The easiest way to see this is to watch the ways it goes wrong. For instance, we have adult couples in our church on the mission field whose Christian parents tried to forbid them from going, even when they knew God was telling them to go. But they also did everything they could to honor their parents in the process. As a child, you honor your parents by obeying them. As you get older, you honor them in different ways. By obeying God, you are honoring the institution of parenting. Which means that for some of you, the best way to honor your father and mother is to defy their wishes and do what God says.
The truest measure of your Christianity is how you are at home! If you based your spiritual progress solely on how well you lived it out at home, how do you think you are doing? If your struggle to honor your mother or father has more to do with their abusiveness than your resistance, here is a collection of excellent resources that may be helpful. Before you came to Christ, your life aspirations arose from a wrong way of looking Email Us.
However, like most rules in Islam, there are exceptions to the general command of obedience. There is no obedience to anyone if it is disobedience to Allah. Verily, obedience is only in good conduct. This principle is true for any relationship. It is not allowed for a Muslim to obey anyone — a parent, a teacher, an Imam, a political leader — if it involves sinning against Allah or His creation. Even so, the parental relationship is a special one. Many of the early Muslims had non-Muslim parents who opposed their embrace of Islam or even fought against them.
Allah told these Muslims to obey their non-Muslim parents in reasonable matters anyway, even to be grateful to them and to treat them with good manners. We enjoined upon humanity to be good to his parents. His mother carried him in weakness upon weakness, and his weaning is in two years.
Be grateful to Me and to your parents, for unto Me is the final destination. If they strive to make you associate with Me that for which you have no knowledge, do not obey them but still accompany in the world with good conduct. The human being must obey his parents in matters that are not sinful, even if they are both wicked. It is apparent verdict of Ahmad. This is in regards to what benefits them both and is not harmful.
Even if it is difficult for him but does not harm him, it is an obligation; otherwise, it is not. This demonstrates that children always have a duty to their parents, even those who are sinners or unbelievers. Children should obey their parents in matters that benefit them both, but parents may not order their children to harm themselves or others. Only in the most extreme circumstances, such as violence or intolerable abuse, should the parental-child relationship be severed. Obedience to Muslim parents also has its reasonable limits.
It is not an absolute right that parents can hold over their children. It is not an obligation upon children to obey both of their parents in every matter they command or prohibit, by agreement of the scholars. The fact of the matter is that some parents are overly controlling and demanding, sometimes called tiger parenting.
Family Law Act, ss. British Columbia. Family Maintenance Act, ss. New Brunswick. Family Services Act, s. Newfoundland and Labrador. Family Law Act, section Northwest Territories.
Nova Scotia. Family Law Act, s. Prince Edward Island. Until 18; in addition, an adult child who is in need deserves basic forms of support from his or her immediate family. Family Maintenance Act, , ss. Family Property and Support Act, ss.
At the same time, the law generally places certain restrictions on the right of older children to parental support.
By way of a fairly typical example, here is what section 31 of the Ontario Family Law Act says about parental support:. Obligation of parent to support child. According to the first subsection, a young person who is studying full-time or who cannot reasonably be expected to care for himself or herself is entitled to parental support even if he or she is no longer a minor.
As we will see below, many provinces and territories allow young people to leave home before they reach the age of majority. If leaving home was not a voluntary decision, then the child still has a right to parental support.
Her father, with whom she had been living, had been behaving in a domineering manner and was trying to prevent her from seeing her mother and from enrolling at a university in Florida, where her mother who had remarried now lived.
The courts agreed: her request for an official declaration of withdrawal was granted, and she was able to get a court order for parental support during her studies. For example, if you are attending a university or college, a judge might order your parents to pay you a certain amount each month but at the same time instruct you to contribute to your own support by finding a summer job. You might think that as long as your parents still have the duty to support you, they should be obliged to allow you to live at home.
However, the law does not say that supporting a child requires parents to allow that child to live in their own home. Perhaps because, once a child turns 16, it is no longer a federal crime to fail to provide support, parents may just decide that they can treat their child the same way as a trespasser on their property. According to standard laws about trespassing, if someone asks a person to leave their property and the trespasser refuses, the property owner can use reasonable force to remove the person or else call the police, who can come and remove the trespasser themselves.
In some jurisdictions, the trespasser can also be arrested and punished. Ultimately, what will happen to a youth over 16 whose parents wish to kick him or her out will largely depend on provincial or territorial laws. In Saskatchewan child welfare agencies cannot legally take a young person who is 16 or older into their care, and the law may also restrict the range of services that are available after that age. In addition, what will happen to such a youth may depend on how the police choose to enforce the existing laws.
Provided that this is an option, the police may simply decide to take the young person to the local child welfare authorities.
Or they might refuse to intervene in the situation without a court order—or they might just help the parents turn their child out of the house. In this last case, the young person has the right to remove his or her personal possessions from the home, and the police may be willing to take the youth to a homeless shelter or to the home of a friend or relative who has agreed to take him or her in. At that point, the youth can turn to the child welfare authorities for whatever help they are able to provide.
Regardless of exactly what happens, though, a youth who has been evicted from home should promptly file a claim for support in the local court.
Assuming that the youth is eligible for support under provincial law, the judge will order the parents to provide that support and will determine its amount. If the parents remain unwilling to let their teenage child live with them, they will have to cover the cost of alternative accommodation such as an apartment. Living on the streets, even temporarily, is extremely dangerous, as it leaves a young person vulnerable to all kinds of violence and exploitation.
So a youth in this situation should go to court to request support and stay in a shelter or, if possible, with someone who can be trusted while waiting for the court to order the support. A Case of Good Fortune. In a case tried in Alberta— R. One day, a neighbour spotted him breaking into the family home through a window and leaving with a plastic bag, which turned out to contain grocery items.
The boy was arrested and charged with breaking and entering and with theft, and he was also handed over to the child welfare authorities, who gave him shelter in a group home. At his trial, the judge, Danielle Dalton, examined the relevant laws, including several articles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
As she pointed out, because the boy had not withdrawn voluntarily from the family home, his father still had a duty to support him, and yet his father had not found him another place to live or otherwise supplied his needs. This boy was fortunate to have a sympathetic judge, and her decision sets a useful precedent, one that judges in other provinces could draw on. All the same, a court in another province could well decide to convict a youth who did the same thing—and there are cases where such convictions have occurred.
Rather, you should try to get help through the child welfare authorities and ask a court to order your parents to support you. To summarize, then: as a general rule, parents in Canada have the duty to support their children at least until they are of legal age, and in some circumstances even longer. A youth who is 16 or older may thus have to put up with being kicked out and will then have to go to court in order to obtain further support from his or her parents.
With all this in mind, we think that the law could do a better job of safeguarding your right to safety and shelter: under no circumstances should a young person be forced out into the street on short notice.
A landlord cannot even legally do this to a tenant who fails to pay rent, so why should parents be able to do this to their own child? In our view, parents should not have the right to drive a teenage child out on a whim, even if the youth can subsequently apply to the court for financial support. Rather, parents should be legally obliged to provide their children with a safe place to live at least until they reach the age of majority. If, for some reason, parents would strongly prefer that an older child leave their home, then they should be required to rent an apartment or otherwise arrange for acceptable accommodation before the child moves out and to provide their child with a reasonable living allowance until he or she is in a position to be self-supporting.
It should be clear by now that the law gives parents a great deal of power over their children. But just how much power?
Must you always do what your parents tell you to do? Do you have any right to make your own decisions, or is it entirely up to your parents to decide whether to give you a voice? This is an important question, although not one that has a simple answer. These laws could include federal ones, such as the Divorce Act or even the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but they are often provincial or territorial laws. Bear with us, then, while we provide a bit of background to this issue. For a very long time, English common law assumed that parental authority over their children was virtually absolute.
Gradually, however, people began to question this view, which was challenged on several occasions in court. Finally, in , a case came before the highest court of appeal in the land—which, at the time, was the British House of Lords. West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority, involved the right of girls under the age of 16 to decide for themselves about the use of contraception.
In a 3-to-2 majority in their favour, the judges ruled that parental authority was not absolute but gradually dwindled as the child became more mature. As a result, the law of England no longer considers that parents have the right to require absolute obedience from their children. Can the same thing be said of Canadian law? In fact, just a year after the Gillick case was decided, an Alberta Court of Appeal judge drew on that ruling in J.
The modern law, however, is that the courts will exercise increasing restraint in that regard as a child grows to and through adolescence. In Alberta case law, then, there is some support for the principle laid out in the Gillick decision, at least with regard to medical matters. But what about our highest court—the Supreme Court of Canada? In so doing, the Court carefully considered the Gillick decision, including its history of legal application paras.
In a dissenting opinion, however, one judge argued that, because the girl had been found to be capable of making her own decisions, her wishes should have been respected even if the result was not in her best interests.
In Canada, this principle has been upheld only in specific contexts notably in connection with medical care —and, as the decision in A. Section 21 6 of the Family Law Act lists the powers that guardians including parents may exercise over a child. The list which contains thirteen items in all begins:.
As you can see even from this partial list, section 21 6 gives considerable powers to parents or other guardians—although these powers are limited in three important ways. Similarly, in deciding whether a child should work, a parent must respect the provincial Employment Standards Code, which contains rules about child labour.
The case involved a year-old girl whose divorced parents—one of whom had moved to British Columbia—disagreed about where she should live and where she should go to school. On the subject of whether, in exercising their responsibilities, parents should gradually allow their children more room for independence, the BC act says nothing, one way or another. From a purely practical point of view, there is nothing to stop parents, at a given moment in time, from enforcing whatever rules they see fit—although the authorities can intervene if they break the law or do anything that qualifies as child abuse or neglect.
So the girl took the case to court. After considering the circumstances, the judge concluded that the girl had already been punished once, by not being allowed to participate in a school show, and that the trip was educational and in her best interests.
Therefore, the judge ordered that she be allowed to go on the trip. Taking your parents to court to get more freedom may be possible, but we recommend that you do so only for a very good reason and that you think hard about the possible consequences.
The father of the girl mentioned above was, for example, very angry that the court had ruled in favour of his daughter, who was now living with her mother, and said afterward that he would not speak with her until she was willing to accept his authority.
So, before you take such a drastic action, it would be best to consult with a lawyer—preferably one who has experience helping young people cope with family issues. Yes, although this depends on your age and on where you live. If living at home becomes intolerable for you, it may be possible for another person to get a custody or guardianship order from a court that will allow you to live with them instead. It is generally possible for other people to ask a court to give them full custody or guardianship of a child or else to give them the power to make certain decisions about the child.
As you might guess, the rules about who is eligible to apply for custody or guardianship vary from one province or territory to another—as does the use of these two terms. Although, in some jurisdictions, this person must be a legal adult, the Ontario law does not, in principle, rule out the possibility that an older minor could apply for custody.
0コメント