Poll: 12 year old girl wins case against dear old Dad for grounding...
- Thread starter Trace2010
- Start date
Dad was the custodial parent, and would have had to answer for any harm to the child.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
He didn't prohibit her from using the internet- he placed banned on sites HE deemed were inappropriate for his little girl...well within his jurisdiction and responsibilities as a parent. She disobeyed him again...well, now what? He (since he has responsibility for that child) must ensure that rules within his house will be followed. So he grounds her.
man he should have slapped her, if that was my dad and i told him i taking him to court i wouldnt be here to type these words.
Here's everything that's wrong with everything in the world.
Kids 100 years ago would be hit if they stepped out of line, there was no such thing as a brat.
Now if you so much as try to punish your kid, even in a reasonable way, you get prosecuted.
Kids 100 years ago would be hit if they stepped out of line, there was no such thing as a brat.
Now if you so much as try to punish your kid, even in a reasonable way, you get prosecuted.
No. The lawyer did his job i.e. to represent the best interests of his client to his fullest ability and to clarify an otherwise ambiguous area of the law. This is not a case about a petulant child abusing the legal system with the help of an unscrupulous lawyer despite the quite frankly bewildering insistence of those who haven?t taken the time to actually read the ruling itself, or at least taken the ten minutes necessary to find a more balanced news source.
Again, there was a question of parental authority between the parents. The court was considering if the father, the non-custodial parent, could act as the child?s guardian and decision maker when she was living with her mother, in her mother?s home, under her mother?s supervision. This is a valid and important legal question. While it?s fun to lament the legal system and it?s crazy function it?s also a good idea to check the facts before allowing blind faith and righteous indignation to overwhelm common sense.
The ruling, and summary of the facts, is here:
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
Again, there was a question of parental authority between the parents. The court was considering if the father, the non-custodial parent, could act as the child?s guardian and decision maker when she was living with her mother, in her mother?s home, under her mother?s supervision. This is a valid and important legal question. While it?s fun to lament the legal system and it?s crazy function it?s also a good idea to check the facts before allowing blind faith and righteous indignation to overwhelm common sense.
The ruling, and summary of the facts, is here:
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
Reading the forums here it would seem people think its perfectly fine for a bloke to stop a child he has no legal custody over and who lives alone with her mother of going on a school trip because of something the child did that he didn't like at his house. Yet at the same time ('Slavery returns to Britain' thread) a country that says its youths must do 50 hours a lifetime of volunteer work is evil and totalitarian and denies children basic human rights?
Either:
a) people are too easily influenced by the source they read their news from (as cappp seems to suggest).
or
b) kids don't mind when the rights of others are abused, just as long as they themselves aren't negatively affected, thank you very much.
Either:
a) people are too easily influenced by the source they read their news from (as cappp seems to suggest).
or
b) kids don't mind when the rights of others are abused, just as long as they themselves aren't negatively affected, thank you very much.
The whole things absolutely ridiculous. It shouldn't of even got that far. If I was going to sue my Mum or Dad they'd just turn around, give me a hard slap and that would be the end of it. Well obviously not now, I'm old enough to live on my own and earn my own living... But yeah, back then.
The guy still had legal custody. Also, the Lawyer turned it into a custody battle to increase his chances of winning. All these articles and news reports still don't change the fact that the girl brought a non-abusive dispute with the father to court.EchetusXe said:
Kids learn quick these days. With no more corporal punishment in the schools or handed down by parents because it is "unpolitically correct" the society as a whole has given children a false sense of empowerment which is eroding the school system and the home.
Basically, common sense has left the building, and we now are living in a world of uncommon sense. Just my 2c worth.
Basically, common sense has left the building, and we now are living in a world of uncommon sense. Just my 2c worth.
Yes the father had legal custody. So did the mother. The child lived with the mother and was under her supervision. The question the court was considering was one related to which parent had the right to control the actions of the child in that particular arrangement. The lawyer didn't make this into a custody battle - by its very nature it was fundamentally a question of custody and authority.SuperFriendBFG said:
Further, while the daughter begun the proceedings it was the mother who ultimately chose to proceed with them.
Finally, consider the court's own observation:
"[56] The Superior Court does not become a forum before which a child may come to challenge a punishment imposed by a parent or a mutual agreement. In fact, except in cases where there is injury or threat of physical, moral or psychological, a judge should exercise the utmost restraint when a minor seeks permission to challenge a decision from the exercise of 'parental rights of a parent the other parent does not.
[57] In other words, the Superior Court is not the place to solve the quarrels of a child unsatisfied with the decision of a parent, unless his health, safety or education is jeopardized."
I think that all the time. Especially the fact that was I was raised with as discipline is now "child abuse" thats complete bull.Pi_Fighter said:
I read the article including the original article and think that the girl needs some serious re-wiring of her brain.
I worry about this "consensual living" arrangement that is going on.......I don't think it seems right.
http://consensual-living.com./
I had to look it up since it was referenced.