(Post a new comment)

	indis_earfalas 2009-06-24 09:35 am UTC (link)
	Gaaah. What kind of bullshit malarky is that??? If I caught my kids doing anything like that they'd be lucky to leave the house without me ... I'd be dropping them at their classroom door in the morning and picking them up from the same spot in the afternoon. Way to undermine decent parenting. (Reply to this)

	lostmahmarbles 2009-06-24 09:36 am UTC (link)
	I... just... I... wow. (Reply to this)

	kuromitsu 2009-06-24 11:48 am UTC (link)
	"The trip was very important to her." Well duh, of course it was, when you're twelve everything is a question of life or death. I wonder if the kid has any idea of what she was doing. I also wonder who paid her lawyer. The mother? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	rodo 2009-06-24 04:32 pm UTC (link)
	Probably not. I think it'll take her years to rebuild a halfway decent relationship with her father (if it works at all, it wouldn't in my family). And all because of a field trip?! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	cat_mcdougall 2009-06-24 12:22 pm UTC (link)
	O_o Wow. I've got four kids (almost 15, 13, and twins 9). I've banned them from field trips before, after they've screwed up. They've also pushed their limits, time and time again. It's kinda what kids do. But I think the most telling line of all this is this: "It's very hard to raise a child who is the boss." Truer words, man. Truer words. (Reply to this)

	taktuk 2009-06-24 02:10 pm UTC (link)
	Fuck. Let's just hope to $deity that she hasn't seen North, or that father is in for even more headaches. (Reply to this)

cygnia
2009-06-24 03:14 pm UTC (link)

Eh, from what I read there were mitigating circumstances when this case first broke the news. Quebec law apparently allows it. http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={B44A5874-F06D-4C27-BFAB-83399E8F196B}

There's a translation of the ruling about one quarter of the way on this page: http://www.metafilter.com/80659/Because-I-said-so-Not-according-to-my-lawyer

And a link to the actual ruling for those who can read French as well: http://www.jugements.qc.ca/primeur/documents/droitdelafamille_09746.doc

(Reply to this)(Thread)

shadwing
2009-06-24 05:18 pm UTC (link)

So...basically, both parents agreed she should be punished but couldn't agree on the severity of the punishment.

Dad wanted to ban her from the trip, since she had done this before, been warned...been punished...had steps taken at home (blocking sites, revoking net access) and she still decided to endanger herself anyway, and showed all signs of continuing this, so he most likely hoped that loosing this trip would FINALLY bring it home that This Shit will NOT be tolerated.

Mom, either wanting to undermine daddy or not comprehending the danger the girl was putting herself in and still showing no sign of stopping this behavior thought that this was a "Once in a Lifetime" trip for her and ergo...she NEEDED to go.

Courts SOMEHOW side with the mother and her daughter...ignoring the potential danger the girl was putting herself in. Gah.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	deadwood 2009-06-24 09:05 pm UTC (link)
	Dude, I went to Quebec City on a school trip between 8th and 9th grade. It was epic. It was NOT once in a lifetime, as I'm planning to go back someday. That shit is WRONG. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	shadwing 2009-06-24 11:07 pm UTC (link)
	I think somebody made the case "But this is the 400th Ann of the City!! SHE HAS TO GO!!!" Dude...take your kid later in the year it's not gonna be for this one weekend alone. I hope when this goes to appeal SOMEBODY brings up that this wasn't a 'First Offence' for this behavior, 'less severe' punishments were not cutting it ergo short of beating her, what else was left? (Reply to this)(Parent)

	nostariel 2009-06-24 07:32 pm UTC (link)
	That is some epic stupidity right there. (Reply to this)

	telegramsam 2009-06-24 08:01 pm UTC (link)
	Yea, epic fail there. Why the hell did this case ever come to court in the first place? And that lawyer. Oh lord. And they wonder why people think they're reptiles. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	nights_mistress 2009-06-24 08:29 pm UTC (link)
	Hey, I'll have you know that my reptilianness involves sparkly Mary Sue wings and the ability to breath fire and ice. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	inappropriate 2009-06-25 05:26 am UTC (link)
	My brain is so boggled by this, I think it just burst into flames. Better go dunk my head in the sink. (Reply to this)

	mistal 2009-06-25 05:59 am UTC (link)
	First, Im gonna giggle over the fact that you posted this during Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day (National Holiday of Quebec). Second, gah! Court get out of my province! (Reply to this)

quantumreality
2009-06-29 02:52 pm UTC (link)

It's things like this...

Usually I'm willing to cut judges more slack than most people in our society seem to want to, mainly because in the main most of them probably don't think lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key is the one-size-fits-all solution to Canada's problems (yeah, hi, I'm Canadian! *waves*), and as far as civil suits go I think we've reached a better balance than perhaps a more litigous culture would reach.

But this!

Even with the court judgement stating they do not want to set a precedent, and granted this is based on a different civil code than in English-speaking Canada, it's still a facepalming moment on the lines of "WTF was the court judge thinking?" It's a no-brainer. Parents are given a unique position in our society vis-a-vis their children, and that is to circumscribe a child's civil rights while he or she is still a minor.

*sigh* The Conservative Party's going to have a field day with this out here in the Western provinces. We tend to be more right-wing than Eastern Canada for historical and cultural reasons (even NDP governments out here tend to take on a bit of a rightish flavor), and allowing even one case of a child to evade punishment set by a parent won't sit well out here among a lot of people.

(Y'all can tell I don't like Stephen Harper v. much :P )

(Reply to this)