The headline sounds kind of crazy, but after reading the whole story, this sounds fairly reasonable. Not the best use of court time, but taxes in Canada are high enough; might as well waste the court's time with something less than important to society as a whole. Of course, this essentially gives the child a court mandated reason to "hate" her father because he is so "mean," but what they said is true---if divorced parents can't agree on how to raise a child, who else can be the final arbitrator?
May as well take the children away if you're going to completely undermine their right to assert discipline. If father had custody, why does the court allow the kid to run away to the mother?
Government should pay for kids from crib to 18, if they are going to completely undermine parental authority and rights.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I would think that if a parent had "custody", s/he should be able to make a decision on whether allowing the kid to go to a field trip. I mean, it's a freaking field trip. Sure, in the mind of the daughter, it's probably the most important thing in the world. But if her father felt it was necessary to teach her a lesson, it should be his prerogative. This isn't abuse we're talking about.
So do you guys think the judge should rule against Quebec law, or do you just have poor reading comprehension? If this had happened in Texas, the outcome would have more than likely been the same. A child twelve years or older can execute an affidavit choosing which parent he or she wants to live with. Although it isn't binding on the judge, they most often go with the child's wishes. So if daddy doesn't want daughter going somewhere and mommy disagrees, she can go live with mommy...........problem solved. Completely different laws, more than likely though.......same outcome.
