A Gatineau judge’s bizarre attempt to undermine a father’s authority sends a frightening message to all parents: When it comes to raising children, the state knows best.
Madam Justice Suzanne Tessier of the Quebec Superior Court sided with a 12-year-old girl who challenged, in court, her father’s decision to ground her. The girl had been living with her father – the parents are divorced – and he forbade her to attend a school trip after she disobeyed his instructions to stay off the Internet.
The girl then moved in with her mother, who was willing to let her go on the trip – but the school required that both parents give permission, so the daughter took her father to court.
What happened next – Justice Tessier’s overruling the father – has been described as such an aberrant decision that other courts are unlikely to follow its lead. Even so, the decision carries symbolic weight and parents are right to wonder what the implications are.
The case is somewhat muddied by the fact that the girl’s divorced parents disagreed over the proper punishment. In this sense, the case is not simply one of a child seeking court intervention against parental authority. In the end, though, that is just what Justice Tessier did when she took it upon herself to pronounce on the merits of grounding.
If anything, the father’s behaviour appears to be right out of a good parenting manual: He repeatedly warned his daughter to stop behaviour that he found inappropriate and told her there would be consequences if she continued. She did, and he followed through on his warning.
This was hardly an instance of cruel or arbitrary authority. There was no abuse involved, not even close. The father, it seems, used clear and consistent warnings, letting his child know that there would be consequences for inappropriate behaviour. This is how you raise responsible children who understand the results of their actions. It is an approach to discipline that should be encouraged, not outlawed by the state.
The alternative – corporal punishment – has traditionally been used by parents who, out of frustration, can think of no other way to exercise authority over their children. Coincidentally, the so-called anti-spanking law passed through the Senate this week, representing a growing consensus that hitting children is unacceptable.
But an absurd court decision like the one in Gatineau is enough to make parents ask: What’s left?
