What the ...?

I don't really understand the judge's thinking on this one. It's a grounding, something most (if not all) teens have experienced at some point in their life. It doesn't harm the child, but it does teach her a valuable lesson (even if she may not realize at the time). Now what signal does this judge send? "Go ahead honey, post those pictures of you on the internet"? Makes me wonder if the judge isn't a little too eager to see those photographs.

I guess this proves that the rules of a court aren't meant to deal with the rules of parenting (The "just because I say so" parenting rule for example will crash and burn in court)

That said, I think the dad could use his time better by taking some courses about the internet instead of making an appeal. I mean, "tried" to block websites from his 12-yo? Why not actually do it.

Because it's not actually possible. No matter how many adult websites you block, there are always more.

The blocking services that you can subscribe to are notoriously unreliable. Not only are there a ton of porn sites that don't get blocked, but there are a ton of innocent web sites that do get blocked.

And that's not even mentioning the possibility of the kid figuring out a way to get around the security. Or simply uploading the pictures on a friend's computer.

There has GOT to be more to this story than what meets the eye. There is an ongoing 10-year-long custody battle between the girl's parents. Did the girl's mother "help" her decide to file a lawsuit? Is the judge on the mother's side, for some reason?

Even if the judge was just generally an idiot, I think there is still something more...

ETA- There's a bit more info here. The girl did have her mother's support to file suit, and since the ruling the father "is refusing to take his daughter back 'because he has no authority over her'."

How about throwing the computer out of the window, and grounding her from seeing her friends for a while.
I bet that would work out better than preventing her from going on a school field trip.

Oh, and I do agree that the judge is an *ss...

Oh those wacky Canadians!

... and I mean that in the most affectionate manner possible.

INternet FOR ALL!

Unbelievable and a perfect example of how judges have too much power (not that I have a better system)

That judge should be disbarred and should be forced to pay for the courts costs of the father and to have to reimburse the government for paying for the child's lawyer.

The case should never have been allowed to go to trial in the first place.

Don't parents have some sort of rights in Canada. Can kids now sue because they don't want to obey bedtimes, which shows to watch on TV, how far from home they are allowed to go, what sort of parties they can go to, when they can wear make-up, when they can.... etc, etc etc.

What he said!

Looks like Reuters has some more information.