The courts are just going to far.

[cottillion]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/19/father-court.html

"A father plans to appeal after a Quebec court ruled that he didn't have the right to punish his 12-year-old daughter by barring her from a school trip."

[Bryan Blaire]

See, this is one of the reasons why, contrary to what most Americans say, Gil and I will NOT be moving to Canada. Period.

That's f-ing ridiculous. That lawyer and judge should be removed.

[Davian93]

Canada's crazy.

[Brita]

Oh pulllease, like the US has never had a ridiculous court ruling.

The eye rolling emoticon does not do my eye rolling justice.

[JSUCamel]

They should be disbarred and sent to Gitmo and Congress should pass some sort of law to keep that from happening again.

[Terez]

Oh pulllease, like the US has never had a ridiculous court ruling.

The eye rolling emoticon does not do my eye rolling justice.
I know that feeling well. :)

[Davian93]

They should be disbarred and sent to Gitmo and Congress should pass some sort of law to keep that from happening again.

~nods in agreement~

Are you running for office Camel cause you have my vote.:D

[Davian93]

Oh pulllease, like the US has never had a ridiculous court ruling.

The eye rolling emoticon does not do my eye rolling justice.

You have to understand, its not often that we can actually tease another country for a ridiculous court ruling...

[Brita]

Oh OK- I'll give you your brief enjoyment at our expense.

And just to Canadianize Camel's comment:

They should be disbarred and sent to The SHU in Quebec and the Senate should pass some sort of law to keep that from happening again.

[Terez]

Eh, I disagree. It wasn't about keeping the guy from disciplining his child...it was a custody battle issue. She was living with her mother when the trip came around, so I don't see why he should have been able to punish her anyway. The mother approved of her going on the trip, and in the US, the girl would be old enough to decide which parent to live with. Dunno exactly how that works in Canada, but you only have to be 12 here - the fact that the father technically had custody would matter little once the girl was in front of the family judge, saying she wanted to live with her mum.

[Davian93]

You missed a bit, but I fixed it:

"They should be disbarred and sent to The SHU in Quebec and the Senate should pass some sort of law to keep that from happening again, eh."

[Brita]

The eye rolling emoticon does not do my eye rolling justice, yet again. :p

[JSUCamel]

They should be disbarred and sent to The SHU in Quebec and the Senate should pass some sort of law to keep that from happening again.

What? you mean Canada isn't a state yet?

[Brita]

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020136eye/eye-ch14-9.jpg

[Sarevok]

It would appear that Terez is right, and the whole thread is moot...

[Terez]

Imagine that...

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Let's see... the brat posted photos on a dating website. Got grounded from the internet. Check.

The brat smarted off to her step-mother. Got grounded from going on a school trip.

After said alleged fight, she reacted violently, slapping a wall. She stormed out and went to live with her mother who decided to undermine her ex-husband's authority with her daughter and permit her to go on a trip he'd forbidden her to. Took the man to court, too. Notice there is nothing saying the mother has been granted permanent custody, just that the father's authority over his daughter is null and void.

Yeah, sounds like she got punished for the same thing twice. And the judge totally acted appropriately, too.

The eye rolling smilie does not do my eye rolling justice, either.



"Usually children have lots of respect for their parents and they wouldn't go there," said Beaudoin.

And what planet does THIS woman live on?

[Crispin's Crispian]

Let's see... the brat posted photos on a dating website. Got grounded from the internet. Check.

The brat smarted off to her step-mother. Got grounded from going on a school trip.

After said alleged fight, she reacted violently, slapping a wall. She stormed out and went to live with her mother who decided to undermine her ex-husband's authority with her daughter and permit her to go on a trip he'd forbidden her to. Took the man to court, too. Notice there is nothing saying the mother has been granted permanent custody, just that the father's authority over his daughter is null and void.


Well if you read all the way to the bottom, it clearly says that both parents have authority, even if only one of them custody. By that logic (which is fairly absurd*), the court had to intervene because there was no clear authority from the parents.


* It's absurd because the parent with custody should have primary authority, insofar as his or her decisions trump those of the non-custodial parent.

[Terez]

But, at least by standards here, the child is old enough to decide which parent to live with. If she wants to live with her mother, and her mother is okay with her going on this school trip, then what's the problem? It's pretty insanely ridiculous to assume that the father has the moral high ground here when we have so few details on what was going on, and when the media so often only reports what they think will cause a sensation (check) and omits what would counter that sensation.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

I do agree with you about not knowing whether the father had the moral high ground. However, this kid is still a brat playing mommy and daddy orr one another.

[Crispin's Crispian]

But, at least by standards here, the child is old enough to decide which parent to live with. If she wants to live with her mother, and her mother is okay with her going on this school trip, then what's the problem? It's pretty insanely ridiculous to assume that the father has the moral high ground here when we have so few details on what was going on, and when the media so often only reports what they think will cause a sensation (check) and omits what would counter that sensation.
You're right--we don't have all the details, so it's pretty hard to judge what's right and wrong.

However, I do think that the law saying parents have joint authority regardless of custody is stupid. Maybe they were only referring to 12 year-olds.