Canada Goes Wackypants
I thought this piece had to be from The Onion. But, no, Agence France Presse. It's bad enough the Canadians are allowing the thought crimes trial against Maclean's and Mark Steyn. Now a Canadian father is getting slapped by the court there for disciplining his own daughter. Unbelievable. The judge reportedly found the girl's punishment too severe. An excerpt from the AFP story:
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."
Excuse me, but what the father was doing is called parenting. More people should try it. It's how you raise responsible citizens instead of drug addicts and carjackers.
Now, the judge not only allows this little power play by the kid -- going to court against her dad on this -- but reverses a decision in a "court" she has no business meddling in? Canadians, you're in some serious trouble.
Oh, and note how the girl got to court -- using a lawyer in her parents' 10-year custody dispute. Sick. And the mother allowed this? (Per a Windsor Star story.) Even sicker. That's the antithesis of parenting. I'm reminded of the Golda Meir line, about how there will only be peace when the Palestinians love their children more than they hate the Israelis'. In this case, if the stories are correct, it seems there will only be parenting after this mother loves her daughter more than she hates her ex.
Maybe it ain't the southern border we ought to be worried about.
Oh, and from what I read elsewhere, the mother actually instigated the idea of suing to overturn the father. He's also told the little bitch not to come back.
I'm still waiting for the police to prosecute him for promoting child porn for the "inappropriate" pictures that he was unable to prevent her posting to the net.
Shit like this makes me wonder why anyone has kids.
brian at June 20, 2008 4:48 AM
Not to mention that scary implications of children being allowed to access sites where they are sensibily banned just because they want to. When this kid decides to meet up in person with some creep she's "met" on one of those sites, they'll probably somehow find a way to blame dear old Dad who've they've convicted of protecting her from just that!
Donna at June 20, 2008 4:52 AM
The whole stupid thing is to blamed on the parents. As I can see, the parents are still feuding over a divorce they had years ago.
I have a had time to understand how a Judge can each such a verdict. We can ask ourself serious questions about the competence of Superior Court Justice Suzanne Tessier. Justice Tessier should had considered the whole thing as another tactic from the mother to maintain a feud with the father, not as a cause with a judicial value.
Have you noticed that, since the Father refused to take back the kid (For solid legal reasons), it is the mother who went to appeal? Yup, looks like the chicken came back to roost for that mother who suddenly is now in charge with an overpowered teen with a new legal freedom. The truth is, I don't pity her a bit.
Toubrouk at June 20, 2008 5:16 AM
At ages 15 and 12, both of my girls know better than to even joke about taking me to court! You're right Amy, about being a responsible parent, and apparently, these two are poster children for incapable parenting!
Flynne at June 20, 2008 7:06 AM
I really wish the would unseal family court records. On the face of it this looks like lunacy. However there maybe points that have not (and by law can not) be released to the public. My wife worked with schools and there is loads of shit that is kept out of the media. If the things kept out of the media (by law) were released then some of the more ridiculous actions of the schools would actually make sense. Just remember that this was a school trip so we don't know what the ramifications of her not going, or how they were painted to the judge. The judge can only listen to what he or she hears and (at least in the US) is strongly discourage from taking facts not presented into the case. If the girl's (mom's) lawyer made a better legal argument than dad's lawyer the judge HAD to rule in her favor. The fact that she won makes me suspect that the judge was fundamentally honest and dad's lawyer screwed the pooch. Sounds like his lawyer though the case was an automatic win based on her reaction to the decision.
The mother however is still a brainless butter dumpster. The whole thing was about authority and mommy did not like daddy telling her little angel what to do, thus stupidity follows. Mom probably wants her on these sites getting her freak nasty on at 12 so she can become a ward of the state (by being taken away from dad) and mommy get her freedom and gets even with dad.
vlad at June 20, 2008 7:14 AM
At that age it never occurred to me to take my parents to court. I just thought that court was for adults and that as a kid I'd just get ignored. The fact that mom was a lawyer probably would have helped dissuade me had this particular pique of stupidity gripped me.
vlad at June 20, 2008 7:17 AM
Well, that's nice. The court should also allow the girl to move out, get a job and support herself. If I were the father I'd let the foster care system take her. Or judgey-wudgey.
If she's like this at TWELVE I cannot imagine what she'll be like in 4 years. What a nightmare.
"Extreme" punishment is hitting a grown kid (12+ ...I'm not talking a tap on a diaper-ed ass). This by no means should constitute abuse of any kind.
Gretchen at June 20, 2008 7:45 AM
I seriously dislike brats, and this child may need to be crowned their queen. But did anyone read the comments to this piece? There was a poster who kept saying that taking away the weekend class trip was tantamount to abuse. He (?) also stated that the father was just on a power trip, that the father probably had incestuous thoughts and simply wanted to have the child nearby at all times, then compared it to what his parents did to him as a child!
It makes me wonder what will happen when my stepsons are older (they will be 10 next month). Right now their mother doesn't give a rat's ass about them because she has a boyfriend, but once he's gone she'll be right back trying to win mother of the year. I can definitely see her letting them take us to court because they have lost a privilege.
Kristen at June 20, 2008 8:48 AM
This judge should be taken off the bench until she watches every episode of Supernanny ever made.
Amy Alkon at June 20, 2008 8:58 AM
Okay, so let me get this straight. First we're told that spanking is child abuse. Now if we ground our kids we can end up in court. What's next? Time outs in the corner might get you 25 to life? Why don't we just pop out our babies and politely hand them over to the state to raise since they obviously have all the answers and we're just mindless drones. Sickening I tell you!
jessica at June 20, 2008 9:22 AM
Feel bad for the dad? I'm feeling bad for whatever guy is foolish enough to knock her up. At least Dad can be rid of her for good in a few years.
christina at June 20, 2008 10:44 AM
Supernanny is my guilty pleasure, Amy. Don't make this suggestion to that judge. She'll probably have her arrested to her common-sense, caring but no-nonsense approach to child care.
Jo's great but some of those parents on there -- the parents moreso than the kids -- I have wanted to slap!
Donna at June 20, 2008 11:15 AM
This is the result of liberalizing/leftising marriage and government. Just as in Communist societies the children become property of the government, Canada law converges on the same result. We will be there in twenty years. And yes, gay marriage is a part of it. Congratulations.
rusty wilson at June 20, 2008 11:31 AM
"And yes, gay marriage is a part of it. Congratulations." Really, huh I'm pretty sure they are a straight, correct me if I'm wrong though. Right so the world was great and peaceful when the church ruled. No misuses of people or power, no no sir ee didn't happen.
vlad at June 20, 2008 11:45 AM
Now let me guess Jesus is the magical solution to the problem. Prayer in school, the big ten, rule by baptist fundy nut jobs, save us feral heathens from ourselves.
vlad at June 20, 2008 11:49 AM
Vlad. I think he's trying to imply a slippery slope where there might not be one.
as in: if it's ok for two guys to raise a kid, then why not a government office?
brian at June 20, 2008 11:51 AM
If the feds can tell you who to marry why not how to raise your kids?
vlad at June 20, 2008 11:59 AM
I think I am referring to leftism as a whole, part of which has been the liberalization of marriage. The reason I throw that in, is the same folks that feel Canada is off their rocker for doing this, think that gay marriage is just hunky dory. After all that has been a topic around here for a few days. All one has to do is look at Scandinavia to see the results.
Vlad, bless you my son or something like that. I didn’t realize you justify everything with religion, but more power to you.
rusty wilson at June 20, 2008 1:13 PM
They must be seriously lacking in cases. Maybe they should take some from the US so that it's not such a joke and we can balance some of our own overstressed workload.
Ange at June 20, 2008 1:15 PM
Brian, no I am saying all of this is the result of leftism. Hate speech laws, destruction of the family, strong central government, and finally ownership of the children by the state. I am not as you surmise trying to point out some imaginary slippery slope. I am pointing out history.
Maybe I should just imagine what ya’ll are saying with out ever actually addressing you. On heck of a conversation folks.
rusty wilson at June 20, 2008 1:17 PM
My Dear American Friends:
This is yet more proof that my country of Canuckistan is still North, but is far from Strong and Free. We are clearly headed down the road to hell faster than you are.
But realize that some Americans reading this story are thinking, "Yeah, right on. Bad Father, Bad Father! Bravo to the judge for effecting some Social Justice!"
Of course, such people are morons but there are more than a few of them and many seem to be in positions of power in your country.
Have no doubt that whatever bad decisions are made up here will no doubt be coming to a courthouse near you in the not too distant future!
Robert W. at June 20, 2008 1:17 PM
Why do atheists hate families?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZThlZmM1YmE5ODVjODJiMTllNjM3N2IxM2YxN2M1MTU=
rusty wilson at June 20, 2008 1:57 PM
Well, I tried to read that link, but I lost the will to live.
Rusty - Did you post the link because you agree with it, or because of the interesting use of upper case letters, or what?
Norman at June 20, 2008 2:13 PM
Wow, Rusty. I really hope you posted that link to make fun of it. I'm with Norman.
Jessica at June 20, 2008 2:27 PM
Thanks, Rusty. I was just about to sign that petition outlawing forced electroshock when I followed your link to the village of the damned.
Perfect timing!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 20, 2008 3:01 PM
Does anyone else here remember the mother in Maryland who landed in jail for daring to discipline her 14 yr old daughter for coming home drunk and stoned after she was grounded the night before for coming home drunk and stoned?
Daughter got a thwack across the tail with a yard stick or something similar (it's been a few years) and daughter called the police. Mom went to jail and daughter went into foster system (and Md DCS got more of our tax dollars to fund their foster program).
The irony here is there dad, who lived across town and wanted the daughter (who wanted to live with dad) was not only contacted when DCS removed the child from mom, was also not even contacted when a family court judge ordered the child into the care of a foster family, although they continued to draw CS from his salary.
He found out a couple years later when he investigated the return of the childs b'day gifts (shadows of Thomas M. Smith & Melinda here?). So dad, when he discovers through a PI that youngling is and has been in the foster system petitions the court to have the child ordered into his care was told "you missed the deadline to file for custody", and upon discovering he had received several increases in salary promptly raised the amount of his CS order.
I want to sit here and say this 8 maybe 9 years ago.
Bottom line is folks: fathers are a convenient however expendable element in the modern family, and in the eyes of the legal and social services system have little to offer other than a source of income. And if you THINK those CS checks drawn from dads employer go to the child... think again. They go to the state so the state can claim "recovered child support" and thereby qualify for matching federal subsidies to combat the socurge of "deadbeat dads", and incidentally the state doesn't forward the checks to mom. These monies are invested into a general funds account and invested (see your states CAFR)the proceeds from which can amount to hundreds of millions of dollars whence the state pays mom from an account drawn against their federal entitlements.
Call it the "fleecing of families in general and fathers in particular" with the end result being money for the state... lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and... lots and lots and lots and ... etc/ of money.
It's beyond despicable the magnitude (and the cost to families and fathers) foisted upon Americana created by political pandering to social correctness, at the expense of our families and the role of fathers in those families.
But it's got to be a good thing, right? I mean afterall it's in the best interest of the children.
NOTE: think I'm kidding? Look it up yourself.
Gunner Retired
Gunner Retired at June 20, 2008 11:51 PM
Ten-year custody dispute, huh? Looks like the dad sure got the booby prize on that one, huh?
If I were the dad and I were dragged into court on this issue, I'd have addressed the judge thusly: "I don't care what you order. I will not stop imposing proper discipline on my child. Now, you have 2 choices open to you in dealing with my defiance. You can strip me of custodial rights, which at this point I welcome. Give her to the mother, or better yet, the state. Let Little Miss Smarty-Pants try to figure out in her remaining years of minority if she's better off with that result."
"Your other choice is to throw me in jail for contempt. You may as well throw away the key, because I will never stop having the utmost contempt for you and this ruling. And, BTW, if you do that to me, the kid's mother can kiss off any child support in the future, because you will have turned me from a productive member of society into a leech on society."
So, your choice. What's it gonna be?"
cpabroker at June 21, 2008 8:02 AM
Leave a comment