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

[Overlord Moo]

Cause we live in the age of lawsuits, that why schools can't keep order by punishing kids anymore and there are no see saws or monkey bars on playgrounds by me, cause parents sued cause there kid fell off and broke her arm.[/quote]ya thinking back this reminds me of the time some highschoolers won a $2000 lawsuit because there math test was too hard. or when some fat girl won a lawsuit against macdonalds because its food "made her fat" I just dont know what the world is comming too.[/quote]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait what?!?

it's stuff like this that makes me want to nuke Canada!
(please note: I cannot be held responsible for most of the things I say)

 

[Pigeon_Grenade]

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.

that Happened in Quebec, not america

 

[fix-the-spade]

Perhaps the father should boot his daughter onto the street.

After all, the defendant and the plaintiff are not supposed to make contact.

that Happened in Quebec, not america

I'm sure there's plenty Canadians would argue it happened in Quebec, not Canada given the way Quebecians carry on.

 

[Micah Weil]

If anyone needs me, I'll be on that street corner over there with my "The End is Nigh" sign.

 

[Aries_Split]

Yeah, there was a thread about this a couple days ago. Regardless of what the mother said, the girl lived with her father, he had a justified reason to deny her to go on that trip, and so his word should have been the end of it. The court should never be brought into family matters, especially when they're going to effectively break apart any semblance of authority the dad had over his daughter and ruin their relationship altogether.

This judge's lips should be introduced to a stapler.

EDIT: Please don't take events that occur in Quebec as any representation of Canada as a country. Things are far different over there than they are in the West, and not in a particularly good way.

Zere's no Canada like fwench canada!
...

Sorry.

 

[DigitalSushi]

...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?

it doesn't matter, the girl in question is fucked for life, at a turbulent time in her life she now believes she can fight authority, and win.

The law doesn't matter anymore to a broken home, its the psychological impact to a 12 year old such a power trip has.

While its a mad story, I'd love to find out how she grows up, what will she be like in ten years time?. Has this affected her.

 

[xChevelle24]

Just a FYI, I have never seen such a lob-sided poll before, but I guess it makes sense in this case seeing as this girl is obviously retarded and this now makes me want to sue my school for making me wake up at 6 a.m. or sue my parents for only giving me a credit card at age 16, or sue my mom for not giving me gas money every 2 days. Ridiculous.

 

[Trace2010]

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.

Not quite- the reason I am citing is because both the original infraction of the rules and the subsequent punishment of not being allowed to go on the trip occurred while the child was still living with her father- what the court is then stating is that the parent did not have jurisdiction over the child while living in his house...whether or not the issue in question was "to get back at mom" is just a cheap excuse (I would hesitate to consent to send my child out if I had caught them in a similar offense)- the case should have been viewed as a DIRECT attempt to circumvent parental authority and thrown out of court, but wasn't.

 

[Trace2010]

That's kind of a crazy argument, isn't it? That if the courts determine you're not a fit parent to be the one in charge of discipline, you can get out of all your parental duties?

See, I say a parent has no 'rights' over a child directly. A parent only has 'duties' TO a child. Now, by virtue of having those duties to a child, the parent gets rights over the child against the rest of the world--the parent gets to exercise the rights of the child on behalf of the child, just like someone who is the legal guardian of an incompetent adult. We start with the assumption that the person best suited to make decisions on behalf of the child is the parent.

However, that doesn't always wind up being the case.

Why should a parent get out of their financial duties just because they're not allowed to exercise disciplinary duties?[/quote]


YES, parents utilize controls over their children everyday.

In the real world, it doesn't- I am simply referring to this case:

In this particular case, the parent was NOT deemed unfit- but a judge reversed a punishment placed upon the child by dad simply because the child griped to mom, and mom danced to her tune. This has messed the child up for many decades to come because it has warranted that whenever her parents make a decision she doesn't like, she doesn't have to abide by it.

NOTE: Kid was living with Dad at the time- meaning mom was paying child support. There is still more to this than we're being told.

 

[Trace2010]

Just a FYI, I have never seen such a lob-sided poll before, but I guess it makes sense in this case seeing as this girl is obviously retarded and this now makes me want to sue my school for making me wake up at 6 a.m. or sue my parents for only giving me a credit card at age 16, or sue my mom for not giving me gas money every 2 days. Ridiculous.

Hey, maybe I can sue my place of employment for having to be there at 7:30 in the morning, too! Then I can sue the state for all the taxes I have paid in the past, sue my college for an improper education (one stupid kid actually wrote a letter to the paper threatening to do this), sue my parents for not being in the top 5%, etc.

 

[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?

it doesn't matter, the girl in question is fucked for life, at a turbulent time in her life she now believes she can fight authority, and win.

The law doesn't matter anymore to a broken home, its the psychological impact to a 12 year old such a power trip has.

While its a mad story, I'd love to find out how she grows up, what will she be like in ten years time?. Has this affected her.

Three weeks later:

MOM SUED BY DAUGHTER FOR NOT HAVING INTERNET ACCESS!

 

[pantsoffdanceoff]

... You know? I used to think Canada was PERFECT. But no it's just pretty damn good. It's like finding out Heaven won't be serving doughnut every morning.

 

[DigitalSushi]

See, this is why the UK legal system is better - our judges get to consider if a judgement, whilst correct according to existing law, is actually in the public interest, and if not then they usually have a get-out clause from making that judgement, and thus preventing retarded rulings like this.

If this case had been in the UK they probably would have decided that it is not in the public interest for a father to be legally unable to ground their child.

But she would have won on grounds of her "human rights" being breached.