruled that it's one or the other that have the legal custody of the kids.

and in that case, the school was asking the permission of both parents for the trip. but her father was sayting no, and her mother was saying yes. so the school couldnt let the girl go to the trip because of that. so she sued to go the her trip, because the argument is: my dad dont have the right to punish me if i dont live with him...

the the judge decision can make sense actually

But she WAS living with him at the time the trip came into play. Also, there are a lot of questions that should have been asked of all parties involved that obviously weren't. If the father does not believe that the girl is mature enough (which, as he has alleged, she isn't) to take this trip by herself, and if she WAS living with him at the time, then, I'm sorry, judge should have stuck with the dad, citing his reasoning for punishing the child.

And as far as having "prior punishment"...there is no way to prove that "holding the child out of the school dance" was actually the punishment for the infraction committed and not some other infraction.

 

[cathou]

So why did the dad have the ability to say no in the first place?

because he said no before the girl moved with her mother.

at 12, usually, the kids can choose if they want to live with their mother or father in a divorce, even if the court ruled that it's one or the other that have the legal custody of the kids.

and in that case, the school was asking the permission of both parents for the trip. but her father was sayting no, and her mother was saying yes. so the school couldnt let the girl go to the trip because of that. so she sued to go the her trip, because the argument is: my dad dont have the right to punish me if i dont live with him...

the the judge decision can make sense actually

But she WAS living with him at the time the trip came into play. Also, there are a lot of questions that should have been asked of all parties involved that obviously weren't. If the father does not believe that the girl is mature enough (which, as he has alleged, she isn't) to take this trip by herself, and if she WAS living with him at the time, then, I'm sorry, judge should have stuck with the dad, citing his reasoning for punishing the child.

And as far as having "prior punishment"...there is no way to prove that "holding the child out of the school dance" was actually the punishment for the infraction committed and not some other infraction.

no, again, the trip was in June, and she moved with her mother in May. a month before the trip... but by court order the father still had the legal autority over her even if she was living with her mother....

 

[Asehujiko]

The way i read it(and the first half of the story a few months back) the girl got permission to go on a trip from her mother and her father forbid that just to spite the mother. Using a child as weapon to annoy your ex = bad and court case worthy.

 

[RogueDarkJedi]

The way i read it(and the first half of the story a few months back) the girl got permission to go on a trip from her mother and her father forbid that just to spite the mother. Using a child as weapon to annoy your ex = bad and court case worthy.

Actually, it was because their daughter was being a porn star online and he didn't approve according the the report.

 

[ranc0re]

Shoot, this happened right across the river from me? Craziness. And thanks for the link, it cleared up a lot about the case. Makes the girl seem a bit less self-centred, but still...

yes, seriously, the english journalist did a lousy job with his article and it's very misleading...

Wait this was in Quebec right? Doesn't surprise me...

What's with all the animosity to Quebec anyways? Have you ever been there?

welcome to the escapist. in less than a week, i saw enough to sickend me...

Yeah... it almost lends credence to separatist's reasons for why they want to leave Canada, especially when you see that almost all of these posts come from Canadians. Maybe they're just jealous because you have two of the most cultured cities in the country. I like to think of Ottawa as being the third nicest in comparison