While I agree with you on a basic level, there are two things that make this situation a little bit different from the norm. The first one is that, in all those other situations you mentioned, Batman really was in over his head and needed help. In this case, he actually does have the situation under control, and Steph's bursting in like that only allows the Scarab a chance to escape. Second, in all those other cases the Robins were not on probation. Batman could give 'em a mighty stern lecture afterwards, but as Robin, they were an established hero. He could scold 'em and send 'em to bed without dinner, but he couldn't kick 'em out of the house - if, uh, we take the 'strict, demanding father' aspect of Bats somewhat literally. In this case, however, he has actually said that she's on probation, and during this period, she does not disobey one word of his orders or out she goes. So by those standards, he's only doing precisely what he said he would. Mind you, I'm not saying either one of those things is particularly fair of either him or the writers - as you said, Robins disobey Batman all the time, and up 'til now no one has gotten fired for it. And Batman should have taken into account that Steph is still in training as Robin, and a few examples of recklessness are only to be expected. But still, she DID disobey him, and she DID screw up, insofar as she allowed the villain to escape, so by Batman's way of thinking, he is perfectly in his rights to kick her out. Is he being overly strict? Definitely. Could Steph have handled Scarab if written properly? Probably (although one should take into account the fact that she has mainly tackled street punks and low-level villains up to this point - she hasn't gone up against the real pros too often). But one can't argue that Batman was being unfair - he was being true to the absolute letter of his earlier statement.