Father cleared of assault in forcing teen daughter to go home

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.

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/freeheadlines/LAC/200... might work.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

---

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.

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.

quote:

---

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

---

Another shitty thing to say.

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.

---

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]

Are you a parent, Martin?

quote:

---

Are you a parent, Martin?

---

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

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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

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.

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 ]

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.

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.

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?

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 ]