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

[stompy]

Good point. But the real big question is Where did she get a lawyer to represent her.

My guess would be the relative who paid for the trip.

Don't you guys know what Legal Aid is?

Lucie Fortin, the Legal Aid lawyer who helped the girl take her pops to court, said that "The trip was very important" to the daughter.

As for my views on the story... upon the further information given by another poster, it seems to be less of a challenge of paternal authority and more to do with the daughter arguing that her dad has no right to make the decision.

 

[MelziGurl]

Kids will be getting away with murder soon -_- I'm sorry, but the matter of discipline should stay out of the courts and between the parents. If the parents wanted to go to court over it then fine, but allowing a 12 year old to sue her own father over being grounded is ridiculous. But it sounds like the mother is the brains behind all this, something just gives me that feeling.

 

[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.

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

The original report didn't mention any of that. Effects of mass media i guess, stories get bigger over time.

 

[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.

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....

The fact that there WAS any debate allowed on this proves the judge was just plain silly; the judge should have thrown the entire case out whether-

a) the child had simply moved in with mom so she could go on the trip OR
b) the parents were using the trip as bait to hurt one another

...the fact that the judge circumvented parental responsibility could give legal cause for the father (should he so choose) to give up ALL legal rights to the physical/emotional health and well-being of his child, including alimony (which he should tastefully use to cover the court costs, since both parents may NOT sharing them equally).

 

[dwightsteel]

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

As the article so succinctly put though, even the court systems in Canada, the way most cases are ruled on are by precedent rulings. The fact is that this case should have been thrown out.

At the end of the day it comes down to this: Girl acts out (in a rather pornographic way, for a 12 year old). Dad, who has legal custody punishes the girl by taking away privelages (one of which was the trip). Girl sues.

The fact that this girl was going to be staying with the mother is irrelevant, because dad still has legal custody, and until that changed, she could only be considered "staying with" the mother as opposed to "living with".

The judge says that this shouldn't be an "invitation for every kid to sue their parents," but it is. She set a very dangerous precedent here. If she was willing to let this ludicrous case go forward, it's not even close to crazy to think other judges will follow in suite, especially now that it not only happened, but that the girl won the case.

Don't you U.S. citizens think for a second that something like this couldn't happen here, because it could.

 

[Trace2010]

Good point. But the real big question is Where did she get a lawyer to represent her.

My guess would be the relative who paid for the trip.

Don't you guys know what Legal Aid is?

Lucie Fortin, the Legal Aid lawyer who helped the girl take her pops to court, said that "The trip was very important" to the daughter.

As for my views on the story... upon the further information given by another poster, it seems to be less of a challenge of paternal authority and more to do with the daughter arguing that her dad has no right to make the decision.

Isn't challenging her father's right (since it was established that she WAS living with him at the time of the decision) to make the decision a DIRECT challenge to parental authority?

 

[Trace2010]

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

As the article so succinctly put though, even the court systems in Canada, the way most cases are ruled on are by precedent rulings. The fact is that this case should have been thrown out.

At the end of the day it comes down to this: Girl acts out (in a rather pornographic way, for a 12 year old). Dad, who has legal custody punishes the girl by taking away privelages (one of which was the trip). Girl sues.

The fact that this girl was going to be staying with the mother is irrelevant, because dad still has legal custody, and until that changed, she could only be considered "staying with" the mother as opposed to "living with".

The judge says that this shouldn't be an "invitation for every kid to sue their parents," but it is. She set a very dangerous precedent here. If she was willing to let this ludicrous case go forward, it's not even close to crazy to think other judges will follow in suite, especially now that it not only happened, but that the girl won the case.

Don't you U.S. citizens think for a second that something like this couldn't happen here, because it could.

To be honest, when I first read the title, I thought it HAD happened in America.

 

[Zephirius]

Hm. While now having read up on quite a bit of the details, I still feel the whole thing is stupid.

Did anyone read that link involving "Consensual Living"? No hierarchy? Yeah, that'll prepare them real good for career life. No hierarchies there, no sirree.

 

[Trace2010]

...the fact that the judge circumvented parental responsibility could give legal cause for the father (should he so choose) to give up ALL legal rights to the physical/emotional health and well-being of his child, including alimony (which he should tastefully use to cover the court costs, since both parents may NOT sharing them equally).

Why? If the father abused his parental powers over the child by exercising them in a manner that, even granting him the benefit of the doubt as parent, was inconsistent with his duties to the child, why should he get out of even *more* duties as a 'reward' for improperly discharging his other duties to the child?

Because possibly using punishment as a way to shape the behavior of a child IS the most important (whether or not your first full sentence was misconstrued or not is completely objective) "duty to a child" you have as a parent, and the fact that an external force allowed it to be circumvented at all is full legal cause for you to say in any court in the world, "hey, I cannot fulfill my responsibilities as a parent because...I no longer wish to have legal custody over a child I cannot discipline." If the judge found enough of an argument to hear this case ("even though I was living with him at the time, he doesn't have the legal responsibility to say no to me"), he or she should be able to hear this one too.

 

[WeedWorm]

This is fucking bullshit. Kids these days are little shit heads who, plain and simple, need a good smack now and then. No fucking discipline on any of the little arrogant pricks.


Fuck, now I sound like an old guy.
Back in my day we'd have to walk 20 miles in the snow to school, uphill both ways.

Disown her, we'll see how she likes total freedom.

Seriously. If this were my kid, I'd just be like, "You don't wanna follow my orders? Fine, fuck you. Go live on the street - I hear rape is the new 'how do you do?'"

Hmmm, I like the way you think... *sharpens rusty shovel*

I can't take any credit - I was inspired by you.
I'm serious, though. If I ever accidentally have a kid, (and it would be an accident, especially if it survived the abortions,) it would never disobey me.
Ever. I would strike fear into its' very soul.

Show the kid the first half A New Hope and say something along the lines of "Youre Alderan and Im the motherfucking Empire, do NOT fuck with me."

 

[stompy]

Isn't challenging her father's right (since it was established that she WAS living with him at the time of the decision) to make the decision a DIRECT challenge to parental authority?

Wouldn't it be indirect? She's challenging jurisdiction of the father's powers, not the powers themselves.

 

[The_Prophet]

But really... american law is a fucking joke. That judge needs to be fired.

THIS

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Kids have rights too. Stop depriving them of their rights (unless they're problem children.)

 

[R Man]

Kids have rights too. Stop depriving them of their rights (unless they're problem children.)

Parents have rights too. Children cost their parents so much. The sheer amount of sacrifice a parent makes is enough to give them the benefit of the doubt. Parents will loose sleep for their babies first, and ever growing amounts of money. Studies have shown that parental happines decreases once children arrive and only recovers once they've gone. Most parents must sacrifice their hopes, dreams and aspirations to feed a never ending gob that never shuts up. And worse yet the ungrateful sods never apreciate the sacrifice their parents make.