well what more can be said

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/256315

Even if the judge thought grounding was too much punishment, is grounding illegal? If this dad had been to parenting classes when he was a teenager, he'd have known that grounding his daughter was far too over-reaching.

Such a silly remark, Rory.

You're both acting like this happens every time a kid gets grounded.

Taike



------------------
Bo pen nyang.

The situation is ridiculous, as is your comment.

We had an issue with our oldest daughter years ago. She'd sneak out at all hours of the night. We'd immediately go looking for her, usually with the help of the local police. It was our right to file unruly charges against her. After one warning---we filed charges when she repeated the behavior. The judge ordered her to do community service, attend anger management classes and for some reason, still unknown to us, ordered us to attend parenting classes. Our daughter had accused of of nothing, but we still had to go.

In the parenting classes we attended, they stressed the importance of setting limits and rules and the repercussions should these rules be broken.

We had to help some of the other parents fill out their 1st nightly paperwork because we were among the few that could read, I kid you not.



------------------
Bill in Dayton

The article cleary states that it was the mother who set the judicial machine into motion. So it's the mother using the child to get even with her ex.

Taike



------------------
Bo pen nyang.

At least you both got it. My comment was meant to be absurd. As absurd as this whole wacky system. No, obviously this doesn't happen every time a kid gets grounded. But, would one expect more or fewer similar attempts now that it has been successfully done?

I do wish that more children sue their parents for neglect and abuse.

Becoming a parent is easy. "Being" a parent takes a lot of time and effort. Those that can't afford to spend time with kids are better off without them.

------------------
Bo pen nyang.

I do wish that more children sue their parents for neglect and abuse.

Becoming a parent is easy. "Being" a parent takes a lot of time and effort. Those that can't afford to spend time with kids are better off without them.

------------------
Bo pen nyang.

Are you serious Taike ?????? You slate rory for making a flippant/silly remark and then you post this ???

Do you understand that the judge ruled in favour of the child over the fathers authority regardless as to whether the childs mum put her up to it.

Do you appreciate the range of circumstances that the state/judiciary can now consider as abuse or neglect ?

And just clarify for me what did you mean when you said those parents that dont have time for their kids are better off without them ?

It is often the case that parents want to have time for their kids but debts, and the high cost of living mean that 6they have to work unsociable hours such as night shifts, double jobs just to keep a roof over their heads.

Are you a parent yourself Taike just out of interest.

[This message has been edited by spalding1968 (edited 07-15-2010).]

My last post wasn't in regard to the trial you'd mentioned.

Yes, I am a parent. Are you going to berate me on that now?

Why am I a parent? Because society expects me to because I'm married? Far from it. I decided to become a parent because both my wife and I love children. No outside pressure. We just felt we were ready to have kids (well, ONE for the moment). If we knew that we wouldn't have the time to spend with a child we wouldn't have had one. It's as simple as that. How can we call ourselves parents if we don't have time for our son? How would my son feel if I had only had time for my work but not for him? Try explaning that to a little kid.

Money: My mom and dad raised seven sons and one daughter on ONE salary. We never went hungry. Now why is it that nowadays two working parents complain about not making ends meet? I don't understand that that all. Yet having two cars isn't a problem. Kids don't care how much money mom and dad make. What they do care about is how much time mom and dad spend with them. Is no "quality" time on Saturday/Sunday going to make up for the rest of the week. Why would any child have to put up with that?

Debts: What debts are we talking about? Paying off two cars? Mortgage? Why is it that those that lived during the Great Recession and lost all were able to get back on their feet and build a comfortable life while at the same time raising a family? Why is it impossible to duplicate this now? Buy what you can afford. If you can't afford it, don't buy it.

So you're asking children to understand that mom and dad have no time for them. Maybe people are just too darn materialistic. Sitting in front of the TV with mom and dad is usually what constitutes spending time together.

Look at what is usually the first major purchase once married: a car! And the wedding has to cost a fortune as well. So people rather spend a fortune in one day than spend it well on what's really needed. A couple of years later down the road they divorce because of financial problems.

My wife and I had a simple wedding, didn't ask for anything at all. All we wanted was people having a good time. Did we make any money from it? Nope! We both don't believe in "paying" guests.

A kid that is being neglected and abused isn't supposed to have a voice??? Aren't kids citizens and shouldn't they have rights? If I punch you in the face, you sue me, right? If I punch your kid in the face, you sue me, right? But if you were to punch your kid in the face, he/she has no right to sue you? Do you even know how much damage a punch can cause to a child? The real damage might show up years later.

Can you really blame the state's interference when some parents see their kids as nothing but a punching bag?

I've traveled the world and I noticed one particular thing over and over again: people in affluent countries have way too many excuses. I've lived in one of the poorest countries and was amazed at how much time parents spend with their kids.

Ever wonder why large families with only ONE breadwinner can pull it off while those with TWO breadwinners and ONE kid or even NO kids at all can't?

Taike

------------------
Bo pen nyang.

Spalding wrote: "Do you appreciate the range of circumstances that the state/judiciary can now consider as abuse or neglect ?"
--------------------------------------------


Explain it to them:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ark-ruling.html
--------------------------------------------


http://childwelfare.net/resources/SufferTheChildren/jh_novoice.html

------------------
Bo pen nyang.

[This message has been edited by Taike (edited 07-15-2010).]

In all actuality Taike makes a ton of sense as far as his parenting philosophy is concerned. Just his concept of solving the problem seems wrong to me, especially in this already overly litigious society of ours.

First off, bogus, BS lawsuits prompted by pissed off kids who didn't get their way should never see the light of day.

That said...

Some kids get great parents, some get brutal parents and most get something in the middle. There's things they did well, and things they didn't do so well. Parenting is a difficult challenge, now more than ever, IMO.

The kids with pretty bad parents are facing a huge uphill climb compared to those who have it better. Don't we all see smaller kids in a grocery store, gas station, etc. where they're acting up horribly and the parent(s) with them seem like something out of a dump? Poor hygiene, screaming and yelling at them in public, etc. usually our kids learn how to be parents from their parents. They model their parenting behavior off of what they experienced growing up. If Dad smacks Mom around, we know that junior is more likely to do the same. So maybe this family goes home and there's even more yelling, perhaps some low level physical abuse, etc. Maybe they don't go to church, maybe they use alcohol/drugs to a bad degree. We all know situations like this, right? Don't you think that those kids are at a disadvantage because of who had them? I do.

That kid has an uphill fight to try and break out of that culture. I've seen friends of the girls come over and they look like little street rats but sometimes after they feel comfortable they relax around us parents and a whole other side comes through. If you take a kid like that from poor parents and put them with better parents, there will be a difference.

Should their be a mechanism for children to use if they're really getting the short end of the stick? Not talking abuse-that's clear cut...But moreso the bad situations. Who do they turn to for relief? I don't think its the courts, but rather the teachers are the ones in the best situation to know these kids and help shape their lives and futures.

As an aside, I appreciate the dialogue that's gone on here in The Bar over the last few months. For me, its WAY more interesting than what's been going on in the regular arranger forums...

------------------
Bill in Dayton

[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 07-15-2010).]

The positive take-away here is a very positive and agreed upon theme about the importance of good parenting.Any disagreement is on sub-set issues and is more semantic than anything.

And, remember, this comes with a "family" connection...the adopted grandpa of "daDude", an honorary member of Taike's family, and the "part-time" dad of my man Rory.

You can imagine how important family is to me!


Best to all!


(D.O.D.)

Dear Old Dad

And you think the answer is that everyone should be sued ????? parents ...councils ??where does the money go round stop Taike ????

Who funds the Councils Taike ? Take a wild guess.....oh thats right people like you and me through our taxes. Yes your point sounds more and more sensible as i think it through.

or maybe not.

This girl's case should never have seen the inside of any court but like i said you clearly have no concept of the range of circumstances that the state/judiciary can consider as being within their jurisdiction to interfere or term abuse or neglect.

In the cases you mentioned clearly crimminal acts were being purportrated against children. If a criminal act is committed crimminal prosecutions should follow full stop. Not monetary claims through Civil Courts because the unintended side effect is more claims for frivoluos things just like this court case illustrates.Have you heard of the No win No fee profession. You know the kind 'wheres theres blame theres a claim' type thing ?

How many more claims will now be made from children who in their view 'should have been taken into care' or who feel they were unfairly treated by their parents discipline' . The no win no fee industry has just found another cash cow and you want to endorse that ?

Sure there is a place for the Law but not like this and certainly not for monetary damages.

[This message has been edited by spalding1968 (edited 07-15-2010).]

Spalding, I think stated very clearly that I wasn't talking about the case you mentioned in your first post. I was talking about the case mentioned in my previous post.

Neither have I said that all cases should be financially compensated.

There is nothing wrong seeking financial compensation in the case I mentioned. The councils didn't do their job. And who pays their salaries?

"I do wish that more children sue their parents for neglect and abuse."
This is about being held accountable. Again, it's not about money!

You really shouldn't believe that all cases are alike or that people are all the same. Some sue out of greed, others out of vengeance, others for justice.

Taike



------------------
Bo pen nyang.

what would they sue their parents for Taike if not for financial compensation ?

Excerpt from: http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2803

"Michelle responded by running off to her mother, who was apparently more lenient about such conduct. But since Mr. Boudreau retained legal custody, Michelle still needed his consent to go on the school camping trip. So Mrs. Boudreau convinced Michelle�s court-appointed lawyer, Lucie Fortin, to take Mr. Boudreau to court to dispense with his consent. Justice Suzanne Tessier heard the application, and granted the relief sought. All three of these women � Mrs. Boudreau, Ms. Fortin, and Justice Tessier--accepted 12-year-old Michelle�s view that Mr. Boudreau�s discipline was excessive."

Nowhere does it say that Michelle Boudreau had been compensated. She was granted relief sought which, if I'm not mistaken, means that she was allowed to go on the camping trip.

And once again, it cleary states that it was the mother who set the lawsuit in motion. I doubt the daughter would even know where to start.

To me the case is more about one parent getting even with the other. Both the mother and judge are wrong. The daughter's merely the tool used to get even with her ex. It's a ridiculous lawsuit but we all know that's how some exes behave.
--------------------------------------------
I just wish that bad parents are held accountable for their actions. That doesn't mean that they should end up paying large sums of money. No, far from it. But it would benefit both parties if such parents learned parenting skills.



------------------
Bo pen nyang.

"I do wish that more children sue their parents for neglect and abuse."
This is about being held accountable. Again, it's not about money!

I understand your point about making parents accountable for their actions but law suits are the wrong place for that. This is the point i am making.

This case had nothing to do with neglect or abuse and could not be dealt with by granting a child the right not to be negelcted or abuse. they alreday have that right under law.

You are quite right that this case was about the child bouncing one parent off the other. Dad said she cant go so she got mum to give her authority to go through the use of the courts. My concern is based upon my experience of engaging with family law in the UK and having an appreciation of the nonsense that gets passed off as justice behind the closed doors and secrecy of the courts , especially concerning childtren.

You are quite right, this was a rediculous lawsuit but the facts are that it occured and the result was that the courts saw fit to stamp its authority over the fathers in matters that had nothing to do with abuse or neglect and it sets a precedent that no doubt will come to bite us all on the ass some day.

Children whose parents abuse or neglect them are best dealt with by crimminal courts because abuse and neglect are crimes and recieve a much more thorough testing of evidence than civil courts. I guess thats what bothers me the most about any promotion of taking parents to civil court if in the eyes of a child they feel hard done by,as the term abuse covers such a wide range of things that everything is arguably potentially abuse. Even potentially denying your child a trip camping.