It's a custody dispute.
Posted on 06/19/2008 12:57:00 PM PDT by Scythian
OTTAWA (AFP) - A Canadian court has lifted a 12-year-old girl's grounding, overturning her father's punishment for disobeying his orders to stay off the Internet, his lawyer said Wednesday.
The girl had taken her father to Quebec Superior Court after he refused to allow her to go on a school trip for chatting on websites he tried to block, and then posting "inappropriate" pictures of herself online using a friend's computer.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
There is so much wrong with this I can’t even begin ...
So long, Canada. It was nice while it lasted. In you the USA can see a mirror image of its future self....
Is this Scrappleface ?
Good God Almighty,,,,,,parenting has been taken away, BIG BROTHER will now tell you how to raise your kids......good Lord.........just when you thought it could not get any worse, another day dawns...and...it does.
Just ask most any kid: he/she will tell you all about their “rights”.
It's a custody dispute.
Reading deeper into the article, this is in the context of a custody battle between the parents. That doesn’t make it right, but the child didn’t just randomly sue the father over her grounding.
Guess that's illegal in Canada. Or at least in "Family" court.
Unfortunately there may be more to this story than first appears. The parents have been fighting over custody of the girl for a decade and that has to have some ramifications. Possibly the dad violated some court order along the way in imposing the discipline. I personally think the girls deserves grounding and more but chances are the treatment of this child is grounded in byzantine court orders over that decade of fighting and that, alone, gave her standing to challenge the discipline, especially where a leftover attorney was used. I will get more outraged if an intact family has its discipline overturned by a child’s suit.
Any judge with a grain of sense knows that you don't let yourself get used like this by warring parents.
A 12yo going to the supreme court over grounding? I think there’s a lot more to this than is published.
As a parent, I’d pack her suitcase without the computer, give her the name of the nearest shelter, and show her the door or at the very least, haul her little a** in front of the judge after this ruling and tell him she’s his problem now.
>> ... the girl used a court-appointed lawyer in her parents’ 10-year custody dispute to launch her landmark case ...
[Read: the mother used a taxpayer-financed lawyer.] I was in a running custody battle with my ex for 8 years. Free advise: give it up. My son is now a 37 year old genius-level software engineer crack bum with no job, still living with mommy.
dollars to donuts the mother put her up to it.
I agree, she wants the court to be her authority, they can raise her, goodbye.
What on earth is the matter with Canada?
Just when you thought the Canadians could not get any nuttier...
But to be fair, it’s not so much the “Canadians” as it is the Canadian COURTS. We have our nutty judges, too, though this is one that tops even the most nutty American judge I’ve heard of.
My first thought was what a great comment that was, and I linked to it over at my blog.
But my second thought was that this was Canada; so the fool judge would probably say, “Great!”, and give her over to happy couple Jacques and Jean-Claude to raise.
/c:
Dennis Prager was talking about this earlier.
If I had a kid who took me to court over something like this, I would kick their sorry ass out of my house and disown them.
Canada is just so screwed up now it’s not even funny any longer.
It’s now an international law precedent that SCOTUS idiot Kennedy will make reference to sometime in the future.
that canadian court decision is so tragic. Liberalism is a chosen twisted state of mind.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Got that right - the states consider children as "THEIR" asset and the parents only as 'caretakers' =
i.e., parents are to feed and cloth = the gov't will determine all else.
If this isn't overturned, it becomes precedent - then ANY family, "intact" or not, is subject to it....
Depends on how it arose in the first place: is this a challenge to parental discipline or a challenge to a previous child custody court order? It makes a difference.
Good thing in this country, kids only have the *rights* their parents give them.
This is a joke right?
It would seem that by overruling her parent’s prerogative, the Canadian court has assumed all future responsibility for any of this young woman’s possible future misdemeanors or felonies.
Why would a court even consider taking a case like this? Pretty soon there won’t be anything the government isn’t involved in. What I do with my children is none of their business as long as I’m not harming them or breaking the law.
there are limits to expectations of levels of child care though. if she wants to play hardball there is always:
* walmart brand clothing only
* no bedroom door
* rides to school w dad in a bathrobe ( or golf shorts )
* bland dull but healthy food
* no allowance
* no friends over
etc. right ?
not like he has to just cave.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.