« Responsibility | Main | The Things We Defend »

April 11, 2009

Pay No Attention to this Ruling!

One of the more moronic admonishments to proceed from a court in recent history, though admittedly the bar has been set pretty high:

In its Monday ruling, the appeal court warned the case should not be seen as an open invitation for children to take legal action every time they're grounded.

Good luck with that.

h/t: JB

Posted by Cassandra at April 11, 2009 04:20 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


The girl — who now lives with her mother — doesn't have much of a relationship with her dad now, Beaudoin said.

Thus relegating the Brits to *second* place in the field of understatement...

Posted by: BillT at April 11, 2009 05:33 PM

Sooo...why did the court hear the case in the first place?

Sounds to me like she had a good father.

Posted by: Cricket at April 11, 2009 07:51 PM

eh all you hosers. It's Cnd, not your USA. Mean parents are not allowed.

What's Cnd? It's where we live in the great white north. C eh N eh D eh.

Expect rulings like this in the USA soon.

Posted by: Kbob in Katy at April 11, 2009 08:42 PM

Well, so far the kids who'd be prone to sue for being grounded have parents who'd be afraid to ground the little dears in the first place because they wouldn't be *friends* if their kids got snotty with them.

Those children will grow up to be Liberals and will continue to keep the rest of us wondering where we're going and why we're in a handbasket...

Posted by: BillT at April 12, 2009 04:44 AM

Odds are we will be supporting the spawn of this budding "Octo-pussy" (apologies to James Bond) I mean "Octo-Mom" before the final chapter is written.

When she has the requisite number of illegitimate births she will understand what "Change you can believe in" really means when it comes time to 'change' the diapers on a Friday or Saturday night.

Posted by: vet66 at April 12, 2009 11:26 AM

Talk about your "nanny" State. Sheesh...

Posted by: camojack at April 13, 2009 01:28 AM

I can't help but wonder who paid for the girl's attorney fees? Since the Dad was the custodial parent at the inception of the case, does that make him responsible for paying for his *persecution* as well as *defense*? And since when does a school accept permission from the non-custodial parent over the objections of the one that does have custody? Who would have been responsible should the kid have gotten hurt on the field trip and required medical attention? What if the kid had done something illegal during the trip? I know here in Coliformico I have to essentially absolve the school of any legal or medical responsibility -- and provide insurance information in case of emergency -- before they will allow SWHNOB to go on any field trip. It is not my nature to play the "I'll sue you!" card, but if I was this Dad, I would seriously consider a suit against the school for superceding my parental authority.

Posted by: DL Sly at April 13, 2009 11:57 AM

Sly, you are making sense. That doesn't feel right. It is all wrong wrong wrong, I tell you!

Maybe her mother signed another permission slip. I don't know what the rules are regarding custodial arrangements or what was negotiated at the time of the divorce, but if she went in spite of the grounding she either sneaked off or mom signed the slip, and as a parent, might have been allowed to do that.

I dunno. I have been wrestling with Truthiness Tables and Venn diagrams all weekend long and I have decided that Truthiness can be diagrammed if and only if you are either telling the absolute truth (all statements agree) or you are lying through your teeth.

Hairsplitting is for liberals and socialists.

Posted by: Cricket at April 13, 2009 03:24 PM

"Sly, you are making sense."

I was? Oh damn! Well, there goes my reputation.
I claim....um....Monday Morning After Spring Break Syndrome....yeah, yeah, yeah.....that's the ticket!!

Posted by: DL Sly at April 13, 2009 09:15 PM