Canadian Court Overturns Father's Grounding of 12 year old

When she gets murdered by some pedophile who will be responsible. This is a government out of control. I would leave the country.

 

So.
Do we still wonder why students beat their teachers ? Or why kids talk back to adults and their parents like it was nobody's business ?

Is this situation and are these kinds of ruling isolated to Canada ?

 

When is the right word, not if. Just a question of when. If I were the father, I would keep all records, and when that happens, sue the government, and sue the judge out of his/her clothes, and seek jailtime for the judge.

But I guess that will be wishful thinking.

I would probably just tell the kid to get out of my house and live her own life.

 

No - it isn't. I didn't even know about this and I live right here in the same country!! Stupidity beyond belief to undermine the parent's authority like this! I'm writing my powers that be.

 

Yeah, blame the child. Did you read the last couple of sentences? Seems like she is just following in her parents footsteps... "take it to court!"

 

By the time a child is suing his own parents, it's time to call CPS unless there is a better alternative. That child is not flourishing under their parents care, so imo, this child ought to be placed anywhere except with the parents. This is not a blanket statement, I don't know this situation. I could be wrong.
Living in my home requires following certain rules. Otherwise, see ya later my son. Love you :wavey:

 

Good Grief. You dont just snatch children out of the home because of someones ridiculous definition of "flourishing". The goal should be to keep the state out of it. Can we no longer function through difficult times without government intervention. Seems a rather lazy attitude.

 

What are you talking about? Who's snatching who?

Again, as your usual self, you only speak to me when you are complaining or misunderstading my post. I made no "blanket" statements there.

In fact, you may not want to reply.

You say keep state "out of this". Too late. This is a lawsuit filed against the parents by their own child. This child wishes to post porno pics of themselves on the computer. Dad said no, and took away the internet. Did you read the OP? Do you understand the implications of this?

 

you didn't bother to go read the link, did you, joe ?
why don't you try reading instead of saying "I could be wrong".
That way you'll probably say something right.

 

Did anyone else notice the article said the parents were still in a 10 year "custody dispute" over the child?? Just wonderin'.

All I can say is :tear:

Ed

 

Yes, read the link. I never said you could be wrong I think I said I could be wrong.

I would have called the local County CPS and first request their help. They are the governing agency which ensures the State child porn laws are enforced regarding children's access. A CPS Worker needs to be in this Court ensuring their State Child Porn laws remain in place.

Their goal is to keep families together. People do not seem to understand this. They don't just run in and snatch kids from homes though nothing is error proof.

Social Workers are probably jabbering about this by the water cooler keeping note of this girls name, as there is a high likelyhood she is the kind of kid that would call with false charges of child abuse by their parent.

This child is out of control. Who knows what this child could accuse their parents of in the future. Such as neglect or abuse. So when a caring parent who is trying hard to uphold the child abuse laws contacts the agency first to ask for help regarding their services, it would be much harder to take the child's side on the issue upon any future false charges. In fact, imho, the parent will probably be admired by the majority of CPS workers.

The realitly is, Parents are falsely accused and sent to jail for abuse. And most importantly, the child and other children, by law, would not legally be able to access porn online or post nude pics of themselves.

This child is smart. Way too smart. A CPS assesment ending with "goals' for this child needs to be in place to protect her AND her parents. This means the child may need to be removed from the home for a short period of time to complete some programs and the parents may be asked to take parenting classes. Removal sounds best in this situation so I can't see a worker not removing this out of control child unless the parent doesn't agree.

Again, none of this is a blanket statement. I don't know this family nor their situation but in all likelyhood imho, it's pretty close.

This is ALL voluntary I believe, if the parents contact the State (County CPS) voluntarily. This is part of what CPS does, most Social workers would love to help this family, make a difference in their lives. It's better than the usual negative stuff they deal with day in and day out.

My guess is the child will need to be removed temporarily (a very short time) with the parents approval while they set up a program for the parents to attend parenting classes, counseling etc.. and the child will need to have his/her own plan, including counseling. The family will then be reunited. This is ALL voluntary, not mandatory.

Rigteousdude, if you are reading this, feel free to correct or add to this post. I believe you once said you were a CPS worker in California where we both reside.

 

Forgive me for highlighting..... Joe:

It is not my responsibility to judge in this matter (i.e. your post) nor to attack you personally: and it is my desire that, although I will present a different assessment... which is 'imo', (please forebear that I will not add that hypocritical "h" to mean 'humble' to the 'imo' ----when I must admit before my beloved brethren and repent before my God that I am considerably ensnared, conscious, and warring against that self ingratiating pride-----which is so difficult for so many to admit,) yet I will attempt to assess the OP article from which our opinion is drawn...... howbeit at difference to each other:

Regarding the OP and the judgement of the court with only the facts as are presented in the report:

The purpose of courts is to render justice according to law: Part of common law, as evidenced through the historic records of human societies,
is the establishment of homes by the covenant or contract or some other similar understanding by which society recognizes the joining of male and female into "a home" by which off-spring, or children, are born,
and who bear a shared responsibility for the welfare and the training of their off spring for development into adulthood,
who are then capable, at the time of the off-spring's maturing and emancipation, of self direction and taking responsibility for their choices and consequences independant of their bondage to parents to which their earlier dependancies and necessities bound them to the authority of their parents.

Please re-read that above run-on paragraphical sentence and let it sink in for a moment. (I'm not speaking singularly to 'Joe'.... but to any readers of this thread who may wish to consider this viewpoint.)

The great......... make that GREAT fallacy of our humanistic society and the courts is that of jurisdiction and authority which makes law relative and subjective and muddles the clarity of distinction between just and unjust and changes the balances by which standards are weighted, based upon argument and philosophy, and not immutable principals: Parents have jurisdiction and authority over their children:

Their (the parents') area of 'jurisdiction' should not be lightly challenged by the courts or society over trivial scrupples such as this case appears to represent: It should quickly be dismissed and the child returned to the authority of its (in this case 'her') parents until such time as the child is ready for, or applies for and wins its emancipation from parental authority.

Criminal assault and abuse are obvious reasons for intrusion of society via courts or other agencies into the authority or assumption of parental control. The failure of parental authority in providing for the child's welfare, or negligence in the environment, should be approached by a reluctant and cautious conviction by society's agencies and courts focused on prioritizing the preservation of the home and assisting concerned parents with support measures in areas of inadequacy or incapacity: Only where parents are incapable of adapting or support measures are insufficient so as the child's life is endangered should a reluctant but well justified removal and placement into another home be considered. The proper attitude of authorities taking control of children from their parents should be a sincere and honest appraisal of the welfare of the child tempered with the sobering responsibility and message of such action upon the authority of the home, the trauma to child, and the impact on societies' foundation.

=======================
Scripturally, the Bible places the parents in authority over children until such time as the children are emancipated: Scripturallly, the Bible places the children in the responsibility to "honor" (or I think of our modern term 'respect') their parents all their lives. A child 'honors' parents by respect and obediance 'til emancipation: A child after emancipation 'honors' or respects his parents by concern for their parents welfare, listening to and weighing their parents' advice and opinion (which is different than responsibility to follow it), and by carrying on the honor of their heritage by honorable, law abiding, responsible living.

====================
Regarding the situation in the news article: seems like there is already a breach in the authority of the home which has not been established by custody, likely through a separation or divorce of the parents. The news article doesn't indicate whether the court is sensitive to or complicit in the divisions of parental authority, or the play between parental power by the child.

Whether its a field trip or restriction of computer privileges, the form of discipline is likely to be of no effect if it fails to strike at some privilege which is important to the child and under the control of the parent.
====================

IMO, an appeal to CPS or similar agencies over what should be such a trivial matter which is left in control of the parents, is to elevate these agencies over the natural authority of the home which God assigned to parents and assists in establishing a dangerous precedent and attack on homes and society's most basic unit and foundation.:tear:

 

The judge is wrong. The father's appealing. And if it's not overturned I'll eat my hat.

 

The thought of a child of 12 taking her parents to court over a GROUNDING is nothing short of pure, complete, unadulterated INSANITY!!!

This is loony tunes stuff here.

 

If my children did that I would have them removed from the home immediately. They would learn very quickly what a foster home looks like. Sometimes kids need to know who the authority is in their life and there is consequences for therio actions. The authority needs to be the authority.

 

No wonder parents have no influence and authority in the home and children want to sue their parents. There are at least some parents as we have seen in this thread who want to depend on the government to parent their children.

 

Here is a link to an editorial in yesterday's Globe and Mail newspaper. The article attempts to explain the judge's decision. The more important issue for me however is that clearly, the parents in this ex-marriage are not on the same page in 'parenting' their child. Had they both backed each other up and been very clear and firm on the rearing and disciplining of their daughter, it's highly likely that little miss sunshine wouldn't have gotten away with it. Instead we have parents using the child as a weapon against each other. Mom undermines Dad's custodial authority by overriding his decision and allowing daughter to go on the school trip. What was the mother thinking! Look at the message she sent! Certainly daughter is not stupid. She has played both against each other when the parents should have been 'one'. While I understand to a certain extent that a judge must protect the child's rights when two parents are warring, I'm not sure the judge has clearly thought out the end results for parents down the road. This is a very dangerous, slippery slope and I feel for that 12 year old. She's clearly not in control (even tho' she is under the impression that she is). I'm willing to bet at some point in a few years, she'll be back in court, only this time as a juvenile delinquent. What a sad commentary.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080620.eChild21/BNStory/specialComment/home