Some stories just pit themselves:
Fortunately the parent is appealing.
It seems to me the relevant sentence is somewhat further on in the article:
And indeed, it isn’t quite as simple as it appears.
The child lives with her mother after some ongoing conflict inthe father’s home. So he still has legal custody (pending hearing) but she doesn’t live there. Her mother said she could go, but the school required both parents to sign. So the girl, with the mother’s support, filed a motion in the decade long litigation which has gone on between her parents.
When parents go to war over custody and maintain this level of conflict, they mustn’t be surprised that their children take the same route. Particularly if the other parent is egging them on.
I expect it will stand up on appeal.
I can see the incident as being fuel for the custody battle, but I still don’t see how the court should be directly intervening in the grounding. It’s not like the father locked her in the basement or something.
The guy I feel sorry for in this is the judge. You just know that he’s going to have people snickering about this behind his back for years.
I don’t know how parental rights work in Canada, but I can see the equity in the situation (taken antiseptically, of course).
The fact that the father is not the one making day-to-day decisions in the life of the child and is withholding consent for what could be seen as reasons of legal gamesmanship leads me to side with the judge in that it’s the mother that should be making the decisions without living in fear of the father’s veto power.
The fact that what the father did (in my eyes, anyway) is completely justified (ho-baggery in juveniles is grounds for grounding in MY world) makes the situation doubly shitty, because this is a case where situational ethics (which I’m not inclined to support) actually has a pretty good foundation.
The way those pictures showed her fingering that keyboard and glancing at that monitor was positively indecent.
Everybody involved in this case needs a timeout.
I would also like the court to find that the the plaintiff’s little brother, a co-conspiritor to the grounding, is a poopy-head your honor.
So much for the cherished legal principle of “because I said so!”
Actually, that one has pretty much been held up as precedent. See ArizonaTeach vs ArizonaTeach’s Dad (1977), ArizonaTeach vs ArizonaTeach’s Dad (1978), ArizonaTeach vs ArizonaTeach’s Dad (1979), ArizonaTeach vs ArizonaTeach’s Dad (Jan 1980), ArizonaTeach vs ArizonaTeach’s Dad (March 1980), ArizonaTeach vs ArizonaTeach’s Dad (Dec 1980), ArizonaTeach vs ArizonaTeach’s Dad (1981), et al. Appeals to Judge ArizonaTeach’s Mom found in favor of ArizonaTeach’s Dad.
Yeah, but that’s in US court. This case is in Canada. 
Remember, if your appeal is denied, the appellant must immediately file a writ of I hate you!
You should have had more effective counsel.
Nowhere in any of those opinions do I see reference to concurrent precedent, i.e., “Jimmy’s dad lets HIM do it!”
I’m going to deny that motion on the grounds that Jimmy’s Dad does not have jurisdiction in this venue.
It should also be noted as a point of fact that if Jimmy’s Dad let him jump off of a cliff, that appellant would not similarly want to do the same.
The court further finds that the defendent’s argument that, “He didn’t ask to be born,” is not persuasive in establishing the court’s lack of jurisdiction in the matter.
“I’m not touching the limit of the restraining order. I’m not touching the limit of the restraining order.”
“I hereby sentence you to go to your room, young man”
Counsel for said alleged co-conspirator responds that he IS NOT!!!
What the court said (as I understand it) was that she could go on the school trip and the father was unreasonable in refusing to consent. He cannot effectively ground her as she does not live with him.