by 
Verifying that truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, a father ended up having the discipline he placed on his 12 year old daughter overturned by a judge in Canada.
The girl’s parents were involved in a custody dispute, and the girl used a court appointed lawyer to make the case that the punishment that her father was placing for her disobedience was too severe.
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 . . .
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.
Personally, I have a problem with this on many levels.
The obvious is, why does the court have the right to dictate grounding for a child? The only logical reason that I can come up with is that because there is some kind of custody dispute the mother is encouraging the girl to rack up complaints against the father. One wonders what the current custody arrangement is.
The second is, what would be a reasonable punishment? The girl is going to friend’s houses to upload inappropriate photos of herself. Obviously she does not have a good set of friends, and it appears that the father is trying to protect her.
Now, we must be clear that we only have one side of this story, but from the looks of what has been presented this is a gross example of government overreach—or should the government have the right to tell parents that they put their child in too long of a time out?
The government in this situation clearly overstepped it’s boundaries. A parent has a duty to protect their child and, from the sound of this story, the father was only trying to keep his daughter from putting herself in harm’s way.
What I don’t get is this philosophy of parenting to “let your kids do whatever they want”. Children don’t know what is best for them that is why God has given them parents. As parents we must be reasonable and allow our kids some freedoms within limits.
But this case sounds kind of wacky. I wonder if there’s more to it than meets the eye…
militarywifeys last blog post..Update on Paternity leave for Military members
@militarywifey: I’m with you, there’s something that doesn’t sound quite right here. The reason that it spreads like it does is because we can believe that government could do such a thing– that in itself is a cause for concern!
I guess it wouldn’t bother me as much if politicians didn’t use “for the children” as their rallying cry whenever they want to get something passed. Because they do this, it gives the government the right to get involved in the home– where it has no business being.