Father cleared of assault in forcing teen daughter to go home

60 posts / 0 new
Last post
Doug
Father cleared of assault in forcing teen daughter to go home

 

Doug

quote:


When a 15-year-old girl sneaked out of the house for the umpteenth time to meet her drug-dealing boyfriend at a party, her father went after her in his truck.

He spotted her at a pay phone near their home outside Picton, Ont., and told her to get in. She refused, and he grabbed her by the shirt and shoved her into the truck. They headed home, but the girl took off again and made it to the party. The parents managed to get their daughter home later, but only after calling police for help.

The shirt-grabbing incident didn't end there. The father, who can't be named to protect his daughter's identity, was charged with assault, setting off a two-year legal battle that tested the limits of how far a parent can go to discipline a teen under the Criminal Code.


[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080402.wxlforce02/B... to use the URL feature![/url]

I seem to recall this being discussed here before at the time of the original trial and conviction.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Where do you come down on this incident, Doug?

Do you feel it was right or that it was wrong that the father in question was exonerated?

Nanuq

Except of course, the victim in this case is now living at home and her relationship with her parents has improved. It doesn't look like she was all that traumatized over being manhandled by her father to get her away from her drug-dealing boyfriend.

remind remind's picture

Not only does the link Doug put up cause sidescroll, I cannot get it to load.

torontoprofessor
Michelle

I completely support this decision. As the judge said, the guy's "parenting toolbox was empty" at that point. Physically restraining a minor child to keep him or her from harm is not "assault". It's not like the guy was hitting or beating her.

martin dufresne

quote:


her relationship with her parents has improved

Sure, she is just suing to get closure, turn a new leaf and show him she's just a chip off the old controlling blockhead...
I am astounded that the G&M would print such a story and not bother to get this young woman's version on whether she has really "come a long way". "His daughter was at school and at work yesterday and unavailable for comment", is a pathetic excuse for a national publication.
A demonstration of how the media so often use women and youths as "human interest material", with their own views about the issues deemed irrelevant.

Sandy47 Sandy47's picture

Sidescroll is a strange thing. I use a resolution of 1600x1200, but there are still a few threads in Babble I can't/won't follow because of sidescroll, and I can't believe no-one complains about it. Then along comes this thread with nothing that comes anywhere near stretching my screen and it seems to be a problem worth making note of. 'Tis a strange and wondrous thing, this internet.

BTW...
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080401.wdaughter01/... link[/url] given was incomplete.

Edited to add:
Yikes! A posting frenzy! Where'd y'all come from?

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Sandy47 ]

Polly B Polly B's picture

What Michelle said. She had no marks or bruises, I don't think Dad was beating her so much as he was trying to stop her from coming to harm.

I wonder where the boyfriends parents are in all this?

I would do the same thing if my daughter insisted on running off with someone who did/sold drugs. Fifteen is still a kid.

Summer

quote:


Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[QB]Sure, she is just suing to get closure, turn a new leaf and show him she's just a chip off the old controlling blockhead...
QB]

She's not suing her father, Martin. The Crown pressed criminal charges under the Criminal Code. This is why s. 43 was invoked.

Proaxiom

quote:


Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Sure, she is just suing to get closure, turn a new leaf and show him she's just a chip off the old controlling blockhead...[/b]

She wasn't suing. It was a criminal charge.

---

Michelle's right. Physical force has to remain as the last resort of a parent, or else parental authority becomes a fiction. The argument has to be where reasonable force becomes unreasonable force, as indeed this is where it is.

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]Do you feel it was right or that it was wrong that the father in question was exonerated?[/b]

He wasn't exonerated. He was found not guilty. It's not up to him to prove his innocence.

Technically, I can't tell whether I agree, because nowhere are we told whether he grabbed her in anger or not.

If he grabbed her calmly as a calculated use of force to protect her, I would call him not guilty. If he was angry, an angry use of force is technically an assault, but I would have given him an absolute discharge. Either way I would not have convicted him.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

remind remind's picture

Thank you all for providing a working link. Where does the article say anything about anyone suing?

martin dufresne

quote:


She accused him of assault, setting off a legal battle that tested the limits of how far a parent can go to discipline a teen under the Criminal Code.

Admittedly not a lawsuit but a criminal charge nonetheless and one that probably couldn't have proceeded without her testimony.

Polly B Polly B's picture

quote:


The daughter told police that night that her father assaulted her at the pay phone. She never gave a formal police statement, and a doctor found no evidence of injury, according to court documents.

martin dufresne

And what is a "Court document"? Most likely a document entered into evidence by the defense attorney. When did the doctor see the witness? We aren't told.
And since when is it OK for assault victims to be tried by the media on the basis of what they didn't do -- and of their assaulter's depiction of their morality, which is exactly what the G&M articles do?
The rag does tell us that the accused forced his daughter into his truck and was "charged with four counts of assault and choking" and (first) convicted for assault.
I am not telling you poor aggrieved parents that you have no right to beat a child ("calculated use", reasonable force"... give me a f***ing break!).
My only point is that in such a context the G&M ought not to tell us - in the story title - that this youth is "mending fences" without at least getting her version.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

farnival

quote:


Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b] Admittedly not a lawsuit but a criminal charge nonetheless and one that probably couldn't have proceeded without her testimony.[/b]

seems you've judged and convicted this man based on an inate bias against male agressors, martin. did you consider the headline and the first paragraphs?

quote:

[b]Father, teen mend fences[/b]

HAYLEY MICK
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
April 2, 2008 at 9:30 AM EDT

For a father and daughter who have been through the legal wringer, they've come a long way.

Yesterday, the 17-year-old fired six text messages to him, asking for money to pay for her modelling headshots.

"Her mother won't give it to her, so guess who she plays on?" said her bemused father, who can't be named in order to protect his daughter's identity.

It's a typical teenage scheme that's hardly a low point, compared with what happened on Nov. 18, 2006.

That night, the father chased after his daughter, then 15, who had sneaked out of the house to meet her drug-dealing boyfriend. He spotted her at a payphone near their home in Picton, Ont., grabbed his daughter by the shirt and put her in his truck.

She accused him of assault, setting off a legal battle that tested the limits of how far a parent can go to discipline a teen under the Criminal Code....


context is everything.

you take issue with this too:

quote:

...His daughter was at school and at work yesterday and unavailable for comment...

when you read the article, it's pretty obvious the reporter went to the house and only the dad was home. they also state earlier she can't be identified. i really don't think this was malicious on the part of the reporter or the paper.

quote:

...By the time she was 15, the fighting at home was constant. She had a boyfriend who had a history of drug dealing and violence, according to court documents. Her parents suspected she was on drugs and [b]eventually won a restraining order against the boyfriend[/b]....

you can't do that unless he's actually a problem.

quote:

...But there are hopeful signs. She plans to upgrade her courses and graduate high school. She has aspirations to be a model and a part-time job at a grocery store. She also has a new boyfriend who works full-time at her father's trucking company and seems to be a good influence.

"We've had some great times," the father said. "We've laughed."


so, if you actually read the whole piece, it sounds like a difficult child with a boyfriend who was a bad influence, pretty common, but they had a restraining order against him, which is not.

dad says he grew up on the farm, and his daughter is half the age of his other kids, and is a city kid. classic generation gap. and the whole piece generally doesn't have the incredibly negative tone you've imparted to it.

sometimes, parents and kids don't make sense to one another, and teen rebellion is pretty normal. but when it goes the way this has, what father would not go grab his kid from a party she was told not to got too? she was 15 and his legal responsibility. and being 15 she likely thinks her dad and everyone his age are total assholes and just out to ruin her life and embarass her in public.

misunderstandings and loving your kids are not a crime. apparently the judge agreed.

martin dufresne

quote:


when you read the article, it's pretty obvious the reporter went to the house and only the dad was home.

Aaaaaw... brownie points for trying, eh?
No, actually that's neither pretty nor obvious. The Global Male published two different articles on this case and had plenty of opportunities to get this young woman's version - for instance, her testimony in Court - instead of letting her assaulter speak for her in this happy ending fluff piece, reminiscent of so much media "coverage" of intrafamily violence issues.
Just to make things perfectly clear over and above your careful obfuscation, grabbing a youth off the street and choking her when she is presumably calling the police is not OK in my book even if you are her father. If it is for you, I pity your children or anyone you find yourself unable to control to your heart's content.
Reading this kind of b.s., it's no wonder that kids who run away from abusive parents find themselves ignored, exploited and homeless.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Michelle

quote:


Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]I am not telling you poor aggrieved parents that you have no right to beat a child [/b]

(Non-moderating post)

That's a really shitty thing to say about all the parents posting in this thread. You should take it back. That really sucks.

martin dufresne

Oh, I'll take it back. Gladly. I'll even sit this out and let battering advocates - parents or non-parents - post to their heart's content. Nothing could make my point better than their "justifications".

Michelle

quote:


Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]battering advocates [/b]

Another shitty thing to say.

Summer

quote:


Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]And what is a "Court document"? Most likely a document entered into evidence by the defense attorney. When did the doctor see the witness? We aren't told. [/b]

It was a report from Picton Memorial Hospital where she was examined by an Emergency Department physician the day of the alleged assault.

quote:

And since when is it OK for assault victims to be tried by the media on the basis of what they didn't do -- and of their assaulter's depiction of their morality, which is exactly what the G&M articles do?


Where is the paper making any morality judgments? This was a teen who got caught up in the wrong crowd and whose parents were worried for her safety, as well as their own.

quote:

The rag does tell us that the accused forced his daughter into his truck and was "charged with four counts of assault and choking" and (first) convicted for assault.

quote:

Just to make things perfectly clear over and above your careful obfuscation, grabbing a youth off the street and choking her when she is presumably calling the police is not OK in my book even if you are her father.

The paper does not tell us that he was swarmed by his daughter’s friends and that she kicked him in the groin at some point either (see judgment paras 5(m) and 5(p) If they really wanted to demonize the daughter, they could have included that information. He was charged with four counts of assault and choking. This was included in the article because it was the reason he was arrested.

I don’t know why you think she was calling the police. I can’t find that anywhere in the article or the judgment. It seems to me that she was calling a friend about the party (see para. 5m) The dad called the police himself.

Martin, I get that you’re a self-proclaimed feminist and all. But with friends like you, who needs enemies? In this thread, you have jumped to a bunch of conclusions and called a bunch of fellow babblers, “battering advocates”. It’s reactionary crap like this that makes activists look bad. You’re doing a disservice to your self and to the rest of us who identify as feminists.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Summer ]

Summer

Forgot to include a link to the [url=http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?language=en&searchTitle=Ontari... and the paragraphs I mentioned above.

quote:

i. After they arrived home, Mrs. Swan overheard the child, M. on the phone making plans to attend a party where the boyfriend was. The mother told the child that she could not go but the child left the home on her electric bike. Mr. Swan arrived home about a half hour later. He went to look for his daughter and found her at a pay phone at a campground. He told her that she had to come home. She refused to go with him. He grabbed her by the shirt and took her to his truck. She broke loose, at which time Mr. Swan picked up the bike and put it in the back of his truck.

j. He drove a short distance away but decided to return. He testified:

“I put the bike in the back and then I decided I’d head home and then I had second thoughts, I said, ‘No, I can’t leave her here because I don’t know where she’s going and I’m concerned’ so I went back. I hadn’t drove very far. I went back and got her and then put her in the truck.”

k. He once again grabbed her by the shirt and this time put her in the truck.

l. At trial, the Child’s evidence was:

Q. Did anything happen while you were on the phone?

A. Umm- I talked to him about 15 minutes and then I saw my dad driving down the road and he came and grabbed me out of the pay phone and put me in his truck.

Q. What happened to the phone?

A. Umm- I

Q. You were holding it when your dad came in?

A. Yes.

Q. What happened to it?

A. Ummm – he just-- I don’t know – he slammed it against- back on the hook and just put me in his truck.

Q. How did he do that?

A. How did he put me into the truck?

Q. Yes.

A. Ummm – just grabbed me by my arm and just kind of shoved me into the

truck.

m. Mr. Swan and the child argued on the way home. Upon their arrival, Mr. Swan asked her to get out of the truck but she refused. When he tried to take her out, she kicked him in the groin. He pulled her out of the truck by the arm and both went into the home. The child began to argue with her mother and left the house again. She returned to the pay phone and arranged for someone to pick her up and take her to the party so that she could meet the boyfriend. However, by the time she got to the party, he had left.

n. The Swans stayed at home for a period of time, having decided not to try and find their child again. They changed their minds and, after Mrs. Swan found out the location of the party, they drove to the house, arriving there at about 2:10 a.m.

o. When they arrived, a group of people swarmed their vehicle. Mr. Swan called the police who arrived shortly afterwards.

p. Their child was outside of the house, yelling and screaming. As a result, one of the officers placed her in her cruiser. She told this officer that she had been assaulted by her father and, as a result, she was taken to the Picton Memorial Hospital where she was examined by an Emergency Department physician. He did not observe any injuries. The child declined to provide a formal statement to the police. Later that day, Mr. Swan was arrested.


remind remind's picture

Wow, just wow. I wrote a whole long piece stating how Martin you are are both correct and incorrect, but then said fuck it, and deleted it all.

farnival

quote:


Originally posted by Summer:
[b]Martin,...In this thread, you have jumped to a bunch of conclusions and called a bunch of fellow babblers, “battering advocates”... [/b]

an apology would be nice. [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]

martin dufresne

If someone can credibly explain how some of the above statements (excerpts below) aren’t minimizing and in some cases, yes, advocating battery of "rebellious" children, I’ll be glad to apologize:

It doesn't look like she was all that traumatized over being manhandled by her father to get her away from her drug-dealing boyfriend (Nanuq)

Physically restraining a minor child to keep him or her from harm is not "assault". It's not like the guy was hitting or beating her. (Michelle)

I don't think Dad was beating her so much as he was trying to stop her from coming to harm. (…) I would do the same thing if my daughter insisted on running off with someone who did/sold drugs. (Polly Brandebuck)

Physical force has to remain as the last resort of a parent, or else parental authority becomes a fiction. The argument has to be where reasonable force becomes unreasonable… (Proaxiom)

If he grabbed her calmly as a calculated use of force to protect her, I would call him not guilty. If he was angry, an angry use of force is technically an assault, but I would have given him an absolute discharge (WilfDay)

dad says he grew up on the farm, and his daughter is half the age of his other kids, and is a city kid. classic generation gap. (…)when it goes the way this has, what father would not go grab his kid from a party she was told not to got too? (Farnival)

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Michelle

Are you a parent, Martin?

Doug

quote:


Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]Where do you come down on this incident, Doug?

Do you feel it was right or that it was wrong that the father in question was exonerated?[/b]


Legally, I think the appeal judge is correct. This is the sort of thing section 43 exists for.

Sorry about the sidescroll again. I have a widescreen so URLs often look short that aren't.

martin dufresne

quote:


Are you a parent, Martin?

Yes. Also a son. But I think anyone could make the points I have been making.

Polly B Polly B's picture

Martin, as a parent, what would you do if your teenage son was dating a drug dealing partier, and he (your son) insisted on attending parties where there was drinking and drugs although you expressly asked him not to?

How, pray tell, would you deal with this?

martin dufresne

I would try to discuss the matter with him, at different moments, bring in other perosns he has respect for, argue as convincingly as I can, seek professional help.
I would accept the possibility of "losing", i.e. possibly not managing to steer away from that party or that partner just yet.
I would not hit him, drag him from a phone booth, choke him, kidnap him off the streets, humiliate him in front of his friends, deny his account in Court.
I would not whine about him asking me for money to a national newspaper or otherwise attempt to discredit him or minimize our continuing issues.

ETA: I am sure this is what most of us would do - which is why I am surprised to see y'all make excuses for seomeone who didn't.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

farnival

quote:


Originally posted by martin dufresne:
I would try to discuss the matter with him, at different moments, bring in other perosns he has respect for, argue as convincingly as I can...

and you have assumed they didn't.

quote:

..., seek professional help.

that would be the restraining order against the boyfriend, who apparently had a history of violence and drug dealing. and dating these parent's 15 year old daughter.

quote:

...I would accept the possibility of "losing", i.e. possibly not managing to steer away from that party or that partner just yet...

which he did. the court document states he went home, was still worried, and went back. remember, he is legally responsible for her. 15 years old.


quote:

I would not hit him, drag him from a phone booth, choke him, kidnap him off the streets, humiliate him in front of his friends, deny his account in Court.

which according to the "court document" he did not do. but he was kicked in the nuts by his daughter, and swarmed by her "friends".

have you ever been swarmed martin? bullied? intervened in a situation that came out badly for you, even though your intentions were good? remember. he called the police. she claimed assault. you know better than anyone the police have no discretion in that regard. they had to charge him. the judge ruled on [b]the evidence[/b] which because it doesn't fit your view of the situation, you have ignored.

quote:

I would not whine about him asking me for money to a national newspaper or otherwise attempt to discredit him or minimize our continuing issues.

he didn't. martin, in the printed copy of the Globe, this was in the Life section. i didn't see the original article you mention, but this is likely the follow up. it was right above an article on the positive power of [b]hugging[/b]. the whole page was "feel good" stories, and that quoted bit is something every parent and child can identify with.

quote:

ETA: I am sure this is what most of us would do ..

and apparently they already had done "what most of us would do".

but when that doesn't work, and you've already gotten a restraining order against the violent "boyfriend" (some boyfriend), and you care about your kid enough to put yourself at physical risk to keep her out of harm (remember, swarmed by violent friends), and then involve the police, sometimes you end up on the shit end of the stick.

you're wrong martin, and you've maligned a number of babblers in the process.

still waitng.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: farnival ]

martin dufresne

quote:
-------------------------------
"and you have assumed they didn't."
-------------------------------

No. I am merely answering a question as to what I would do. Your game is projecting what I said I would do with my unruly teenager onto these specific events. Suit yourself.

quote:
-------------------------------
..., seek professional help.
-------------------------------

"that would be the restraining order"

Ah, that wasn't what I was thinking of, no.

quote:
-------------------------------
...I would accept the possibility of "losing", i.e. possibly not managing to steer away from that party or that partner just yet...
-------------------------------

"which he did. the court document states he went home, was still worried, and went back. remember, he is legally responsible for her. 15 years old."

So, he did NOT accept it, decided he was entitled to force her.

quote:
-----------------------------
I would not hit him, drag him from a phone booth, choke him, kidnap him off the streets, humiliate him in front of his friends, deny his account in Court.
-----------------------------

"which according to the "court document" he did not do..."

Anyone can read what he did do and it was abusive enough to be charged and found guilty at the trial court level.

"but he was kicked in the nuts by his daughter..."

Good. I would recommend this to any young woman who gets grabbed, shoved and dragged out of a vehicle.

"and swarmed by her "friends".
have you ever been swarmed martin? bullied?"

Plenty. His *car* was swarmed. Scary but he wasn't touched.

"she claimed assault. you know better than anyone the police have no discretion in that regard. they had to charge him."

B.S.

"the judge ruled on the evidence which because it doesn't fit your view of the situation, you have ignored."

The trial court judge ruled that he had assaulted her.

quote:
-------------------------------
I would not whine about him asking me for money to a national newspaper or otherwise attempt to discredit him or minimize our continuing issues.
-------------------------------

"he didn't."

Of course he did. But why argue? Anyone can read the articles.

"martin, in the printed copy of the Globe, this was in the Life section. i didn't see the original article you mention

click on the left hand title half-way down the web page

, but this is likely the follow up. it was right above an article on the positive power of hugging.

grab, shove, drag and then hug, uh?...

"the whole page was "feel good" stories, and that quoted bit is something every parent and child can identify with."

I know it's supposed to do that. But if that story makes you feel good, I submit you may lack empathy with the woman being smeared in this fashion. Yeah "for her own good," I know...

"and apparently they already had done "what most of us would do".

Sorry, I have no indication that this man did.

"but when that doesn't work, and you've already gotten a restraining order against the violent "boyfriend" (some boyfriend), and you care about your kid enough to put yourself at physical risk to keep her out of harm (remember, swarmed by violent friends), and then involve the police..."

You still don't use violence; tough rule, I know.

"sometimes you end up on the shit end of the stick."

Hey, he was acquitted, no?

"you're wrong martin, and you've maligned a number of babblers in the process."

I don't think so. Holding people to their words isn't maligning.

BTW, you seem to have more than a passing knowledge of this case, Farnival. Do you care to tell us more about how you relate to it personally, now that I have candidly answered Polly's question?

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

farnival

quote:


Originally posted by martin dufresne:

...BTW, you seem to have more than a passing knowledge of this case, Farnival. Do you care to tell us more about how you relate to it personally, now that I have candidly answered Polly's question?


no martin. no personal relation. i just read the linked article like everyone else, and happened to see a copy of the paper out at lunch. it was the hugging article that caught my eye, then i realised the one above it was the one here. it is within the realm of possiblility that sometimes a boogeyman is just a man. it is also within the realm of possibility that i'm just as wrong about things as you.

martin dufresne

Oh, I totally agree that I can be wrong. I'm just glad that journalistic deontology and the law of the land seem to be onside on this one. And I keep my fingers crossed that case law doesn't tip the scales the other way. Robert Latimer's "parenting toolbox" was also empty. It's no excuse for abuse.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Polly B Polly B's picture

quote:


Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[qb]I would try to discuss the matter with him, at different moments, bring in other perosns he has respect for, argue as convincingly as I can, seek professional help.

I am going to guess that you have never dealt with a rebellious teen bent on getting high. You can discuss all you want, you won't be heard. And I am curious as to who the other persons are that your child respects, and what exactly these persons will do? Professional help - such as? I am a parent of three teens, and I foster, so I am really curious what you mean here.

quote:

I would accept the possibility of "losing", i.e. possibly not managing to steer away from that party or that partner just yet.

I am afraid I could not do that. Do you know any drug addicted teens, Martin? It's pretty damn sad. If I thought that tonight was going to be the night my 15 year old got talked into trying meth, or crack, or ectasy... then no, I don't think I could accept that this is one argument I lost. For fucks sake.

quote:


I would not hit him, drag him from a phone booth, choke him, kidnap him off the streets, humiliate him in front of his friends, deny his account in Court.

I would not whine about him asking me for money to a national newspaper or otherwise attempt to discredit him or minimize our continuing issues.


We must be reading different stories here.

quote:

ETA: I am sure this is what most of us would do - which is why I am surprised to see y'all make excuses for seomeone who didn't.

Don't speak for me, this is most definitely NOT what I would do. But then, I speak from experience, not wishful thinking.

[ 03 April 2008: Message edited by: Polly Brandybuck ]

Aristotleded24

I think that regardless of whether or not the farther was [i]technically[/i] wrong that he deserves empathy and support.

martin dufresne

Why should [i]he [/i]get the sympathy & support when he was the one vindicated by the Court and [i]she [/i]was the one repeatedly smeared in the G&M? Read the stories: this kid is days from running away from an abusive "home"!

farnival

so martin, it's been a week now since you called me and a few other fellow babblers:

quote:

Oh, I'll take it back. Gladly. I'll even sit this out and let [b]battering advocates[/b] - parents or non-parents - post to their heart's content. Nothing could make my point better than their "justifications".

speaking only for myself, i'm still offended by this comment and would still like a proper apology and retraction.

martin dufresne

This discussion has (partly) been about whether repeated physical violence by a parent against a child was appropriate and a lot of people have came out in support of a man who had been convicted of it, providing various justifications. I tried to call that and I don't think an apology on my part is in order.

farnival

thanks for clarifying your totally wrong view of this martin. as you know, the man was charged as a matter of course by the police, as shown by the court records, and then acquitted.

you can spin that however you like. that doesn't change the fact that you have slandered me and others by calling us "battering advocates", which if you don't know not to be true, then there's really no help for you.

martin, violence is wrong. period. so is verbal abuse. which you have engaged in. you still don't get it so i won't belabour it.

you know nothing about me or my experiences with violence, and in calling me a battering advocate, you have now joined the ranks of the abusers in my mind. good work.

i have on three specific occasions been assaulted (very hard roundhouses to the head) intervening in public situations where a woman half my size was being or about to be assaulted and in two cases was able to have the assaulter arrested, and that was when i was younger and smaller. i still do that, only now i weigh 200lbs and the jerks with a penchant for picking on those smaller or more vulnerable generally know to back down. and no, i don't use violence to stop the situation. just my presence is enough, or mine and others. it's amazing how quickly an abusive person stops what they are doing in the presence of a third party witness holding a cell phone.

so martin, i do hope you feel good about yourself now. i'm still offended, and your comments are still offensive [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 08 April 2008: Message edited by: farnival ]

farnival

[ 08 April 2008: Message edited by: farnival ]

Polly B Polly B's picture

quote:


Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]This discussion has (partly) been about whether repeated physical violence by a parent against a child was appropriate ...[/b]

Where is the "repeated physical violence" in this story? I read the articles linked here, and all I can find is the one instance where the father grabbed his daughter and forced her to come home instead of heading out in the middle of the night to get high with restraining-order boy. (The charges against the father all stemmed from this one instance).

Then I read the whole judgment that Summer linked, and read what the daughter had to say about her dad in court, and I still can't find where this guy was repeatedly violent. Or even violent at all.

You seem to be adding details that don't exist.

And Martin, your posts about the parents on this thread having a right to beat their children and being battering advocates...truly shitty.

Polly B Polly B's picture

quote:


d. In early October, M. returned to the Swan family home for a weekend visit. After hearing a suspicious noise in the house, Mr. Swan found the boyfriend in his daughter’s bedroom. He held the boyfriend until the police arrived. The police charged the boyfriend with being unlawfully in a dwelling house.

e. On Thanksgiving weekend, the child, M., left the home again. Mr. Swan went to look for her, and found her with the boyfriend. They ran away upon seeing Mr. Swan. When he found them later that weekend, both were visibly under the influence of drugs. The boyfriend confronted Mr. Swan, threatening to harm him. Mr. Swan called his wife who in turn called the police. The police took the boyfriend into custody and the child returned to the care of the Children’s Aid Society.

f. That same month, Mr. Swan found drug paraphernalia in his daughter’s bedroom and letters from the boyfriend addressed to her, counselling M. to, among other things, “kill the sluts when nobody is around” and referring to a truck driver being killed in an accident. Mr. Swan owns a trucking company. He turned these letters over to the police.


This is from the judgment that Summer quoted above. I am posting it because it seems to me that had Mr. S been a violent man, this would have been the time that someone would have been assaulted. And even then he didn't hit anyone, not the daughter or the boyfriend threatening his life.

[ 08 April 2008: Message edited by: Polly Brandybuck ]

Polly B Polly B's picture

quote:


Given the unruly pattern of the children’s behaviour, the father had a reasonable belief that, if he did not take control of his daughter and put her in the truck, she would go to the party to meet the boyfriend. [b]This posed a risk of harm for her. This man had a history of drug use and violence, and he had been found to be an inappropriate influence over the child M. by her parents, protection authorities, and by a Court which issued a restraining order to protect M. from him and from his mother. [/b] M.’s determined defiance of the rules that her parents, the Children’s Aid Society and the Court had established to limit her behaviour was addressed by the father’s actions in returning her to the home rather than permitting her to stay out that night

Also from the judgement, my bolds.

GreenNeck

I wish everyone here (some did I think) put themselves into this father's shoes. When it comes to your own children, you may not be all that rational.

I had to deal with a similar situation many years ago. My 16-year old daughter started going out with a drug dealer with a mile-long rap sheet. None of what her mom or myself would say had any effect.

One night I learned she went out to a party with that guy where apparently hard drugs would be used. That was too much for me and I went ahead to retrieve my daughter from that hell, no matter what it would take. When I showed up, I asked my daughter to come with me, and obviously she didn't want to and asked me why I did that. Then her 'boyfriend' arrived, accompanied with 5 or 6 of his thug friends, and told me to f*** off. Well, nobody talks to this guy like that. At that point I think rage and adrenaline took over me, I stepped forward and clocked that a**hole with all my strength, knocking him out cold. I though his confederates would jump me, but instead they backed off and dispersed.

I wasn't sure how my girl would react. But after a moment, she gave me a big hug and asked me to take her home. She probably realized I had risked my very life to protect her.

Never give up on your kids.

Polly B Polly B's picture

I guess that is what I was getting at. Were it my kids, I would do whatever it took to make sure that they didn't fall into that trap.

And I still think Martin should respond here - do we still sound like child beating advocates for violence Martin?

Aristotleded24

quote:


Originally posted by GreenNeck:
[b]My 16-year old daughter started going out with a drug dealer with a mile-long rap sheet. None of what her mom or myself would say had any effect.[/b]

Martin also said that he would "seek professional help." I'd like to know if you or anyone else can comment on how available or "helpful" professional help is for parents of drug-addicted teenagers.

martin dufresne

My comment is that there isn't as much help as there should be - because governments get elected on get tough rather than get humane platforms - and that it is never as immediately effective as a loving, concerned parent would like it to be.
But yes it exists and yes it is (moderately) effective, certainly more than forcibly dragging children off the streets away from where we feel they shouldn't go.
As for my comment about advocacy for violence, the continuing discussion establishes it was relevant.
I understand that the fact of this man's assault on his daughter was established in court and he was convicted; the final, appellate judgment simply hinged on whether this assault was justified. This is also what our discussion is about. Many here say yes. I think this qualifies as advocacy of what I still feel is a bad solution to a very hard, unforgiving problem, one that calls for physically respecting our kids even when every fibre in our body screams they don't deserve it or that it's won't be good enough, because it won't get you what *you* want.
I think we should also take into account what this man says about his daughter to the media - I see that as a form of psychological violence and am surprised that none of you challenges it as part of a pattern I label battering (which I agree is debatable).
Asking that one put oneself in the shoes of this man is a common clichй to make excuses for men who allegedly "lose it" when they don't manage to exert as much control over women & children as they feel they are entitled to. This argument can legitimate much more abusive situations: the parent who violently shakes a long-crying infant, the father who goes haywire at a junior hockey game, the guy who has lost a job (but found an alibi for murder), the jilted hating lover, the harried father of a handicapped child, Allan Schoeborn (first arrested for defending one of his daughters at school, remember?)...
I understand you and I commend all of you who work so hard at keeping your temper down and protecting your children and who take chances to face down abusers of youths and women. You share my priorities. And I remain convinced that you also believe that assaulting kids - even when called "taking control" - just isn't legitimate. That *is* what happened but I am not committed to forcing anyone here to acknowledge it, so I'll let the matter rest.

[ 08 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

farnival

that wasn't an apology. you are still quite wrong in your interperetation here martin and i'm not the only one that thinks so.

so we're leaving it there then? i'm a [b]battering advocate[/b] and you've accepted that you are now a slanderer and verbal abuser.

i'm still deeply offended, and for the record have lost any and all respect for your opinions, not that that would bother you, i'm sure.

just so long as we're clear on things. i will pursue this no more.

Pages