Court overturns father’s grounding of 12-year-old

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. 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 said. “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 her dad.

I don’t even know where to start my rant on this… from the court wasting tax money on this BS, to its unbelievable intervention in a family matter.




  1. Aaron_W says:

    This can’t be real.

  2. Jetfire says:

    WTF. I would like to know her legal argument? I don’t even see how a judge would even have any say in a matter like this. The only way I can see the judge having any say is though the Custody hearing and making this part of the visitation rules.

  3. Dauragon says:

    Pardon me while I go laugh my ass off.

  4. Shin says:

    A story about a Canadian case..from an Aussie newspaper, with no real pointers to where the original story came from or where more detail might be found.

    I have questions.

    Under what law did the court find it had jurisdiction in the case? Is “grounding” against this unknown law? Is this just an outgrowth of the custody battle..the father’s custody being overseen by the court for past transgressions on his part?

    In other words..is all here as written in an article that is published half the world away from where it has supposedly taken place..under the heading “Home » Specials » Unusual Tales » ” with no pertinent details really factual? Or is just just a radio talk show host kind of talking point…meant purely to stir some kind of visceral reaction within fathers scared of their 12 year old daughters? ^_^

  5. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    I smell bullshit.

  6. Mister Mustard says:

    Further information in the CBC “local news” (ie not half the world away):

    http://tinyurl.com/6evmgj

    If you don’t like the ruling, you’d best take it up with Quebec Superior Court Madam Justice Suzanne Tessier.

  7. Brandon says:

    Where does a 12-year old get the money to take anyone to court? Maybe if Dad cut off the allowance as well as grounding, the little shit would’ve seen what it’s like to live as an adult.

  8. MikeN says:

    Why are you guys objecting. You don’t like the idea of parents’ censoring anyway.

  9. RBG says:

    I’m going to guess that this has been motivated by the divorced mother who is claiming parental jurisdiction due to the fact that the girl is living within the mother’s care and protection.

    RBG

  10. Calin says:

    But the judge is just like a village elder. And it takes a village to raise a child.

  11. Shin says:

    MM, I know you have trouble sometimes parsing fantasy from reality…but I would otherwise assume you can see the difference between the article you posted and the one up top? No? Here’s a clue..the one you posted actually has some information, and is not slanted to upset those afraid that their kids are “getting away with murder”. In other words..talk radio bait. Guaranteed it will be on one or another of the ditto crowd’s shows inside of the day, so Mr. Mike and his cronies can get off bemoaning how the world has gone to hell and what we need is a good strong moral leader (ie, dictator) to show all us degenerates what for….

    It was..as noted by a couple of us, as part of a custody battle, and not something a angry kid was just able to do. Ie…the courts are not going to be filled with 12 year olds spending their allowances on lawyers. Since it was her mothers lawyer that petitioned the court..on assumes that her mother knew and agreed..so there is parental oversight. She is living with her mother now, and therefore the jurisdiction of the father is at best questionable, and this is not a “you can’t go out and play with your friends” grounding…it’s school trip that has likely been planned all year, and is also likely to have at least some small educational component involved. Grounding before the trip, grounding for another finite amount of time after she returns…maybe. We don’t know what “punishment” he had already levied…although the article states that there was some.

    So..in principle, we can probably agree that this is not something a court should or would get involved with on a daily basis. As usual with these kinds of knee-jerk reaction baiting stories…there is both more and less there than mentioned.

    PS. Surprised also to see you taking the MikeN side of the street, MM, for..well..no apparent reason…must be one of your beliefs….^_^

  12. MikeN says:

    >Grounding before the trip, grounding for another finite amount of time after she returns…maybe.

    Care to give some more specifics about what groundings should be allowed? Is banning Incredible Hulk ok, but not The Hulk?

  13. Shin says:

    Tell you what Mikey…I was trying to leave a little something for the father to salve his wounded pride…but..as the judge said..since she is not living with him, and living with the mother now..what he has to say is…not relevant. Or..should he just be allowed to pop up and set the standards in his ex’s home also? I would assume so..given this were a fundie muslim country we were talking about…but it isn’t of course. If it were, he just would have killed her. More to your taste, eh Mikey? She’d damn well know who was the boss then wouldn’t she….^_^

  14. Mister Mustard says:

    #13 – Shin

    Christ, are you on the rag or something? Spark up a doobie, man. Chill out.

  15. GigG says:

    If Shin’s post is accurate and I have no reason to think it isn’t this isn’t about grounding a kid it is a case about which parent of the two divorced parents have the final say.

  16. Mr. Fusion says:

    Shin,

    First, you miss the mark and second, well, you miss the mark.

    The father has legal custody. That makes him responsible for the daughter. If she throws a ball through her mother’s neighbor’s window, the father is responsible for the damages, even if she is staying with the mother.

    Then, this takes place in the Province of Quebec. They alone in Canada and the US do not use the English system of Common Law. Instead civil law is based on the Napoleonic Code. Even though greatly revised over the years, responsibilities are very differently defined.

    The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is well respected for its neutrality and honest reporting.

  17. MikeN says:

    If the father had grounded his daughter for going online and downloading music and movies, you’d probably be cheering the court.

  18. Mister Mustard says:

    #13 – Shin

    >>…must be one of your beliefs….^_^

    Dvorak’s Law! Dvorak’s Law!

  19. Mr. Fusion says:

    #20, Lyin’ Mike,

    If the father had grounded his daughter for going online and downloading music and movies, you’d probably be cheering the court.

    Mike, phukeue. You don’t know what I or anyone else would think. You Republicans are happy because now there is some fresh diddly meat that will be staying away from her strict daddy.

  20. Noel says:

    The article is more sensational than the story really is. The judge didn’t overturn the grounding, she just forbade the father from keeping his daughter home from an educational field trip.

  21. ECA says:

    ONCE the gov steps in to TELL the parents HOW to raise their child…
    the GOV should be made responsible..

  22. Shin says:

    MM,
    Don’t know Dvorak’s law..sorry. The only thing I’ve noticed over time is no comparing people to Hitler or Nazis..^_^. Sorry if I’ve been offending you, as you usually are one of the 2 or 3 reasonable people here, except for your blind spot. Didn’t mean to push you so far as to force you to side with MikeN though. I guess I’d better fire up that doobie..

    23 Noel..thank you..once again, someone has said it much more concisely. I was only trying to point out that the original article was pure troll bait, talk radio sensationalism. The article that MM pointed to was much less so..and contained the information to form a rational opinion from.

    24 ECA..yeah man..what about his honor…

  23. amodedoma says:

    The last sentence explains it all clearly. Parents having a 10 year custody dispute. No wonder it seems logical to her to take her father to court to get what she wants. Mom and Dad taught her to be that way.
    *Even so, thank god I had 3 boys and no girls.

  24. Mister Mustard says:

    #26 – Shin

    Yes, Dvorak’s Law: “As a blog post discussion grows longer, the probability of gratuitous religion-bashing approaches one.

    http://tinyurl.com/6h49c

    Although Mr. C. Dvorak didn’t make it up, I did; it perfectly describes behavior on this blog.

    If a post doesn’t come right out of the gate bashing religion (usually Christianity), over time, the probablility of it doing so approages one.

  25. Mister Mustard says:

    #26 – Shin

    >>Didn’t mean to push you so far as to force you
    >>to side with MikeN though.

    When on earth did I do that? All I did was post a “local” story from Canada CBC reporting the same issue. I didn’t even take sides!

    >>I guess I’d better fire up that doobie..

    That’s never a bad idea.

  26. Mr. Fusion says:

    #26, Shin,

    I guess I’d better fire up that doobie..

    Damn !!! You obviously have very redeeming qualities there.

    Your explanation makes more sense than what I understood when I first read it. Thank you for the clarification.

    One thing though, don’t ever confuse or favorably compare Lyin’ Mike (aka MikeN) with Mustard or I. We both try to have integrity.

  27. LtJackboot says:

    Sorry, I live in Canada and I call shenanigans!!

  28. Don says:

    If my daughter tried this crap with me, her life would be a living hell for the next 6 years. On her 18th birthday, her crap would be sitting out in the driveway waiting for her to take it away to her home that she is now paying for.

    I think the bratty child should be remanded to this looney judge to raise.

    Don

  29. ECA says:

    32,
    DITTO…
    I would find some POOR/farm family, and pay them to raise the kid..

  30. !ByncTwennyTag! says:

    Did you know that according to ?
    May be you prefer ?
    Or how about ?

    Don’t punish me!


1

Bad Behavior has blocked 9265 access attempts in the last 7 days.