A concerned father may have found the most ingenious solution of all time to having his kid being bullied -- he filed a restraining order against the 9-year-old he says was bullying his son. While this might sound like yet another case of a parent being overprotective and stepping in to fight battles that should best be left to the kids, the dad says he did this as a "last resort," and that he had "tried everything else," and yet the school district was still ignoring him.
Authorities say this is the first time they'd heard of a restraining order granted against a child -- though there is no law against it. Other parents are saying that the dad isn't teaching his son to function in the "real world" and that you can't go around filing restraining orders against everyone you have an issue with.
Presumably, the man's son is the same age as the so-called bully, and this is an age where kids still need their parents to step in and protect them if need be. But it's also a fine line -- kids need to learn how to deal with negative and sometimes downright demoralizing situations. But do they have to learn how to "deal" with physical abuse?
I don't think that physical abuse or long-term psychological abuse should be part and parcel of going to school -- or living at home, or going to work for that matter. Yes, you do have to learn how to deal with difficult personalities, and kids should be taught that as well. But there's a difference between dealing with a kid who is nasty to you -- and one who punches you in the face and seems to have gotten away with it.
But if a kid is constantly in danger of being abused, or is being threatened, then I see no reason why a restraining order can't be a last resort protective measure. Even against a kid.
Do you think this dad did the right thing or is he being overprotective?