Nanny State anyone?

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[MasterChief]

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.

 

[Gunny]

Butler County Juvenile Court administrator Rob Clevenger Jr. said Monday that the court still has jurisdiction in the case because Brittany Gegner was a juvenile when the truancy problems began and when the charge against Brian Gegner was filed in 2007.

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.

 

[midcan5]

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.

 

[Annie]

That can't be right? Weirdess thing I've heard!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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.

 

[Dogger]

That can't be right? Weirdess thing I've heard!

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?

 

[Gunny]

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?

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.

 

[Dogger]

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.

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?

 

[jillian]

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?

It was my first question because there was never a high profile case in which I was involved that was ever reported accurately. I would sit and watch the reports or read the articles and say "were they in the same room I was in"?

It just makes no sense to me that a judge would do that to the father of an adult child who doesn't live with him; is emacipated and has her OWN family ... it's just ....... bizarre

 

[Gunny]

Reported by: Deb Silverman
Photographed by: 9News
Web produced by: Neil Relyea

A Fairfield man is in jail because his daughter hasn't gotten her General Equivalency Diploma (GED).

A judge ordered the father to stay on top of his daughter's education months ago and when that order wasn't followed, Brian Gegner was sentenced to 180-days in the Butler County jail.

The daughter, Brittany Gegner, says her father shouldn't be punished for her problems.

Especially, she says because she's now 18, an adult.

"It's ridiculously wrong," said Brittany Gegner.

"Of all the punishments they could have given him, to make him go to jail?," she asked. "I mean, probation – until I get my GED – would be reasonable, but to send him to jail? That's overboard."

Butler County Juvenile Court Judge David Niehaus ordered Gegner to jail for contributing to the delinquency of a minor by not following a court order which required Gegner to be sure his daughter got her GED.

This comes after ongoing problems of Brittany skipping classes at Fairfield High School and then, Butler Tech.

While Brian Gegner had custody of her, Brittany says it was while she lived with her mother that she was truant.

"I'm about to be 19 and my Dad's being punished for something I did when I was 16," she said.

"It's like I should, if anybody should be punished for this," said Brittany. "I would way rather me go to jail than my Dad."

"They probably should have punished me if they were going to punish anybody," said Brittany's mother Shana Roach. "Because she did live with me at the time, but because he had the custody, that's why he's being punished."

"But I don't understand the punishment all together because she's going to school, she's been going for four months," said Roach. "The only thing that's holding her back is she can't pass her math test."

Brittany has a daughter who's about 18-months-old.

She says she's determined to pass the GED for her daughter – and her father.

The judge says if she passes the test, her father could get out of jail before his six-months sentence is up.

Brittany's step-mother worries the time in jail will ruin their family.

She says he could lose the job he's worked for 15-years.

"I never dreamed they would put him in jail for this – for six months – it's crazy," said Stephanie Gegner, Brittany's step-mother.

"He has no control over what his adult daughter does," she said. "He just doesn't."

more ... http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=28d2acca-9947-44cc-8831-9859f1f6137e

This is the local report.

 

[Dogger]

Here's the rest of the story from the local report, which does a much better job of reporting than the AP source:

Court administrators say that even though Brittany is an adult now, the case remains active in their court because she was a juvenile when the problems started.

They say this type of punishment is rare and reserved for extreme cases when court orders aren't met.

This is the local report.

Do the additional facts change your opinion regarding the judge's decision? The judge ordered the father "to stay on top of his daughter's education months ago" [I'll bet that is a generalization regarding the specifics of the order] and jailed him when the order wasn't followed.

Should the dad be allowed to simply ignore the court order?

 

[Gunny]

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?

To answer your last question, this is what I found:

In Ohio, a student can legally drop out at 16, but must prove he or she is working full time (at least 30 hours a week). The student also has to begin working toward a GED, and the district superintendent must approve the dropout.


If those requirements are not met, the parent faces a charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and must pay a $500 fine, according to the Ohio Board of Education.

http://www.theindychannel.com/education/1486113/detail.html

The ruling is not outside the judge's bounds. Consequently, part of my wrath is changed to say what a stupid, draconian law.

The other part is still toward the judge for maxing this guy out. If the girl was still 16-18 and still resided with her father, I could probably understand it a little better.

So I still maintain that even though he can, the judge is being a heavy-handed prick.

 

[Dogger]

The ruling is not outside the judge's bounds. Consequently, part of my wrath is changed to say what a stupid, draconian law.

The other part is still toward the judge for maxing this guy out. If the girl was still 16-18 and still resided with her father, I could probably understand it a little better.

So I still maintain that even though he can, the judge is being a heavy-handed prick.

But we still have a valid court order in place, and the dad appears to have ignored it. Indeed, it appears to have been ignored over a long period of time. What should the judge have done?

If the order was valid, and the dad intentionally placed the girl outside of his control, why should he be allowed to evade the order that way?

What kind of message does that send to other children who would rather skip school and get knocked up? Where do you stand on personal responsibility?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But we still have a valid court order in place, and the dad appears to have ignored it. Indeed, it appears to have been ignored over a long period of time. What should the judge have done?

If the order was valid, and the dad intentionally placed the girl outside of his control, why should he be allowed to evade the order that way?

What kind of message does that send to other children who would rather skip school and get knocked up? Where do you stand on personal responsibility?

She is 18 almost 19. This is retarded. A case of a Judge overstepping his bounds. Sounds more like a temper tantrum by the Judge then anything else.

Further she IS working on her GED and as the story reports just can't pass the math part. She is almost 19. LONG past time for a Judge to have decided his order was not met.

You are right there is more going on here, probably a senile Judge angry at something else and getting back on this guy.

 

[Dogger]

Since you are so quick to accuse me of misreading your fuzzy language, could you clarify a few points?

She is 18 almost 19. This is retarded. A case of a Judge overstepping his bounds. Sounds more like a temper tantrum by the Judge then [sic] anything else.

Are you saying that the order was invalid, or that the dad had good cause to disregard it?

Further she IS working on her GED and as the story reports just can't pass the math part. She is almost 19. LONG past time for a Judge to have decided his order was not met.

Her mother said she's been going to school for four months. The court case has been pending for a much longer time than that; it appears that she only decided to obey the judge after her dad was threatened with jail. Should she be able to ignore a court order as long as it suits her, and then whine about it when the judge finally loses his patience?

You are right there is more going on here, probably a senile Judge angry at something else and getting back on this guy.

What do you, of all people, have against cranky old men?


We still have a valid court order in place, and the dad appears to have ignored it over a long period of time. Are court orders worthless? What should the judge have done?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Since you are so quick to accuse me of misreading your fuzzy language, could you clarify a few points?
Are you saying that the order was invalid, or that the dad had good cause to disregard it?

Her mother said she's been going to school for four months. The court case has been pending for a much longer time than that; it appears that she only decided to obey the judge after her dad was threatened with jail. Should she be able to ignore a court order as long as it suits her, and then whine about it when the judge finally loses his patience?


What do you, of all people, have against cranky old men?


We still have a valid court order in place, and the dad appears to have ignored it over a long period of time. Are court orders worthless? What should the judge have done?

Once she was 18 the order should have expired, it is that SIMPLE. If the father was to be punished it should have occurred BEFORE the Daughter was old enough to be independent. Simple enough concept, even for you Counselor.

 

[Dogger]

Once she was 18 the order should have expired, it is that SIMPLE. If the father was to be punished it should have occurred BEFORE the Daughter was old enough to be independent. Simple enough concept, even for you Counselor.

Once jurisdiction attaches, it does not expire. And much of the disobediance occured when she was a minor. Do you believe the father should be able to ignore a valid court order?

Try answering the questions. I gave you chance to clarify because you persistently accuse me of failing to understand your language.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Once jurisdiction attaches, it does not expire. And much of the disobediance occured when she was a minor. Do you believe the father should be able to ignore a valid court order?

Try answering the questions. I gave you chance to clarify because you persistently accuse me of failing to understand your language.

Already answered it. Once she was 18 the Court had no business doing anything to the father. His control was gone. further waiting almost a year after she turned 18 AND was actively working to meet the requirement just shows the ignorance of the order.

Real simple concepts, even YOU should be able to grasp them.