Jun 19 2008
Judge usurps the role of teen parenting
Just when you think the nanny state lawyers and judges up in Canada can’t find more areas to stick their noses in where they don’t belong comes this newest gem: 12-Year-Old Grounded for Too Much Internet Use Gets Punishment Overturned in Court.
You read that right, as the news story relates:
A Quebec Superior Court judge has overturned a father’s punishment for his daughter in which the father denied her permission to attend a school trip. Her offense was to disobey her father’s instructions to stay off the internet by continuing to utilize online chat sites and posting posting “inappropriate” pictures of herself online using a friend’s computer. Her behavior was the culmination of a history of disciplinary problems.
However, the judge in her infinitely superior wisdom decided the father’s punishment was too severe.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
The first question that screams out from this story is this: how did this case get to a court hearing before this judge in the first place. Why wasn’t it laughed out of court?
Since there isn’t a whiff of abuse that might mandate custody being taken from the parents, why does a judge see fit to waste his time and everyone’s money to intervene in a case of parental discipline? The girl stepped over boundaries regarding her use of the internet (for which her parents face strict liability) and her father appropriately decided to show his daughter that her choices has consequences. How is it that the judge decided to intervene with the authority of the government as a substitute for the parents’ considered judgment, who are responsible for this child until she reaches the age of majority.
This just demonstrates the truth of the slippery slope arguments about government intrusions into parenting practices, such as spanking children. Regardless of one’s view on the merits of the practice, the state has no business mandating or forbidding it. (I’m not talking about genuine physical child abuse, where the state does have a legitimate interest.)
The father’s lawyers, thankfully plan to appeal this decision:
The punishment was for the girl’s “own protection,” according to the father’s attorney, Kim Beaudoin, who is appealing the ruling. “She’s a child,” Beaudoin told AFP. “At her age, children test their limits and it’s up to their parent to set boundaries. I started an appeal of the decision today to reestablish parental authority, and to ensure that this case doesn’t set a precedent.”
Otherwise, she continued, “Parents are going to be walking on egg shells from now on.”
Eggshells? Try abject cowering before determined judicial micromanagement…
Or does this judge want to expand her juvenile criminal docket in the years to come?
Thus, in the interests of promoting sound parenting practices here at ARS, I’d like to add my own advice as to how to handle this judge’s decisions
Specifically, we all know that logical consequences is widely recommended as a good parenting practice. How about the adults in this world apply logical consequences to this judge’s out-of-control behavior. I could think of a few possible ideas:
1) If the judge has children, appoint a court review panel to micromanage the judge’s parenting, empowering the panel to review every parenting decision of the judge and to mandate their own preferred decisions as their sole discretion, with all expenses of this panel (including time) to be paid by the judge.
2) Turn over full decision-making power for this 12-year old child, plus legal liability for the child’s behavior, to the judge, such that she has to make every parenting decision, day-and-night, with 24/7 availability by cell phone (at a minimum) and at no pay.
Other suggestions welcomed in the comments.
6 Responses to “Judge usurps the role of teen parenting”
3) The federal government will create the Department of Parental Controls, in which parents-to-be must select from a range of acceptable preferences for rules governing the growth of their child. (If none are selected by the time the child is born, he or she will be given the Default setting, which includes unlimited Internet and a cell phone of choice at age 10. Appeals to change these preferences over time must be submitted 2 weeks in advance to the Bureau of Adjustment, which will review all suggestions.
First Japan, now Canada. See this disturbing Economist article for the latest advances in the U.K. They’re closing in.
Josh, your proposal is too modest. If you’re going to set up a Department of Parental Controls, surely they have to regulate every conceivable encounter between parent and child. That way they can hire thousands more employees and command larger budgets and give more contracts to the friends of high officials and to political contributors.
Interesting link to the Economist, documenting the hijacking of security measures against terrorist to aggrandize the nanny state. However, the foundation of the nanny state does not come from the national defense community, but rather from academe and leftist secular salvationists whose faith rests in government coercion of behavior. In that regard, the Economist article is misfocused, missing the forest for the trees.
OMG> how damn pathetic is this??? I would be packing my shit and leaving Canada real fast if IT interrupted my right to raise my kids as I see fit. Just freakin bullshit this is.
I suppose Americans should brace themselves though, if the left gets it way this will be common for us as well.
We reap what we sow. Sadly.
This is a dangerous precedent being set by this judge. If there is ANY sanity left in the Canadian judicial system then this will be overturned. Troubling indeed.
Another thought.
This is also telling because it shows how these judges view their power, mainly as unlimited. They rule as unelected (usually) tyrants, issuing decrees from their ivory towers. We need a judiciary, but it is so very important who we put in those positions..
I have to say that, should higher courts uphold this judge’s decision, the adverse consequences to families and parenting (and indirectly on the society that he have to function in as adults) would be devastating if this made it to the U.S.
Actually, my principal objection that they represent the judicial branch of government usurping the legislative functions.
Choosing judicial nominees represents one vivid difference between McCain and Obama, at least regarding the values and criteria for judges that the two hold.
By the way, Duncan, did you read that Fred Thompson is going to be vetting McCain’s court appointment?