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

[confernal]

HIS IS WHY I HATE THE MODERN SYSTEM!!! I mean really, this just isn't in Canada, you have legal battles everywhere about things like spilled coffee and privacy rights about stuff people post on their blogs and the internet..... I mean really if this is what future civilization is going to be like, PLEASE lets have a nuclear war so we can go back to the stone ages.

 

[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,

No, using punishment *properly* as a way...etc.

and the fact that an external force allowed it to be circumvented at all

Why is that a problem? Here, let me give you an analogy: The Business Judgment Rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule

Think of the Parent as the Director, the Child as the Stockholder, and Growing Up as the Business. Why is that so bad a framework?

BECAUSE IT'S A HUMAN CHILD- not a house, not a business...the child is not a "share-holder", the child is the "recipient". You are teaching said recipient how to survive in grown up world. Comparing raising a child to raising a business, that's how No Child Left Behind and standardized tests were adopted.

 

[Nivag the Owl]

I think the whole thing is just insane. I mean, I agree with the girl to the extent that the punishment was too extreme, but sueing your own father over his punishment is just absurd. But then again, I don't dislike my parents and they're not strict.

 

[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.

I don't see how grounding violates human rights. Considering that even smacking has been deemed fair punishment by the European Court of Human Rights, I don't see them ruling against a non-violent form of punishment.

It wouldn't surprise me to have a case such as that to be honest.

 

[Oisnafas]

No. I refuse to belive this is real. I have to believe that stupidity of this level cannot exist. Since when do children not have to obey their parents?

 

[darktheif28]

wow...

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

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

She sued him because he grounded her.
No. I never listen to my mum, but going that far is fucking ridiculous. If she doesn't want to follow his rules, she doesn't deserve to get the benefits of living in his house - like a place to sleep without fear of being raped and murdered.
Or food.

If you don't want to give a child the benefits of living in your house, well, *don't get a kid in the first place*

Getting to make the rules are not some prize a parent gets in return for managing to get a penis inside a vagina. It's really not that special to produce offspring: a monkey could do it--literally, with another monkey.

Parents get to make rules because they *need* to if they're going to do the proper job of raising their kid, a job you sign up for when you decide to become a parent.

Don't like the responsibilities of the job? Don't take it!

I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying that he should return fire with fire. If she doesn't want to follow rules, he shouldn't let her live in his house.
If I had a kid and it tried to sue me for grounding it, I'd let it starve in the streets.

Part of being a parent is giving up the right to 'fight' your kid, let alone with 'fire for fire' unless they become directly hostile to you and they've gone WAY beyond just 'not following your rules'

Once you have a kid, it's not really 'your house' anymore. Once you have a kid, what is yours is theirs to the extent that they need it to avoid 'starving in the streets' whether they follow your rules or not.

Don't like that arrangement? Hey--don't get a kid! Last I checked, no civilized country was going around drafting people into adopting kids or impregnating them with babies. If you don't want to share with a kid, then the answer is simple: don't get one.

Part of the reason most of us think the father is in the right is that the daughter was posting 'inappropriate' pictures of herself online WHEN SHE'S 12! Dad had banned her from internet use because of this, but she persisted and got grounded. She has zero right to sue him, and if Mom is supporting this lawsuit she's a terrible mother.

 

[Evertw]

I'm, angered that the Canadian court ruled in the girl's favor, seriously, she is a child, and you're actually listening to her because she is grumpy about getting grounded.

Some messed up legal procedure.

 

[rainman2203]

I would make fun of the Canadian judicial system, but since I live in the US, I'd have no legs to stand on. There must have been an obscure loophole or vaguely related precedent for that to happen.

 

[Thingy]

Proof of the world's failing.

Relatively trivial matters in families should not be resolved by courts, and it's disgusting that she won. The punishment was a little harsh, yes, but what about the obvious solution, talking to her father and asking him to let her on the trip? Or is common sense too much to ask for nowadays?

 

[mrpenguinismyhomeboy]

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?'"

Well said. My thoughts exactly.

 

[Syphonz]

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

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

I was born and lived half my life there.

 

[cappp]

The real issue here is the exceptionally poor standard of reporting that the internet permits. The original summary, and nigh on all results returned by any kind of basic internet search, are woefully inadequate.

I invite you to read the actual judgement( http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=n&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canlii.org%2Ffr%2Fqc%2Fqcca%2Fdoc%2F2009%2F2009qcca623%2F2009qcca623.html&sl=fr&tl=en )before indulging in hyperbole. I know it's not as much fun as rampant and unsubstantiated speculation but it does have its uses.

A quick summary: The daughter was no longer living with her father who, through a somewhat complicated legal history, still claimed legal authority as her guardian. As such he was denying her the right to go on the school trip despite the fact that she was living with her mother, in her mother's home, and under her mother's supervision. The case was primarily a vehicle to establish the rights and responsibilities of the respective care-givers, not the machinations of a petulant child suing her parents to get her own way.

 

[EchetusXe]

Wow. That guy should proably fire that lawyer.

haha.

"Why do I keep hiring you?"


The guys an idiot. He forces his child to stay at home rather than get an education and then loses a court case to a 12 year old. After alienating both his wife and now his child he now lives alone with no one to exert his authority over, boohoo.

Having said that a courtroom isn't the place to debate how best to raise children, who raises them yeah, but not how (unless laws are broken, i.e. incest, domestic abuse).

There is a saying that if you have to smack your kids you have already lost your authority. Well I don't know about that, but if your kid is suing you then I would certainly say all authority has long gone.

 

[EchetusXe]

Part of the reason most of us think the father is in the right is that the daughter was posting 'inappropriate' pictures of herself online WHEN SHE'S 12!

pfff, define 'inappropriate' (in fact don't bother cuz we haven't seen the pictures so that wouldn't be much help). He could be a strict Muslim and be claiming that because she was not wearing a burqa they were inappropriate.

The real issue here is the exceptionally poor standard of reporting that the internet permits. The original summary, and nigh on all results returned by any kind of basic internet search, are woefully inadequate.
I invite you to read the actual judgement (http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=n&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canlii.org%2Ffr%2Fqc%2Fqcca%2Fdoc%2F2009%2F2009qcca623%2F2009qcca623.html&sl=fr&tl=en) before indulging in hyperbole. I know it?s not as much fun as rampant and unsubstantiated speculation but it does have its uses.
A quick summary: The daughter was no longer living with her father who, through a somewhat complicated legal history, still claimed legal authority as her guardian. As such he was denying her the right to go on the school trip despite the fact that she was living with her mother, in her mother?s home, and under her mother?s supervision. The case was primarily a vehicle to establish the rights and responsibilities of the respective care-givers, not the machinations of a petulant child suing her parents to get her own way.

Hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument!