Nanny State anyone?

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by RetiredGySgt, May 13, 2008.

  1. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,508
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,920
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080513/ap_on_re_us/odd_diploma_father_jailed

    This is retarded as hell. The Girl is 18 years old. That a court can impose such a sentence is ignorant. More examples of stupidity in our system.

    At 18 she can legal move out of on her own and is in fact not even living with her Father. Further , last I checked , the Government can not FORCE people to get diplomas after 18 anyway. To top it off she is not only 18, she is almost 19.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    That could be one of the stupidest decisions I've ever seen if it was even close to the way it was described in the article.
     
  3. MasterChief
    Offline

    MasterChief Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    151
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +29
    This is what happens when a judge thinks that they're a god and accountable to nobody. It is this type a capricious governmental action we fought a revolution to get rid of. One would think that this is a violation of basic civil rights and the local folks would protest this clear abuse of judicial authority.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  4. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    This doesn't sound right at all. This woman is legally an adult, doesn't live with her father, and could STILL tell him to piss off after she turned 18 anyway. In fact, legally, she can tell the judge to piss up a rope too (in a smarmy, nice way of course).

    As far as know, the law in most states mandates children continue to attend school until they are 16. Here, it's 18. Either way, it does not require succesful completion. If that was the case, I know some 35 years olds that would STILL be in high school if not junior high.:badgrin:
     
  5. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,774
    Thanks Received:
    2,361
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,283
    If the court's decision was that he made sure she completed school, and he agreed, I have a hard time with why this is wrong. Had he argued that he could not control her that would be different, not knowing what transpired or why, we can't be sure. I would agree there is stupidity in some systems and one of them is often parenting. Bring in Nanny 911.
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    That can't be right? Weirdess thing I've heard!
     
  7. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,508
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,920
    You do not get to "agree" to anything. The Court orders it. And at 18 the "child" is no longer a child and is an adult on their own. The State can not force them to graduate at all. Holding the parent to task after that is in my opinion illegal. The parent has no authority to force the ADULT child to do anything.
     
  8. Dogger
    Offline

    Dogger Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    979
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Dixie
    Ratings:
    +58
    I agree. My experience has taught me that courts can be wrong, but when it's a question between patently bad judicial decisions and bad reporting, it's usually the reporting that's wrong.

    So, RGS (you asshole), what if the father had the opportunity to get his girl to school when the case first began, promised the judge that he would take specific steps to get her to school, and then failed to take those steps? What would your infallible intellect suggest he do?
     
  9. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    That isn't the case here. And let's use the correct semantics. The judge ordered him to ensure she got her GED. She went off to live with Mom and turned 18 in the meantime.

    How can the judge reasonably hold the father accountable? Again, when the kid turns 18 she can tell Dad to fuck off and there is no legal requirement for children to complete school. Only to attend to a certain age.

    IMO, the ruling is what is wrong here.
     
  10. Dogger
    Offline

    Dogger Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    979
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Dixie
    Ratings:
    +58
    If the reporter is correct, you are right and the judge is wrong. So far, the only sources I can located are reprints of the original AP story.

    I found a lot of discussion elsewhere, and everyone agrees it's wrong. That kind of agreement is odd. So far, Jillian, midcan and I are the only ones asking whether the reporter left out something important.

    It is highly unusual for a judge to consider all relevant factors and reach a decision that is universally condemned. It is not uncommon at all for the reporter to omit something that made all of the difference to the judge.

    That's why I tossed out factors that would explain the decision. If subsequent reports prove any or all of them to be correct, does that change your opinion?
     

Share This Page