Redstate

By civil truth Posted in Law — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

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 RedState, 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.

cross-posted at And Rightly So!