FamilyLife Forums

A recent court decision in Canada should send chills down every parent's spine. The ruling is so out of bounds that the news story sounds like a parody -- but it isn't. A Canadian judge ruled that a 12-year-old girl was "excessively" punished when her father told her she could not go on a school camping trip because she had broken rules for use of the Internet.

As the Globe and Mail [Toronto] reports:

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.

This judge needs to be grounded and sent to her room. A 12-year-old girl violated rules and disobeyed her father. The rules, by the way, were intended to protect the girl from endangering herself on the Internet. In posting pictures of herself on the Internet -- on a dating site, for crying out loud -- she defied her father and his authority. After going to the court, she got away with it.

For years, we have been warned that the courts were poised to usurp parental authority. We have seen chilling judicial precedents and the encroaching reach of bureaucrats and government agents. Warnings were offered by prophets like Philip Reiff and Christopher Lasch, who saw the family being stripped of its functions and replaced by an army of eager agents. Parents are supplanted by professionals who are "experts" in raising other people's children.  

The Canadian case is among the most chilling yet. The father is appealing the decision, even though the girl has already gone on the camping trip. The family is involved in a difficult divorce situation, but the father was granted custody. Gladly, outrage over the judge's ruling is building in Canada.

Lorne Gunter of Canada's National Post described the ruling as "sputteringly enraging." The Canadian blogosphere has taken notice, as have parents.

Gunter drew particular attention to the fact that the girl's attorney explained that she took the case to court because it involved the school trip: "For me that was really important."

Gunter responded:

"For me that was really important." So what? Just who are you? Are you the kid's parent? Are you a relative of any sort? No? So why, then, does your opinion matter? And if it does matter, how is court action appropriate? At most, even if you are a close relative, you are limited to calling up the dad and expressing your view that his punishment is over-the-top.

Ms. Fortin insists that while court was a last resort, the situation called for it: "This was not a question of going to the movies or not, or going online or not -- because obviously, I wouldn't have intervened in that."

Just how is that obvious? It should have been obvious that you don't go to court over missing the camping trip, either, but that doesn't seem to have dawned on Ms. Fortin. She called the trip a rite of passage. What will be the rite next time, a missed sleepover, her first out-of-town volleyball tournament with the school team?

The logic of this ruling is not limited to Canada. In 1970, Hillary Rodham, then a young lawyer (and later Sen. Hillary Clinton), wrote a law review article, "Children Under the Law," in which she argued that minors should be treated as "child citizens" who should, under at least some conditions, be able to challenge their parents in court over parental decisions.

This father may win his appeal -- we must hope that he does -- but the damage is already done. This 12-year-old girl has defied her father and been rewarded by a secular court. The judge and the court have now become complicit in the girl's disobedience. This father has had his rights as father denied and his authority undermined. We can only imagine the costs of this judicial malpractice in the life of this girl and her family. Beyond this, the precedent is now set for further judicial mischief.

America's parents had better look north and take notice. This judicial atrocity hits very close to home.

that is terrible. we had a girl in our church call dhs on her parents because they made her do physical labor as punishment for lying. the mom made her move a pile of bricks across the yard for no reason except her logic was, you wasted my time by lying to me, so i'm going to waste your time moving these bricks. this girl is adopted by these people who were formerly her foster parents. she was abused and living in a car when they got her. unfortunately, she is abusing the system now that got her out of a car and into a home. so dhs came out and told the mom she was not allowed to punish her daughter in that way and that the child should basically choose her own punishment (6th grader).

there have been times we have made dss miss out on an activity that he never got back. he missed a train ride in kindergarten and he has never had that opportunity offered him again by his grandparents. in the long run, it didn't seem to help. so maybe we should've let him go. i don't know....... but we'd made the threat and we followed through.

i feel sorry for that girl in the story. her future just went down the toilet. she can now do whatever she wants and she is not mature enough to make those decisions. she needs a parent and now she basically just has free rent and food from a man who happens to be her father. she will ruin her life.

---

"But I am like a green olive tree in the house of God; I trust in the mercy of God forever and ever." Psalm 52:8

"greenolivetree"

Yes, it is terrible, and it sets a precidence, not just in Canada, but many judges here in the US are looking at precidence set in other countries..when they make decisions.

When I read this story to my son (he's 13) his response was "I hope you'd beat my butt if I took something like that to court, because that's what I'd do my own kid if I was that dad." he said, "then if my child took that to court then they could just take custody of my kid..because I wouldn't be able to parent a child I couldn't discipline." (My son is so smart)

yes, your son is very smart :) good for him. we need kids to grow up seeing things that way!

---

"But I am like a green olive tree in the house of God; I trust in the mercy of God forever and ever." Psalm 52:8

For Pete's sake, you can lock your children up in a compound, cut them off from the world, yank them out of school, marry them off at 14 years old and still the government looks the other way in the name of "parental rights".

I wouldn't worry about grounding anyone.

I do believe children or "minors" should be able to go to the courts to "challenge" parents under "certain" conditions..But this?..Is rediculous..and Im sorry I dont think most are going to put up with it..

We are responsible for our childs well being ..The father was nailed either way if you think about it..It could have been considered "neglect" had he not cared or allowed his daughter to post pictures of herself on a dating site..

Not only are we responsible for their well being?..We are many times "liable" if they break the law or hurt someone else if we have not been dilligent and taken certain measures of supervision..

Love

Dallas

Keep in mind this is Canada, not the U.S. and government intervention into private matters is more accepted there than here. 

I would not read a lot into it.  We don't know the full facts.

 

This is true.  It's also what's called anecdotal evidence.  You really can't use one example to prove a trend. 

Grand Illusion:

This is true.  It's also what's called anecdotal evidence.  You really can't use one example to prove a trend. 

No but you can use many examples and an obvious change in societal attitude over time to prove a trend.

Consider the fact that while reading this some people probably were thinking that while it this case it was beyond stupid fro the judge to intervene, most people could probably think of circumstances where it was warrented. But 30 years ago or so, the entire concept of a child taking their parents to court would have been rediculous.

Now the question becomes is that change good or bad. I'd say that it was probably good and necessary for some small change in that direction to have been made but that this case, and others that are less extreme suggest that we have (and sill are) moving too far.

chaz345:

Grand Illusion:

This is true.  It's also what's called anecdotal evidence.  You really can't use one example to prove a trend. 

No but you can use many examples and an obvious change in societal attitude over time to prove a trend.

Consider the fact that while reading this some people probably were thinking that while it this case it was beyond stupid fro the judge to intervene, most people could probably think of circumstances where it was warrented. But 30 years ago or so, the entire concept of a child taking their parents to court would have been rediculous.

Now the question becomes is that change good or bad. I'd say that it was probably good and necessary for some small change in that direction to have been made but that this case, and others that are less extreme suggest that we have (and sill are) moving too far.

The only reason we even budge on this now is the overall condition of society and the destruction of the family. Be it government, the church, or just parents, there will always be some issues with kids and parents. To invite government into the home is to allow a shim in the door that WILL get bigger. Its a a HUGE scary problem...trend or not. I had read this piece somewhere I forget where, what about the one in Ohio where a dad was jailed because daughter didnt get her GED? Im tellin ya, Canada or not, Orwell was prophetic when he wrote 1984!