Courts overrule Canadian Father

[Parson]

A Canadian Father was ordered by the court to allow his 12 year old daughter to go on a school camping trip. The refusal was part of an escalating row where first she was banned from using the internet (after posting pictures of herself on a dating sight) and then getting into a fierce argument with her step-mother.

I cannot imagine a lawyer taking such a case, but more than that how dare a judge intervene in a situation which was obviously parental discretion and actions made for her own safety and well being?!

globeandmail.com: Father doesn't know best, court rules in girl's fight to get grounding overruled

[The Ace]

I'm glad I'm not a parent. On the one hand, parents are blamed the world over for lax discipline, now a judge overrules a perfectly reasonable attempt by a father to discipline a daughter who would benefit from a swift kick in the pants.

The judge's conduct in this matter beggars belief. If there's any justice, she should never be allowed to try another case.

[Lobolover]

Am I the only one who finds this verdict okay ?Hello-"escalating row".

[pyan]

Well...are you going to say why, Lobo? Surely at twelve years old, the parents should still be able to exert some control without the courts becoming involved?
What next? Not allowed to watch a favourite TV show, so the child can get an injuction allowing it?

[chrispenycate]

I get the feeling there is something we are not being told in this case.
Surely, unless there were some seriously strange circumstances no judge would have allowed the case to take place, let alone ruling against non-violent punishments for disobedience.

Not that I'm of the "made me the man I am today" argument (I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone, not even a bolshy teenager) but what punishments are open to modern parents? "See how unhappy you're making me"? "Behave or I'll give you back to your mother"?

[Ursa major]

In the article I read (it may have been the one pointed to by the link, but that didn't work, so I looked through the website), the girl's natural mother was in favour of the girl going on the trip. Whether this was the deciding factor, I don't know.

[Parson]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

In the article I read (it may have been the one pointed to by the link, but that didn't work, so I looked through the website), the girl's natural mother was in favour of the girl going on the trip. Whether this was the deciding factor, I don't know.

Ursa, The link works for me. The position of the mother on this consequence of Dad's action was not stated, but the article did say that the girl has moved in with her mother now.

I'll have to see a lot of extenuating circumstances before I'm ready to believe that the judge was not putting her nose into something that wasn't her business.

[Ursa major]

It works for me, now Parson, and it isn't the article that I read, which was:

globeandmail.com: Father knows best, not court

I'll read the one you posted now.

[Parson]

Ursa,

Read yours. It does shine a bit of a different light on the subject. The fact that the mother had signed up to be a sponsor makes me suspicious that "mom" was behind the legal finagling. But that still doesn't excuse the judge for taking and then ruling on a case which should have no standing in the legal system. It seems to me what we have here were perfectly legitimate consequences for questionable to unseemly behavior.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Parson

Ursa,

Read yours. It does shine a bit of a different light on the subject. The fact that the mother had signed up to be a sponsor makes me suspicious that "mom" was behind the legal finagling.

Alternatively, it could mean that the fact that the mother was going along may have influenced the father. How would everyone feel if the article was slanted in this direction: Girl has argument with stepmother. Father, to punish her, denies her time with her real mother.

This may be what the family court saw and ruled on.

[Lobolover]

And in that case,it was right .

[Parson]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

Alternatively, it could mean that the fact that the mother was going along may have influenced the father. How would everyone feel if the article was slanted in this direction: Girl has argument with stepmother. Father, to punish her, denies her time with her real mother.

This may be what the family court saw and ruled on.

Could be right. But I would guess that if Canada has custody arrangements anything like those in the US. The time of the retreat was the father's time, which would mean that he was still perfectly within his rights to say no to the trip. There is no hint of a prior arrangement with the mother, although it is likely that there was such an arrangement. Perhaps the loss of this "extra" time with Mom was the real punishment. A dicer situation, but I still don't think that the court was within its rights to deal with such this sort of parent child arrangement.

Aside: Divorce is sometimes necessary, but never the best arrangement.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Parson

A dicer situation, but I still don't think that the court was within its rights to deal with such this sort of parent child arrangement.

Now, see, I think that's exactly what a family court is for -- to settle these things when divorced parents won't or can't. Just because one parent has physical custody, that doesn't mean the other parent forfeits all right to take part in decisions concerning the child.


The girl is already unhappy, acting out, doesn't get along with her stepmother, and her mother arranges to spend some extra time with her -- additionally, there is some educational enrichment involved. The father, possibly at the stepmother's instigation, cancels the trip. Surely, if both parents were willing to be reasonable they could have settled on some other punishment that would be satisfactory to both parties.

[littlemissattitude]

While the second link mentions that that some school trips, even camping trips, are part of the curriculum, neither one makes it clear whether the trip in question was something that might become part of the student's grade. And that is what I think this case should really turn on.

I disagree with the person who said that even if it was part of the curriculum, that it should be considered a right but a privilege to go. Now, if it was just a "fun thing" for the kids, like a beach trip or a trip to the local amusement park, I think it was within the parent's right to extend the grounding to the school trip.

On the other hand, if not going could have affected her grades at school, I think the ruling was correct and the girl was rightly let go on the trip. Look at it this way...a court would not look kindly on a parent grounding a child and not letting them attend school. If the trip was part of the curriculum, that is the same thing as attending school and I don't think the parent has the right to hold the child out if they are not ill.

[dustinzgirl]

I'm a pretty easy going parent, and my kids are generally good. But if I say no, I mean no. And if my child took it to court, they'd better be getting placed in the witness protection program because I would beat the ever loving snot out of them, even if it meant I would spend some time in jail.