Post by: Nitrogen on June 19, 2008, 03:26:58 AM
I am speechless. This HAS to be a joke, right? RIGHT?
Quote from: AFP
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.
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.
Post by: mtnbkr on June 19, 2008, 03:36:12 AM
There has to be more to the story...I hope.
Chris
Post by: Manedwolf on June 19, 2008, 04:21:30 AM
Does anything else need to be said?
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 19, 2008, 04:23:18 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 19, 2008, 04:30:07 AM
I suspect very much there's more to this story.
No, I don't think so. They literally have thoughtcrime tribunals now.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 19, 2008, 04:32:03 AM
I suspect very much there's more to this story.
No, I don't think so. They literally have thoughtcrime tribunals now.
They have hate speech courts. Which are bad. But such also exist in Europe, and unlike in Europe, in Canada guys like Steyn actually get acquitted. And which bears no relation to this thread. We need more detail.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on June 19, 2008, 04:34:14 AM
It's Canada.
Does anything else need to be said?
Does anything else need to be said?
Coming Soon! To a country near you!
I suspect very much there's more to this story.
Even if there is, I have to know, WTF is the court doing in their house in the first place? (besides the obvious).
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 19, 2008, 04:35:58 AM
Quote
Even if there is, I have to know, WTF is the court doing in their house in the first place? (besides the obvious).
Perhaps the terms of the 'grounding' are somehow especially abusive. Or there are questions about the father's custody. Or whatever.
One has to give kudos to the girl, though.
Post by: Firethorn on June 19, 2008, 04:53:39 AM
Or there are questions about the father's custody. Or whatever.
That was my thought; the family is already in court for custody hearings or whatever and this came up.
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 19, 2008, 04:55:00 AM
Waiting for the next decision that the dad needs to pay the court costs and lawyer fees for the child.
Post by: K Frame on June 19, 2008, 04:57:09 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 19, 2008, 04:57:50 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 19, 2008, 04:58:21 AM
Quote
That kid would be in the foster care system or up for adoption so quick she wouldn't know what hit her.
Did you mean "should"? And if yes, why?
Post by: K Frame on June 19, 2008, 05:00:26 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 19, 2008, 05:03:39 AM
Nope, were I him I'd cut her loose. Put her up for adoption.
Ah. I understand now. Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Irwin.
Post by: Tallpine on June 19, 2008, 05:23:57 AM
Nope, were I him I'd cut her loose. Put her up for adoption.
Just take her to the dog pound
Post by: mtnbkr on June 19, 2008, 05:43:24 AM
What I think happened is this: Complex custody case came up. Unrelated to this, the Dad may or may not be treating the girl too strictly, and the girl, being creative and unusually bright for her age, decided to utilize the situation in her interest (and the interest of every teenager, as he or she perceives it is to try and get more independence and privacy from his/her parents). And so it went.
Huh? She's 12. At 12, she must live by the rules of the house. She broke those rules and the punishment was not being allowed certain activities. She was not being denied basic needs such as food, clothing, or shelter. Not going on a school trip is pretty mild punishment for disobeying a direct order, especially considering she was "posting "inappropriate" pictures of herself online".
This isn't a civil rights issue. This isn't even a child abuse issue. Unless the article above is leaving out true abuses such as witholding necessities (Internet access isn't one of them), then it is simply a court system involving itself where it isn't welcome. Frankly, if there is more to the story (real abuse for example) I would expect the article to take a tone different than "overturning a grounding".
Chris
Post by: Iain on June 19, 2008, 05:47:20 AM
Quote
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.
Not all the way though. Not nearly all the way. At least may in part explain the childs behaviour though.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 19, 2008, 05:51:09 AM
So they struggle. Usually, the youngun wins out at a later age like 18-20, but sometimes they win out earlier. Sometimes the parents are negligent and they let a young kid run around way before he should. Sometimes they're abusive and they don't allow a young person his or her basic independence long after they should get it. But this sort of struggle, to some degree, exists in every family. It is natural.
Parents are protective of their offspring, and their offspring, once they start to exit childhood, start chafing at the restraints. The resulting struggle is not news-worthy, really. Unless someone gets creative.
Post by: mtnbkr on June 19, 2008, 06:05:18 AM
A 12yo posting "innapropriate" pictures of themself online is putting themselves at risk in ways they might not fully comprehend.
Quote
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.
Not all the way though. Not nearly all the way. At least may in part explain the childs behaviour though.
All it explains is the child learned she can use the court as a weapon against daddy.
Chris
Post by: MrRezister on June 19, 2008, 06:26:35 AM
Post by: roo_ster on June 19, 2008, 06:29:24 AM
One has to give kudos to the girl, though.
Uh, no. Instead of kudos from me, she'd get the back of my hand.
Post by: Iain on June 19, 2008, 06:29:34 AM
All it explains is the child learned she can use the court as a weapon against daddy.
Just like mummy and daddy do. That, and miscreant child as product of long and messy custody proceedings, is the bit that it explains, not how any judge decided that this was her domain.
Post by: K Frame on June 19, 2008, 06:33:36 AM
One has to give kudos to the girl, though.
Uh, no. Instead of kudos from me, she'd get the back of my hand.
And bring down upon you the wrath of the Canadian Civil Rights Commission...
Post by: RoadKingLarry on June 19, 2008, 06:34:31 AM
Post by: roo_ster on June 19, 2008, 07:54:03 AM
One has to give kudos to the girl, though.
Uh, no. Instead of kudos from me, she'd get the back of my hand.
And bring down upon you the wrath of the Canadian Civil Rights Commission...
Good thing I don't live in Socialist-occupied canuckistan.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on June 19, 2008, 08:23:01 AM
Quote
Even if there is, I have to know, WTF is the court doing in their house in the first place? (besides the obvious).
Quote
Perhaps the terms of the 'grounding' are somehow especially abusive. Or there are questions about the father's custody. Or whatever.
One has to give kudos to the girl, though.
One has to give kudos to the girl, though.
Not trying to be disrespectful at all but, just a question to determine why you, in general, approach this the way you do. I know you are a young fellow, which might be part of it but, are you considered to be "Right Wing" or "Conservative" in your country?
Post by: BlueStarLizzard on June 19, 2008, 09:24:08 AM
and in part i do blame mommy and daddy, because in a 10 year coustody battle, SOMEONE was abusing the court system and teaching this little girl that its alright to abuse legal resourses to get whatever she wants.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 19, 2008, 10:04:12 AM
Quote
Not trying to be disrespectful at all but, just a question to determine why you, in general, approach this the way you do. I know you are a young fellow, which might be part of it but, are you considered to be "Right Wing" or "Conservative" in your country?
I describe myself as a supporter of the Extreme Right FWIW.
I endorse the shooting of home invaders, the ending of income taxation, and the use of landmines to secure national borders.
If you re-read my statement you note it lacks an endorsement of the court action. I do not believe couirts should intervene in parenting decisions unless they involve serious abuse or danger to the child.
Post by: SteveS on June 19, 2008, 11:51:43 AM
Quote
10-year custody dispute
Unfortunately, if you and your spouse separate and are unable to agree on basic parenting issues (discipline, physical custody, etc.), then don't be surprised if the court crafts a decision that is crappy. I am certainly not saying I agree with this decision, but it is one of the possible results of what happens when you require court intervention. This is one area where courts do a lousy job. Having worked in custody disputes, I would say it is very difficult to come up with decisions that satisfy everyone. Nasty business.
Post by: BridgeRunner on June 19, 2008, 11:58:00 AM
Post by: Bigjake on June 19, 2008, 12:27:15 PM
Quote
Parents are protective of their offspring, and their offspring, once they start to exit childhood, start chafing at the restraints. The resulting struggle is not news-worthy, really. Unless someone gets creative.
"chafe" away
The kid is just that, a minor, living under a parents roof. She's friggin 12! She has no "rights" in her parents house past the basics that her folks are obligated to provide her. Free reign and internets aint on that list....
I'd have her ass locked in the juvenile detention center as an unruly child so fast her head would spin. See how much slack you get there, missy.
Post by: BlueStarLizzard on June 19, 2008, 12:39:21 PM
Quote
10-year custody dispute
Unfortunately, if you and your spouse separate and are unable to agree on basic parenting issues (discipline, physical custody, etc.), then don't be surprised if the court crafts a decision that is crappy. I am certainly not saying I agree with this decision, but it is one of the possible results of what happens when you require court intervention. This is one area where courts do a lousy job. Having worked in custody disputes, I would say it is very difficult to come up with decisions that satisfy everyone. Nasty business.
i didn't say both parents were at fault. but at least one of them is. i was on the CHILDS side of a pretty nasty devorce. the battle wasn't as much over coustody as it was over visitation, however, the nastiness of it was all on my fathers side and all so he could make a stink.
i don't care how much you hate each other, your responcibilty to your child comes before your petty arguments. which means you get your act together and work it out in a resonable amount of time. if you keep the court out of it and work something out, thats best. if you insist on fighting it out in court, don't be suprised if the outcome isn't what you want and SUCK IT UP.
that kid spent 10 years not knowing were she belonged. no wonder she's screwed up.
Post by: DustinD on June 19, 2008, 05:14:26 PM
Quote
According to court documents, the girl's Internet transgression was just the latest in a string of broken house rules.
I hope I am not the only one who breaks out into hysterical laughter when I read things like that. OMFG how do people even take themselves seriously when they are a part of something like this?
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 19, 2008, 09:42:10 PM
Quote
The kid is just that, a minor, living under a parents roof. She's friggin 12! She has no "rights" in her parents house past the basics that her folks are obligated to provide her. Free reign and internets aint on that list....
Re-read my post. Nowhere did I agree with the court's ruling.
Quote
I'd have her ass locked in the juvenile detention center as an unruly child so fast her head would spin. See how much slack you get there, missy.
Normally people only get locked up if they commit crimes.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 20, 2008, 12:11:31 AM
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 20, 2008, 12:18:45 AM
Who here thinks that this won't be the last time this girl is before a judge? Next time though it will be for some crime she committed since mom will not discipline her.
Post by: mtnbkr on June 20, 2008, 02:03:20 AM
There indeed was more to it.
Not a whole lot. Sounds like the mother is using her as a weapon against the dad, no surprise there. Otherwise, it is as it was described in the original article: She disobeyed him and was punished as a result. Dad wasn't being unreasonable and the description of an elementary school trip being a "rite of passage" is laughable.
Chris
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 20, 2008, 03:19:16 AM
Post by: Tallpine on June 20, 2008, 06:28:25 AM
Can I still sue my mom for not getting me a pony?
