12 year old sues father to end grounding
I heard about this case through the Dennis Prager Show last week and found it stunning. The story comes out of Quebec Canada where a child can take a parent to court and sue the parent. Some may feel this to be a good thing, afterall aren't there numerous cases of parental abuse that nobody hears about until the kid is either dead or so screwed up in the head they'll never be a contributing member of society? Well, yes there are cases like this. However, when you get the courts involved in private matters, this is where you end up.
A twelve year old girl brought her dad to court in a lawsuit protesting her grounding over the fact that she was posting some inappropriate photos of herself on MySpace. Her father had... well here's the article.
Judge overrules dad's decision to ground daughter
GATINEAU, Quebec - A Quebec youngster has used the courts to avoid parental discipline in a "landmark" case. The 12-year-old girl, who is too young to be named, went to court to force her father to overturn his decision not to allow her to go on a school trip. Her father had decided to ground her after he found out she had posted photos of herself on a dating website against his wishes. The sixth-grader then took her father to court, arguing that his punishments were too severe.
Madam Justice Suzanne Tessier of the Quebec Superior Court ruled on Friday that denying the girl permission to go on the school trip was an excessive punishment. The girl's lawyer, Lucie Fortin, said, "She's becoming a big girl" and described the school trip as "a unique event in her life", the Globe and Mail reported. In arguing the case, Fortin cited Sections 159 and 604 of the Quebec Civil Code, which allow minors in some circumstances to initiate court proceedings relating to the exercise of parental authority. Section 159 is used in "extreme circumstances", such as cases of parental negligence.
The father's lawyer, Kim Beaudoin said that her client is "stunned by this situation. He feels like he's lost his daughter". He is appealing the court's decision.
You can read the full article here.
In a statement after the judge's ruling, the father refused to have the girl in his care citing; "If I have no authority over her, I can't raise her." He is entirely correct. His consequence for her behavior was not harmful to her in any way and the judge has effectively nulled his authority and affirmed the daughter's belief that her father is an overbearing authoritarian. I could not take care of any child of whom I have not the authority to train, correct, and enforce consequences, and certainly not in a circumstance where my authority has been undermined by a major figure of legal authority for such a minor consequence when the man was looking out for the child's welfare. He is appealing the case and I hope and pray for the sake of the child that this ruling is repealed. May that judge forever regret her decision to interfere in the rational council of a loving father.
Comments
Any normal judge with any idea of parenting would have thrown this case out. And this child sounds like a real problem kid who I say deserved harsher punishment than what her father metered out.
lol, I share that sentiment.
Apparently they don't.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080620.wlgrounded20/BNStory/lifeMain/home
When 15-year-old Braedon Webb gets in trouble, he tries to talk his parents out of grounding him.
"It usually doesn't work," the Toronto teen said yesterday. "But I've never been punished severely."
He and his friend Michael Bowen - who both swore they weren't in school yesterday afternoon because they had just finished their exams - were surprised to hear that a 12-year-old girl in Gatineau, Que., had successfully taken her father to court and had her own punishment overturned.
The decision by Madam Justice Suzanne Tessier of the Quebec Superior Court to side with the girl, who cannot be identified, after her father told her she could not attend a school trip, was met with shock and outrage by many parents across the country. These kids also seem surprised that the tactic worked.
"That sounds pretty stupid," Michael said. "Who cares about a school trip that much?"
...Michelle Giroux, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, said those sections are in place to allow parents to seek court intervention during family disputes, and to ensure that children's voices are heard.
But she said their use is usually reserved for cases in which the child is in need of protection, as in cases of domestic violence.
"It looks like a very unusual situation indeed, for a child to bring an issue to the court to overrule the parental authority where there is not an issue of security," she said.
"That's a new way of dealing with the situation."
She said courts usually show deference toward parental authority, and the right of mothers and fathers to decide what's best for their own children.
...
But Peter Dudding, executive director of the Child Welfare League of Canada, said he does not believe the provision of the Quebec civil code had been used in this way before.
"I think it's a bit of an anomaly," he said. "Whether we agree with his daughter being grounded or not, I'm pretty concerned that it's a place where the court chooses to intervene."
Court should be a last resort when it comes to matters of family, he said, especially when there are children involved.
Justice Marvin Zuker, a family court judge and a professor of law at the University of Toronto, also does not believe the situation should have made it into court.
"Give me a break. If that's excessive punishment, what isn't?" he said. "To me, the father was doing what's right. I would dismiss it out of hand."
But hey, good job jumping to ridiculous conclusions everyone.
Yes indeed sad for her and her father.
This whole story just infuriates me! Praise God I don't live in Canada! I just hope that this sort of court interference doesn't start to bleed into American courts. We have enough judges presuming their way into our lives already!
If she was going to get involved, and is an advocate for a child, if she had a brain that is, the judge should have mandated that the 12 year old get no computer. Hello??? A dating service? The judge is worried about a class trip? Seems to me that she should have gotten involved on the side of advocating for the child's safety. The judge is an idiot and is not fit to rule over what is good for a child. .
The part that is potentially harmful to that little girl that the judge put in the position of being a national issue and the middle of a court debate is that the judge forced the dad to take the stand: "The father refused to have the girl in his care citing; 'f I have no authority over her, I can't raise her."' What impact does that statement by the dad have on the 12 year CHILD, judge? And hello, where is the mother? Sitting by allowing her daughter (whether nameless or not) the girl knows - she's become a national spectacle and topic of debate and her father has been dishonored. Shame on judge, shame on mother. The problem is now this LITTLE GIRL. NOT TEEN. NOT ADULT . LITTLE GIRL has just heard her father say, "fine you take her" so to speak. She's a child and how will she hear that? That her father doesn't love her enough to let her go on trips or win court cases? The ramifications go on. She's 12 and she won't be able to sort it all out in her head. I hope they have good therapists up there. That family needs one with that child and mother.
I have been around girls who put photos up on Internet, I have heard mothers tell me horror stories of guys showing up at their house - strangers whom the daughter's met online without their knowledge or stalking girls or worse and I mean really worse - 30 year olds raping 14 year old girls. I put spy ware on my computer and told my kids.
My husband consistently tells my teens this: "I will do whatever I have to to make sure you are safe."
But for a moment I just want to share a perspective on his choice of punishment - having learned it the hard way - sometimes what you get back in terms of behavior is worse if the punishment doesn't directly relate. In this scenario, she went to court. She could have met a guy in retaliation. Do not get me wrong. This is just an observation. The father was correct to punish her - but more relevant punishment would have sent the message and had the "shaping behavior" effect the dad wanted (for her to knock off unsafe behavior) A punishment- like block her computer use for a month and buy spy ware and tell her nothing is private anymore. Notify the dating service they have a 12 year old client and they will be shut down for not screening. But having been around teens a severe punishment that is not related - IS his business - but may not work. Just an aside.
We all do the best we can. So who am I to judge? I only know I've seen the same. Push a kid too hard and they know how to actually hurt themselves worse when they retaliate. I have challenges that are constant with two teens. I cry, I get angry, I take action, I am involved. The waters are uncharted and dangerous nowadays with teaching teens. Do I think the court should be involved NO WAY. They didn't serve her. They hurt her by creating a chasm w/her dad and worse. My heart breaks for the girl and the dad. Without reading the article, all I can say is "hello mother, where are you?" Did she think this was a good civics lesson for daughter to take dad to court? A family fraught with problems.
Court should be involved only in abuse/neglect cases. Period.
Or for flip side. A parent I ment put his kid in juvenile hall because he saw no way to stop his acting out and drinking. The boy is a man now and has turned his life around.
Every day is a challenge with teens. Different levels, but a challenge. We don't need obstacles.
Oh, the exchange between posts - seemed like everyone agrees the court is wrong. Did I miss something?
That is a "unique" event in a child's life.
I am restraining myself from using unsavory language!
In the 12 year old's case the judge's action is abuse in my book. If I have my facts straight, mom agreed with the girl and mom and dad are divorced.
On the exchange, I think the only differing opinions were whether the case is indicative of wholesale changes with court intervention in parental authority.
Teenagers have sex. Oh no! Pubescent children think about sex. Oh no! children are sexual beings too, it's not like they only become interested in boobs and wieners and woohoos once their 18th birthday rolls around. It is an enormous leap to call chatting anonymously about naughty things with older men rape. There is in fact, no part of the sex act involved!
The act may have been inappropriate or wrong, but it is far from rape and hysterics will not make it rape.
But hey! Blind regional hatred is much more fun than common sense!
And the spy ware was put on our computer after I had to get police involved because after I accidentally found a copy of my child's exchange she left around (at 12 chat with an older guy) I found out phone calls were involved and I now had to fear for her safety. This was on a little game site the kids played. I'd watch them play! I blocked them from CHAT. I knew the traps. I wasn't some mom who was restrictive OR uninvolved. How ironic. A game they showed me. Not a chat room. We woke up really fast. Oh that same week, my then 9 year old had links sent to her from there from the other "kids". You know where to? Open porn sites. Yes, she had the lovely pleasure of seeing every possible sex act one can imagine in photos in one lovely montage. How did I find out? I happened to see history and asked my husband why he was visiting porn sites. He wasn't. She didn't even know where she was being sent to. These sites didn't care to have a black screen that says you must be 18. No, whatever you can imagine, she saw in one screen shot. .If you have little girls or little boys or ever plan to, wake up.
So you can call what my response was histrionics, but you think that a dating service, not even a veiled game, a DATING SERVICE - isn't cause for alarm? She's 12.
I am sorry. I am about as worldly as one can get. Make no mistake. I've seen it all growing up. I see it all now. I can protect my teens just so far. And I have a handful of challenges.
That judge did send a message that a 12 year old on a dating service was okay.
You have no idea what it is like to watch someone steal innocence from your child.
It is a scary world. I am not over reactive.
If a guy teaches your daughter in words to have sex in every way imaginable and she is 12 - oh and asks her to (you figure it out), you're okay with that?
There are wackos out there.
I watched my younger daughter when five, so, so beautiful that people would comment - huge green eyes and bouncing curls catch rain drops on a porch when I was a few feet away on the other side of a glass door of a bagel shop. And this very nice, handsome, smiling man dressed in jogging clothes with a t-shirt with the words VOLUNTEER on his back who looked at her and smiled at me- kind of the perfect wholesome man whom I smiled back to - went out the door blocked my view so I got up immediately and switched seats to keep my eye on her. Turns out my little girl came bouncing back in and said, "Mom, the man said 'holy smokes it's raining hard, would you like to come into my car?' And I said no thanks." It is a far cry from 12. But this was a man who did this in daylight, feet away from me, knowing I was watching. We never caught him. And I have always worried about the next child. I give that example because even the most normal, what a perfect, all American man - the kind who'd be a soccer dad - turned out to be a predator right in front of me.
So yes, sit around and listen to what happens and you won't mock the concept of chat can lead to rape. I'm not some prude - you have no idea. I know an adult woman who met guys. One was stalked relentlessly until the police were involved. The Internet conversations are one dimensional. You can "fall in love" online before you ever meet. And then meet and things go very wrong. Do not tell me hysterics. I could go on and on and on with examples - true ones that responsible people found themselves in.
And please, do not disrespect me to call what I wrote blind regional hate. I would fight any judge in any country. Canada wasn't even on my radar when I wrote.
"Teenagers have sex. Oh no! Pubescent children think about sex. Oh no! children are sexual beings too, it's not like they only become interested in boobs and wieners and woohoos once their 18th birthday rolls around."
I agree.
When I was a little girl, I was at a friend's house. I was probably 12 and very curious. I found a book when I was alone. No photos. Hard core stories. I was intrigued. I couldn't stop reading. I loved it. But you know what? What I read was men being violent to the women - oh and of course the women in these stories loved being raped. And back then, the perspective of the stories was hardcore but it didn't have the hard core detail, that kids read now in chat. I wonder about that dad now that would leave it in view so that even his daughter's friend found it. Not about him as rapist but as someone who in the back of his mind knew kids could read it. Just like cyber sex. Someone putting it out there for you. It was sad that I had that available. I lost something there at that house with that book. It may have been "fun" in the moment for the curious 12 year old girl. But it was brutal and I lost something pure. Many adults here never read what I read. And never would.
I am so not nor ever have been a prude. So please, you may not like what you read by me, and you can mock me, but I am not a prude and I did not fall off the back of the potato truck. And I do not come from this response from any faith perspective. I come from it as one who has seen it all and learned. I share my views as a mother who would fight to protect her children. And you just don't get it.
Do you know that my daughter told me recently (she's 17) that she doesn't want to grow up? She felt like she lost her childhood. She wanted to be a teen so fast and she thinks she missed being a kid. So at 17 she's resisting (as in sabotaging grades) the next step - finishing high school. Oh she's passing, but she has admitted she mourns the loss of just being a kid. Not a teen. A kid. Kids may interested in sex, of course they are - but if it comes to them too fast or in ways like the Internet or MTV or misogynistic songs, they are ripped off.
Oh, and one final point, lest anyone think why didn't she have her kids blocked from porn? I thought I had every precaution on the computer to block them from access to porn, or IM's or Chat Rooms. Boy did I learn. The first parental control programs weren't sufficient.
I'm glad you look out for your kids and internet proof them and all of that. Most people do not. The best way to deal with these things is to be open and direct - telling the kid not to do X because Y is actually a Z and there's a real risk that Y will N them. It's not like I think the judge made the right decision - 12 year olds shouldn't be using websites designated for 18+. There's a reason they have age restrictions.
At the same time, you can't protect "innocence" forever - you can't be there to censor every unsavoury thing in your kid's life. The best you can do is prepare them to cope on their own, teach them the appropriate responses in ways that they can understand and appreciate on their own terms. The main reason that rebellious teenagers do crazy stuff that their parents tell them not to, is because the parents never gave them a good reason. "Don't smoke" "don't drink" "don't do drugs" and other edicts don't work, because once the kids can resist your authority, there's no basis for edicts like that. You need to explain to them and argue your case, here is why X is bad and Y isn't so great. But you can't try to scare them away from it, because their own experiences and everything they see will contradict you. You've got to teach "better safe than sorry".
I said all that because I wanted to say that children aren't as innocent as everyone believes, and that illusion of innocence will vanish sooner or later. You cannot control the events in your child's life, you can only control the context in which they evaluate and understand those events. I think the first time I saw porn I was 12, and it never warped me into a sex-crazed fiend because I had a very well-grounded respect of women, and my parents had taught me that Aristotelian maxim, all things in moderation.
Sex doesn't make kids grow up too fast. Don't you remember playing doctor? Our culture is geared towards constant, breakneck change though, constant progress towards and arbitrary goal. Everyone is a target of ads and propaganda and marketing and total crap like Barbies and such. Our culture SCREAMS at kids to grow up and become X, to become Y, and that once you grow up, why, adults are not allowed to have fun! Adults are X Y and Z. Adults are clearly defined, and once you grow up, you are not allowed to do anything other than adult things! When you are a kid, you are never allowed to do adult things! There's too much rigid structure amidst all this constant change.
Anyway I didn't mean to make fun of you, I was just reacting to an incendiary comment.
And I agree you push too hard and "punish" and what you get back is worse. And I have seen it. My child thought she fell in love with that predator. So I block her, I am VERY honest with my kids that I have spy ware and she hurts herself by doing something stupid in retaliation. So yeah, discipline is a dicey issue.
They did a study of women from the generation - free love, the pill, Looking for Mr. Good Bar. The majority, the majority of a cross section of women regretted the choices they made to be so free. That was an eye opener. It didn't appear in conservative publication. It appeared in some woman's magazine that had no reason to be preaching. It just is what women often say, they regret their choices. And society is what made it enticing. Secondly, there was a study I learned about (I have to be delicate) but pornographic/unusual images/literature/experiences can actually become biologically imprinted on a person so that they find that that outlying activity is more inviting? Does that say it politely but get the point? Said another way, you know how a duck imprints when born on first thing it sees? Hopefully mom, same with what happens in those situations. And many people have shared same after I read study. Obviously I can't be more explicit.
Your words (and my past views) speak to a society that is like fish in a tank of dirty water. We don't even know the water is filthy and the view distorted until the water is changed.
The reason I said Canada Judge is because this blogger is named JudgeBob and I didn't want him to think I was mad at him :)).
And there is nothing incendiary saying that IM's can lead to rape. It's a fact with certain children, certain adults.
And as the mother of a teen who does push the edges I have had to back off on how harsh I discipline. Because the result backfires - like I shared about my view of the father's punishment in Canada. I agree it's not "you miss dessert." And you can talk to your kids about what's right or wrong, have them in places that reinforce strong moral values, but culture is stronger. It is seductively stronger. Here's the part you have to get. I didn't either. My husband had to point out that no matter what studies I read about women of my generation and their regrets, no matter what context I provide about life and love and sex, kids today (as a culture, as a whole, not individuals) have a cavalier attitude towards sex themselves or communicate it in a way shape the girls' views. I heard a teen and actually saw a show last night on this theme. Boy says, "I don't go out with virgins." Girls response? "OH GOD I'm a virgin. I've got to change that fast. And without love, changes that." I heard girls share that first hand and did they feel crummy when treated like dirt after. (I happen to be in places where kids are very open) and it's in the TV shows because it exists in society. So girls think they should do it. Not like an act of love, like a "to do" or you're lame. Today is not what life was like in our day - even if our day was 10 years ago. Try to reason with them and they just don't see things the same way - thank you MTV, Internet, Facebook, MySpace, Tila Tequila and on and on and on. You could put them in a school that teaches morals, you can be involved, and society will trump you - if the child is driven by peer pressure or whatever. I wish you were correct about reason with them. Tell them that putting name on Facebook is wrong, they don't get it. Tell them putting photos drunk or in compromised positions - they don't get it. Stupid, stupid they believe it's okay way to seduce boys. Racey photos. Well, once on the net, always. Employers are checking and turning down the buttoned up Harvard MBA grad sitting in front of them because they saw their Facebook. Private schools check Facebook before accepting kids. Valedictorian gets expelled and LEFT BACK A YEAR because of expulsion - valedictorian - because of innocent Facebook group she created.
So they just think you're silly when you try to sit down and share it. All you can do is make sure they are safe, monitor (without being overboard), and set limits and hope they get through the teen years and get all the trained support from teachers to groups to whatever to make sure kids learn.
Today is not yesterday. And I wish you could reason. But my husband is right. They think you don't get it.
Make no mistake.
And as a mom, as a woman, I know that these kids are being ripped off. And when they are older, many will agree. I don't know your age. I promise I am not speaking from hysterics point of view. I am speaking from studies, from experience from my generation and current generation that validate those studies to a "t."
I will let this go now. But as a mother, I felt it critical to say all of this. Because if people dismiss it, and I'm not talking from a moral point of view, I'm talking about kids safety, their rights to be kids, innocence. And when adults dismiss this stuff, then they let the problem get worse.
Again, one of the saddest by products of the Canada case that started this is that the father was put in a position to say "you keep her. I can't raise her." 12 year olds may be precocious about sex curiosity or even Internet savvy. But they are kids. HOW does a 12 year old girl sort out in her head that her dad said and it appeared around the world he was giving up raising her (when we know what he meant). Think she does? No. So she is a victim on so many levels. And I who advocate for women will say this one last time, shame on that mother, shame on that female judge. They should both be given community hours in a pedophile prison group or girls' rape crisis center. That outta wake them up.
I'm sorry to blog endlessly about this. But you present the perfect counterpoint and a mother is a mother to all children. I said that the moment I got pregnant. And I read a letter that said the same on a blog the other day. So we fight for the kids.
JudgeBob, I'll shut up now.
I think the Baby Boomer generation may have regretted their free lovin' ways because of STDs and hippie pregnancies ruining the trip. The real reason I think they have regrets though, is that they were irresponsible - their parents didn;t teach them how to enjoy recreational sex responsibly, they just told them "Don't have sex before you're married." Parental edicts are based on authority, remember, and they don't hold up when the scare-tactic myths that Mom and Dad taught turn out to be just that. Baby Boomers may have screwed themselves up as a generation, but that experience allows them to teach their kids to enjoy sex responsibly. Notice how each successive generation is smaller since the pill was invented, the AIDS epidemic encouraged condom use, and the Baby Boomers' kids grew up and started having sex.
Congratulations on dealing this well with your daughter [I mean this sincerely, kids go crazy once the hormones kick in, and I GUARANTEE you that when she's 15 she will be even more hard to control. She'll simmer down afterward, I dunno what it is about that age.]
I understand, it's just that I didn't know you were trying not to insult JudgeBob and I took it as a blanket statement. I took the "All Judges in Canada are crazy!!" interpretation as incendiary, not the real risk that internet predators can be real.
Men have treated women [especially virgins] without care or empathy for sex since the dawn of history, and women have used men for gain since time immemorial. Feeling crummy after being used for sex and not getting any emotional support isn't a new phenomenon, so I would hardly blame it on better birth control or modern culture.
The best argument to counter culture is to use its own methods against it. You can;t say things are "right" or "wrong," because (especially in this day and age) teenagers don't see the world in black and white with moral facts. You have to approach kids on their own level, you can't dictate morals from above. To do this you have to be understanding, and empathetic, and help them with their troubles without any fear of punishment or retribution. Your kids have to be able to trust you that, if they have a bad sexual or drug experience, they can come to you for emotional support without being punished for going out and drinking after school or losing their virginity to a high school senior or something like that. If you place yourself above them, you fail to connect with them in a meaningful, human way, and make yourself into a judge, and their lives into a constant tribunal. A person can't always be on the defense, they can't spend their life dodging allegations.
Short version: The best way to deal with sex and drugs and rock and roll and anything else about your kid's life that you don't like is to give them a safe, consequence-free environment to communicate with you. A simple conversation, open on both ends, both of you sharing experiences, can be remarkably therapeutic - therapists and psychiatrists are like scientists investigating a specimen, but someone who cares can provide the warm, caring emotional support a sad person needs. I hope this made sense.
Super-short version: The hippies were right, being friends with your kid is actually superior to being a disciplinarian [but not always, come on that's just sissy]
"You know what a unique event in a child's life is Judge in Canada? Getting raped by a predator. Or something as "benign" as having cyber sex when she's 12." These two are equated with each other, or at the very least rhetorically connected as equally evil. But we've already gone over how I misinterpreted that post so whatever.