Posted on 01/12/2009 12:01:24 PM PST by Publius6961
(paraphrasing) Girl takes father to court over grounding for breaking family rules, including insisting on visiting forbidden web sites, and posting inappropriate images of herself. Separated mother helps girl take father to court. Female judge overules father's parental authority.
(Excerpt) Read more at afp.google.com ...
Un-freaking-believeable.
Comments?
You can appeal parental punishment in court? Who knew? I want a childhood do-over!
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.
The father’s lawyer Kim Beaudoin said the disciplinary measures were for the girl’s “own protection” and is appealing the ruling.
“She’s a child,” Beaudoin told AFP. “At her age, children test their limits and it’s up to their parents to set boundaries.”
“I started an appeal of the decision today to reestablish parental authority, and to ensure that this case doesn’t set a precedent,” she said. Otherwise, said Beaudoin, “parents are going to be walking on egg shells from now on.”
“I think most children respect their parents and would never go so far as to take them to court, but it’s clear that some would and we have to ask ourselves how far this will go.”
According to court documents, the girl’s Internet transgression was just the latest in a string of broken house rules. Even so, Justice Suzanne Tessier found her punishment too severe.
Beaudoin noted the girl used a court-appointed lawyer in her parents’ 10-year custody dispute to launch her landmark case against dear old dad.
From crazy Canada!
Exactly, however, sadly, these days, parents do not have control over their kids......what a parent says is irrelevant, the courts are in charge now........
All I can say is, we’re on the precipice. Of a full-blown conservative revolution.
This is simply a custody battle. The real court action was initiated by one parent in order to interfere with the other parent’s custody rights. This is not a case of child going to court and getting a judge to overrule her parents’ authority.
Honor killings are still OK, right?
While that may have been the origins of the case, the ruling is a different matter, and sets a bad precedent...
the infowarrior
You said it. Unbelievable!
Can I appeal Oct 1976 when I put a piece of firewood through my Dad’s truck backwindow? I caught holy hell for that and I swear the wind caught it. It wasn’t my fault.
Shoot the kid.
There is a very simple fix. Since it it is not mandatory for someone to own or possess a computer, remove the computer from the household.
My response would be: “You have parental rights: now take parental responsibility. She’s yours to raise.”
She did it from a friend's house.
Did Canada sign that UN treaty on the child because if they did, they have a lot more of this to look forward to.
Obviously, I didn't find it either, or I would not have posted it again, even though I missed the first post.
The search function doesn't work for you either, huh?
Isn't that just wonderful? I suppose asking for a link would be a waste of time?
My daughter will be 12 in about 4 months and I can’t begin to imagine her taking me to court.
Then again I’m still married to her father.
(I bet there’s no chance this girl would have sued at all if not for the enthusiastic encouragement of her deranged divorced mother.)
We don’t know the history of this custody battle, so I don’t think we can really say whether the ruling set a bad precedent. It may be that the father has historically been the bigger trouble-maker in the battle, and/or there may have been evidence that his refusal to allow her to go on the school trip was actually intended to serve some other purpose than punishment for the rule-breaking he cited, (e.g. maybe the mother had already paid the non-refundable cost) especially as there’s no clear connection — a school trip for 12 year olds would presumably be closely chaperoned.
The article says this couple has been at it for 10 years, and the girl is only 12. At some point, a court has to start taking the position that the parents are the problem. It may well be that the court felt that the less time this girl spends with either parent, the better off she’ll be, in which case a supervised school trip would be in the girl’s best interests. If after 10 years, the parents still haven’t managed to find non-judicial ways to work out their differences about how to raise the girl, they’re basically handing over the decision-making to the courts.
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.