Court Rules Father Can't Ground Daughter

[quidmonkey]

First, the father banned his 12-year-old daughter from going online after she posted photos of herself on a dating site. Then she allegedly had a row with her stepmother, so the father said his girl couldn't go on a school trip.

The girl took the matter to the court - and won what lawyers say was an unprecedented judgment.

Madam Justice Suzanne Tessier of the Quebec Superior Court ruled on Friday that the father couldn't discipline his daughter by barring her from the school trip.

The judge's decision, made from the bench, applies only to the girl's unusual circumstances, lawyers for both sides said, trying to dispel visions of grounded teenagers rushing to the nearest courthouse to overturn their parents' punishments. Nevertheless, the case triggered an uproar in the Gatineau region of Quebec, near Ottawa, where the girl, her divorced parents and her stepmother live.

Even though the school trip is now over, the father is appealing the ruling because his moral authority over his child had been undercut by the court, said his lawyer, Kim Beaudoin. "He is stunned by this situation. He feels like he's lost his daughter," Ms. Beaudoin said in an interview.

"My client wants to appeal so no other parents will live through the same thing."

Lucie Fortin, the lawyer representing the 12-year-old, said the judge found that depriving the girl of the school trip was an excessive punishment.

She said the girl has already been forbidden to use the Internet and her father also punished her by cancelling her participation in an extracurricular event.

The trip, a three-day outing within Quebec supervised by teachers and volunteer parents, marked her Grade 6 class graduation from elementary school.

"She's becoming a big girl. ... It's a unique event in her life," Ms. Fortin said.

The girl's parents are divorced. Her father has legal custody but for the past month she has lived with her mother, Ms. Fortin said.

Before Judge Tessier, she cited Sections 159 and 604 of the Quebec Civil Code, which allow minors in some circumstances to initiate court proceedings relating to the exercise of parental authority.

Ms. Beaudoin said Section 159 is normally used in extreme circumstances, for example when a child wants to be removed from negligent parents.

"What my client is saying is that a school trip is not a right, it's a privilege," she said.

Ms. Fortin said, however, that the case ended in court after a long, escalating dispute between the girl and her father and stepmother, which ended with the daughter being expelled from her father's house and living with her biological mother since May.

"I presented this [court] motion with a lot of sadness," Ms. Fortin said.

Ms. Beaudoin also described a climate of tension and defiance, saying the girl, who had been banned from Internet chatting, tried to circumvent the order by going online at a friend's house.

Judge Tessier heard the matter for about 40 minutes on Friday morning then gave her oral ruling in the afternoon, Ms. Beaudoin said.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3349/3447492533_3d93097951.jpg (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080619.wcurfew19/BNStory/lifeFamily/home)

[Goronmon]

Those crazy Canadians.

[TheFlyingOrc]

That is absolutely horrible law.

[National Kato]

You'd think maple syrup could right all wrongs, but...

[Generation ABXY]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3349/3447492533_3d93097951.jpg (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080619.wcurfew19/BNStory/lifeFamily/home)

I'm telling you, if someone puts that on a shirt in the CoG store, I'm buying it in a second. :D

...

Also, I agree, it seems a rather crazy case.

[Shjinta]

They speak English in Gatineau .. son of a bitch...

[Wraith]

http://www.orble.com/images/north.jpg

[Robot Overlord]

The poor father. He's just disciplining his child in the manner he sees fit, and the court tells him his punishment was "too excessive"? Oh noes, no internet and no school trip?! Kids these day have it so tough. /end sarcasm

[National Kato]

Seriously. Let's talk about why she was putting her profile up on dating sites...at age 12.

[Stoke]

The judge needs to give up his position as he is clearly batshit insane.

[Telefrog]

The judge needs to give up his position as he is clearly batshit insane.

Her position.

[Ancalagon]

Sigh. Political correctness gone wrong. Why dont they just say she can take after Cartman and do what she wants?

He's right though - it completely undermines his authority as a parent and makes her respect him even less. I hope her Mom grounds her from everything except school for this.

My theory is that, the way any society governs itself falls somewhere between absolute authoritarianism and touchy-feely-politically-correctness. Absolute authoritarianism, on the one hand, isnt flexible and leads to a lot of abuse and cruelty. Touchy-feely-political correctness on the other hand, leads to nothing being done, no one being disciplined, and general chaos. So, I would say we need something in the middle or maybe tending more towards a more traditional structure, the hierarchical-authoritarian one. Its the way we humans are.

[Stoke]

Her position.

Ah, you are quite correct. :o

[Johan]

As bad as I think the decision is, I believe it is more directly related to the circumstances of her family life than the stupidity of the court. In cases of divorce, there will often be animosity and, even in the best of circumstances, inconsistencies between parents regarding how to continue raising a child. It's also not uncommon for a child to play divorced parents off of each other, or for divorced parents to use a child as a weapon between themselves and their ex.

In other words, I think this is a little more complicated than just a stupid court decision, though I do think it is that as well. There's blame to be shared here, because I doubt this would have made it to court from an intact family. In fact, I'm pretty confident this would not happen in an intact family.

[Kelegacy]

I'd send her to military school. If she doesn't like it, go live on the streets...the little bitch.

Kids need to start being beaten again. Hard. Like, near-death. Some kids anyway. Stop sparing the motherfuckin' rod and spoiling generations of humans. The world is fucked up enough.

[Kelegacy]

As bad as I think the decision is, I believe it is more directly related to the circumstances of her family life than the stupidity of the court. In cases of divorce, there will often be animosity and, even in the best of circumstances, inconsistencies between parents regarding how to continue raising a child. It's also not uncommon for a child to play divorced parents off of each other, or for divorced parents to use a child as a weapon between themselves and their ex.

In other words, I think this is a little more complicated than just a stupid court decision, though I do think it is that as well. There's blame to be shared here, because I doubt this would have made it to court from an intact family. In fact, I'm pretty confident this would not happen in an intact family.

Yeah, it has something to do with the divorce, I have no doubt. Probably the girl's biological mother has something to do with this. She probably encouraged the suit.

The problem is, her mother's environ could be a more free yet dangerous one. Her father had legal custody for a reason. Now, I don't know if it was just a financial situation or not, so I can't assume, but that's one scenario.

Still, stupid stupid ruling. Undermining a parent's punishment should be reserved for truly over-the-top punishments, like beating, rape, or something of that sort.

[Telefrog]

Hey, at least she wasn't sexting...

[National Kato]

Or playing videogames...

[ShivaX]

Or playing videogames...

In ENGLISH!!!! DUN DUN DUN!

[Ox]

Forget it, Baron, it's Canada.

[the Jack]

This is probably also the use of the law that says that kids have to go to school more than it is smacking dad's pee-pee for excessive punishment.

[Doogie2K]

/sigh

I really hate our judges some days.

[OUX]

Her position.

Oh, well, yeah that makes sense now.

[mister slim]

This story is almost a year old, by the way. As best as I can tell, the parents are in the middle of a very long custody battle, the father currently has custody but the daughter is living with her mother, apparently with his consent, and her school's administrative rules require both parents' consent for a school trip. The daughter has permission from the mother. Quite bizarre.

[H.Bogard]

Her position.

That explains a lot...

Also: Who can tell me which famous personality has said something eerily similar in the past:


"... a school trip is not a right, it's a privilege,"

I lol'd.

[Ink Asylum]

Since this thread seems to be somewhat about the rights of children, I was wondering what people thought of the UN Conventio on the Rights of the Child. (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm) It's a nearly 20 year old document that was signed by Bill Clinton but never ratified by the US. To date the only UN members that have not ratified the treaty are the US and Somalia, a point which Jon Stewart mocked last night on The Daily Show.

Politico summarizes the arguments from both sides of the issue, (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21041.html) including a Republican push for an amendment that seems designd to block ratification of the treaty.

While a treaty that seeks to protect children may sound innocuous, its opponents, such as Michael Farris, the Christian conservative founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, see in it a dystopian future in which “Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children”; “A child’s ‘right to be heard’ would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed”; and “Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion,” as he puts it on his website parentalrights.org.

[Kelegacy]

Well, I sure as hell want the right to spank without going to court over it. I plan on being a good parent and use communication as my greatest tool, but I'm not opposed to the occasional smack on the ass. My brother and I didn't turn out like the spoiled brats that run amok nowadays, and we were spanked. And neither of us is a violent person and our parents are awesome.

[Johan]

My opinion, frankly, is I don't want my OWN government involved in my family, let alone the motherfucking joke that is the U.N.. If the Democrats and Obama ratify this thing, I will never, ever forget it or forgive them for allowing such an intrusion into my family.

When the U.N. can stop their employees and individuals operating under their auspices from openly trafficking in, and raping/killing, women and children, I might warm up to them a bit more.

Now, someone send a stern letter of rebuke...watered down for effect.

[mister slim]

Kele, I assume all that violence in you is just sublimated into your sex drive.

[Ink Asylum]

My opinion, frankly, is I don't want my OWN government involved in my family, let alone the motherfucking joke that is the U.N.. If the Democrats and Obama ratify this thing, I will never, ever forget it or forgive them for allowing such an intrusion into my family.

When the U.N. can stop their employees and individuals operating under their auspices from openly trafficking in, and raping/killing, women and children, I might warm up to them a bit more.

Now, someone send a stern letter of rebuke...watered down for effect.

I'm curious if you read the Convention and if there is a particular article you're opposed to.

[Ancalagon]

My opinion, frankly, is I don't want my OWN government involved in my family, let alone the motherfucking joke that is the U.N.. If the Democrats and Obama ratify this thing, I will never, ever forget it or forgive them for allowing such an intrusion into my family.

When the U.N. can stop their employees and individuals operating under their auspices from openly trafficking in, and raping/killing, women and children, I might warm up to them a bit more.

Now, someone send a stern letter of rebuke...watered down for effect.

Just tell your kids not to go to the courts.... or else :cool:

[Johan]

I'm curious if you read the Convention and if there is a particular article you're opposed to.

I'm concerned with the language that makes it clearly possible for authorities to infer a right to demand I educate my children one way as opposed to another...governmental indoctrination, essentially, of what my kids learn.

AND

I'm concerned with the language that makes it clearly possible for authorities to infer a right to demand I discipline my children one way as opposed to another...governmental control, essentially, of my family.

The government should, plainly put, stay the hell OUT of my family's affairs unless we require intervention due to being leeches on the system or clear abuse.

Also, fuck the UN and the idea that I should cede rights to a body which is not in any way accountable to me. I'll take representative government over the UN any day.

[pomeroy]

Do you ever actually teach?

[Ink Asylum]

The UN is accountable to you. The US, the leaders of which you elect, carry a lot of weight in the UN, including a very powerful veto power. In addition, for treaties like this it is our elected officials that ratify them. Don't like listening to them? Vote for candidates that give a big ol' fuck you to them like Bush.

[Johan]

The UN isn't accountable to anyone.

* UN soldiers rape and murder.
* UN employees embezzle and engage in illicit activities.
* UN member states run conferences on racism with the explicit aim of ignoring much of the racism around the world while excoriating one or two states.
* UN member states routinely ignore the UNDHR (Declaration of Human Rights) regarding religious, gender, and other rights.
* UN monitors have been used in the past to create safe havens for combatants.

and on and on...

Do you ever actually teach?

Very often, thank you! In fact, I was named teacher of the year recently by a major corporation, which was a pleasant surprise. :) I wonder the same of many of you in regards to your employment, as well! When do you all do anything? :confused:

[Telefrog]

The UN isn't accountable to anyone.

* UN soldiers rape and murder.
* UN employees embezzle and engage in illicit activities.
* UN member states run conferences on racism with the explicit aim of ignoring much of the racism around the world while excoriating one or two states.
* UN member states routinely ignore the UNDHR (Declaration of Human Rights) regarding religious, gender, and other rights.
* UN monitors have been used in the past to create safe havens for combatants.

and on and on...

Full disclosure time. I also do not like the UN. Nothing specific. I just feel that it's a pretty ineffective and almost retarded bureaucratic body.

That said, couldn't all those points also be applied to any standing army in the world that has gone into other nations?

[BlackPete]

When do you all do anything? :confused:

So says the man with the highest post count in this thread! :p

[Johan]

...couldn't all those points also be applied to any standing army in the world that has gone into other nations?

The scale of UN misbehavior, and the near total lack of accountability, make it a much better vehicle for getting away with such stuff.

America isn't perfect, but I would hope you can see a difference between the behavior of the average American soldier and soldiers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4262743.stm) from (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27665245/) the (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7365283.stm) UN. (http://www.israelnewsagency.com/ununitednationshamasgazaisraelidfterrorismhumanshi eldsislamicjihadschoolschildrenqassamskassamsrocke ts48011509.htm)

I could go on, but why bother?

[Ox]

The US, the leaders of which you elect, carry a lot of weight in the UN, including a very powerful veto power.
Only on security matters. The US doesn't have a veto on proposals that originate in the General Assembly.
In addition, for treaties like this it is our elected officials that ratify them.
Actually, for treaties like this it is our elected officials who don't ratify them.

As for the Convention itself, there are some clauses that raise questions. I'm not necessarily saying any of them are dealbreakers, but let's not pretend that "it's for the children" automatically wins every argument.
2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.
Does that mean non-citizen children cannot be deported if their parents violate the terms of their visas?

1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
Including the trials of 17-year-old murder suspects? "Best interests" isn't the standard we apply to adult criminal suspects (they have rights, but we don't care if they waive those rights); I'm not sure we need a guardian ad litem for every 17-year-old.

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
Does that mean parents can't give their kids up for adoption anonymously?

1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.
This is just a creepy definition of identity.

1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.
2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.
Oh, great. So in the next messy divorce, watch as both parents call their six-year-old to the stand and ask, "Which one do you never want to see again: Mommy or Daddy?"

1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.
2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.
Singing "Are We There Yet" on a car trip is now protected, and your parents can't stop you.

Article 24: mandatory universal health coverage for minors. Which I'm happy to have, but I don't particularly want to be obligated by treaty to provide.

Article 26: mandatory universal welfare for minors. The 1996 welfare reform is pretty clearly in violation of this.

Article 27: right to a particular standard of living. I've just got a philosophical opposition to positive rights.

Article 32: child labor laws. I'm okay with child labor laws, but I don't trust the UN to make them. And this article is pretty vague.

Article 37: No life imprisonment for 17-year-olds. Sorry, no dice.

[Telefrog]

The scale of UN misbehavior, and the near total lack of accountability, make it a much better vehicle for getting away with such stuff.

America isn't perfect, but I would hope you can see a difference between the behavior of the average American soldier and soldiers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4262743.stm) from (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27665245/) the (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7365283.stm) UN. (http://www.israelnewsagency.com/ununitednationshamasgazaisraelidfterrorismhumanshi eldsislamicjihadschoolschildrenqassamskassamsrocke ts48011509.htm)

I could go on, but why bother?

No, that's fair. I was just pointing out that your list was equally applicable to any military force in another country.

[ShivaX]

I'm concerned with the language that makes it clearly possible for authorities to infer a right to demand I educate my children one way as opposed to another...governmental indoctrination, essentially, of what my kids learn.

AND

I'm concerned with the language that makes it clearly possible for authorities to infer a right to demand I discipline my children one way as opposed to another...governmental control, essentially, of my family.

The government should, plainly put, stay the hell OUT of my family's affairs unless we require intervention due to being leeches on the system or clear abuse.

Also, fuck the UN and the idea that I should cede rights to a body which is not in any way accountable to me. I'll take representative government over the UN any day.


Johan... This is the UN. They can't effect anything, much less the laws of the United States. Like all UN resolutions if we signed it nothing would happen. Unless you think kids in Iran and Syria are sueing their parents for beating them or not allowing them to become Christians or something.

Its a feel-good waste of time like all UN actions.

[Ox]

Johan... This is the UN. They can't effect anything, much less the laws of the United States. Like all UN resolutions if we signed it nothing would happen.
UN resolutions are like goggles. But treaties are something else entirely. For one thing, treaties are on par with federal statutes, and if they're self-executing, they automatically become part of US law. In other words, an American judge can use a treaty to decide a case regardless of whether kids in Iran can sue their parents.

[ShivaX]

UN resolutions are like goggles. But treaties are something else entirely. For one thing, treaties are on par with federal statutes, and if they're self-executing, they automatically become part of US law. In other words, an American judge can use a treaty to decide a case regardless of whether kids in Iran can sue their parents.

Ah I misread that it was a treaty, thats my mistake.

I don't see how most nations could be signed onto it though. You can't tell me beating your kids ass and telling them what religion they're going to be isn't common practice in the majority of the world. Then again those places are probably less likely to have access to any sort of representation, much less any sort of knowledge that this treaty exists in the first place.

[Ox]

I don't see how most nations could be signed onto it though. You can't tell me beating your kids ass and telling them what religion they're going to be isn't common practice in the majority of the world.
Most countries fall into at least one of two categories:
1. Stuff like corporal abuse really is illegal. I believe Finland has had some prosecutions for stuff I wouldn't raise an eyebrow at in the mall.

2. Signing a treaty doesn't automatically turn that treaty into domestic law. So you can do it as a feel-good act.

Bear in mind also that our system is a little special and makes vague feel-good stuff more concerning. For one thing, most countries don't use the common law. For another, most countries don't use an adversarial litigation system. And we have a lot more lawyers with relatively less regulation than most places. Finally, we just have a more legal-oriented culture, in part because of the importance written documents have in our political system. In other countries, people can make reference to vague, ancient, codes that were never written down and don't really exist and are highly subjective. Here, we go to the mat over the meaning of the word, "is."

I don't mean any of the above as criticism of the American system, because we've got very good reasons for using the system we do. Ultimately, I prefer our way of doing things, and not merely for professional reasons. But it does mean we can't go around whorishly ratifying every piece of crap that comes down the pike like that slut Denmark.

[ShivaX]

Thanks for the insight. I'm pretty foggy on how foreign legal systems work. I have a rudimentary understanding of how ours works and often forget that its actually pretty unique even for a Western nation.

As it is I'd personally rather avoid us signing up for it, just because it seems like our laws already have those bases covered. If you beat the living shit out of your kids you'll likely end up in court and lose them. As far as religion I don't think a kid has capabilities to really decide much of anything and parents should be able to raise them however they want in that respect. Once they become adults they'll make their own choices anyway and legally the parents can't do shit about it.

If you give kids the legal right to decide thing like religion I can easily see them randomly changing it to piss off the folks and the like. Or else MTV will found a religion based on buying stupid shit.

[headhunter228]

I know I'm a few days late to the arguement, but......I'm speechless. You know, they give permission slips to field trips for a reason. Are parents supposed to sign them? Nooooo.....of course not, that's why they're called permission slips. Geez, what is this country coming to? Someone actually tries to dicipline their child, and it goes to court. That's sad enough, but the parents lose. I don't care what the government says. If I ever have children, they will be diciplined. I will spank them, but I won't ruthlessly beat them for little or no reason. I'm not going to give them "time out," I will ground them. Oh, kids these days. And I'm one of them.

[Ancalagon]

The thing with anti spanking laws is that they do nothing at all to stop abuse but only encourage chaos.

I mean, if you are an abusive parent, do you really think a law is going to stop you? Parents all over the world with anti abuse laws still abuse their children, and laws preventing smacking havent stopped that. Rather, they have contributed to the problem of a youth that thinks the world owes it a living and everyone is too scared to tell them to STFU. Or give them what they really need - a smack.

[headhunter228]

The thing with anti spanking laws is that they do nothing at all to stop abuse but only encourage chaos.

I mean, if you are an abusive parent, do you really think a law is going to stop you? Parents all over the world with anti abuse laws still abuse their children, and laws preventing smacking havent stopped that. Rather, they have contributed to the problem of a youth that thinks the world owes it a living and everyone is too scared to tell them to STFU. Or give them what they really need - a smack.

DAMN STRAIGHT. I was raised that way, and I think I turned out pretty good. Sure, I wanted to kill my parents in their sleep after they spanked me, but looking back, I'm thankful they raised me that way. A good way to tell if you're a good parent is to ask your kid of the one thing that scares them most. If they say "I'm scared of Mom and Dad the most," and you're not being abusive (beating on them, etc.), you're doing a good job. I'm certainly still scared of my parents, but that's only because I'm afraid they'll kick me out of my house if I don't follow their rules.

[Hawkzombie]

Those crazy Canadians.

It was in Quebec...even Canadians hate Quebec. I should know :p

[mister slim]

I know I'm a few days late to the arguement, but......I'm speechless. You know, they give permission slips to field trips for a reason. Are parents supposed to sign them? Nooooo.....of course not, that's why they're called permission slips. Geez, what is this country coming to? Someone actually tries to dicipline their child, and it goes to court. That's sad enough, but the parents lose. I don't care what the government says. If I ever have children, they will be diciplined. I will spank them, but I won't ruthlessly beat them for little or no reason. I'm not going to give them "time out," I will ground them. Oh, kids these days. And I'm one of them.

Technically one of the parents lost and one of the parents won.

[CappinCanuck]

Technically one of the parents lost and one of the parents won.

Ding ding ding. Why are you guys even bothering with this? It's obviously just mother against father and a misuse of the justice system -- as some sort of carry-on from their divorce or otherwise animosity.

It's also obvious that the judge is right as well. This has nothing to do with blocking a parent from punishing their child. The basics are that he punished his daughter by taking her out of school. Which is wrong, end of story. That was the only thing being looked at by the court. It seems ridiculous because it's just a field trip or grounding in this particular case but if this had gone the other way, it would create precedent for removing a child from school as punishment. The opposite and anterior must also hold true.

I highly doubt the judge would have liked nothing more than to throw this BS case out and penalize the mother for filing it as frivolous but there was legal standing. To those pointing out that the judge's sex had something to do with it: give me a break.

[headhunter228]

First, the father banned his 12-year-old daughter from going online after she posted photos of herself on a dating site. Then she allegedly had a row with her stepmother, so the father said his girl couldn't go on a school trip.

This is not taking your daughter out of school. This is simply not letting her go on a field trip. Parents (at least here in America, I'm not sure about Canada) have the right to not allow their kids to attend school functions, be it football games or field trips. That's why the schools give out permission slips, to make sure the kids have permission to go on these trips. The dad was well within his rights to keep his daughter from going on the school trip. It might be different in Canada, I'm not sure, but that's how it would work here.