Posted on 08/27/2009 11:21:03 PM PDT by kingattax
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has asked a New Hampshire court to reconsider its decision to order a 10-year-old home-schooled girl into public school.
"Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children," said ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons. "In this case, the court is illegitimately altering a method of education that the court itself admits is working."
The parents of the girl are divorced, and the mother has been home-schooling her. In the process of renegotiating the terms of a parenting plan for the girl, the guardian ad litem concluded that the girl "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that the girl's interests "would be best served by exposure to a public school setting."
Judge Lucinda V. Sadler approved the recommendation and issued the order July 14.
"The New Hampshire Supreme Court itself has specifically declared, 'Home education is an enduring American tradition and right,' " said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson. "There is clearly and without question no legitimate legal basis for the court's decision, and we trust it will reconsider its conclusions."
Mike Donnelly, staff attorney at the Home School Legal Defense Association, agreed this is "not the place for the courts to be inserting themselves."
Are we sure that there isn’t more going on here?
ping
Been there done that. The Father is just getting back at the Mother where it hurts, and the Judge is helping them. God have Mercy on His Wicked Soul.
If we can’t reverse the path this country is headed down, seriously, people with kids should think about relocating.
One wonders if the good judge has ever read this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
There are no grounds for this whatsoever
Imagine Christians being one-minded about their faith
Why, it simply won’t do
Next, the Amish?
Sue all the way to the Supreme Court!
Sounds strangly like "lucifer".
It is a short-term victory for the Fed.gov Mind-Molders.
If left in her mother’s care, this girl might grow up to be an innocent, virtuous young woman.
Perhaps that’s what would be so utterly unacceptable to this judge? Is this decision based more on the case of Judge Lucinda than on the case of this loving mother and her precious daughter?
This recent trend of voyeuristic “first night” is a plague upon our children.
True. I wonder what would happen if a muslim student mentioned that his/her family was “rigid” in their religious practices? I’m sure the judge would order them to be exposed to public schools too huh? NOT!
Where is the ACLU on this? Probably ignoring it.
“Judge Lucinda V. Sadler”
You see her, Lord God. Remember her and what she is doing, and reward her accordingly.
Maybe there is more going on there, but forcing the mother to send her daughter to public school is a violation of her right to homeschool.
If some activist judge can do it for that reason to her, any activist judge can do it to any other homeschooler for the exact same reason.
It sets a dangerous precedent when the judge rules like this on a case where it’s clearly the non-custodial father is trying to mess up their lives.
The other thing is, in cases like this, the judgment usually tends to favor the public school side. Why do you suppose that is?
If there is some real issue about what the child is being taught religiously, then sending them to school is not the solution, unless the judge is implicitly stating that the schools are in fact, teaching religion.
After all, part of the ruling was that the mother’s religious teaching as the article implies here.....
“In the process of renegotiating the terms of a parenting plan for the girl, the guardian ad litem concluded that the girl ‘appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith’ and that the girl’s interests ‘would be best served by exposure to a public school setting.’”
Yep. “Your kid’s doing terrific in every way... except she’s too Christian.”
Anyone imagine that this would be a problem if the child were “too rigid” in her support of abortion rights, her preference for government healthcare, her admiration for Obama?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Is that really the domain of a court, to determine if someone has a "rigidity on questions of faith.."?
Could they not use that same ruling to require the state control of all children of sincerely religious parents?
I don’t know about you, but I would defy this order,
even if it meant leaving the country.
Rigidity??? Like the Muslims? Or the Mormons? Like the JW? Like the Hindu’s? etc., etc.
Anytime, anywhere these people want a public debate on the veracity of Judeo-Christianity, please bring it on!
The book by the former atheist Josh McDowell turned Christian by the facts he assimilated to disprove Christianity “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” is the result of that!
I’d be moving.
In fact, if the girl and her mother want to move into my house here in MI, where homeschool laws are easy, they are more than welcome to.
I have a 10 year old who would like a study mate.
What if the church she and her mother attends is brainwashing her into believing her father is evil because he won't become a member?
My first reaction was "lets get the pitchforks" no court should tell someone how much faith and belief they should have, but I don't think this is going on here. It is an action between the father and mother and looks like the child is being manipulated into a bad relationship with the father.
I would question the integrity of the Pastor.
I have already formed the opinion that the mother is a piece of dirt. She has custody most of the time and must have been promoting the use of faith in Jesus Christ as a tool to separate father and daughter.
There’s probably some court order against her leaving the state, as well.
So much for our freedoms.
If the court meant that the mother or the church were teaching animosity toward the father, they should have said specifically that and with examples.
Instead they paint this broad-brush, anti-religious statement, able to be useful in other venues, about how negative it is for churches to teach their members TRULY to believe the tenets of their faith (rigidity.)
If the court wants to say something, they shouldn’t beat around the bush.
If the court order doesn’t force her to stay in NH, leave, leave in 10 minutes.
The father will then lose the ability to see her unless he follows. Or can future Nazi state court order cross state lines.
Nothing good every emanates from family courts. Time to get rid of all laws regarding family affairs.
BTW: It seems that even when all parties have hired lawyers, in the family court cases, the lawyers all belong to the same country club. No lawyer will go up against a judge and mount a ‘real’ challenge. They all want to get along, accomplish nothing, and collect parent fees along the way.
If the daughter was in public school, was too drunk, too high, sleeping around or refusing to pay attention in a school setting, what would the judge do?
Order her home schooled, or into an Alternative School or into juvvie?
This newsreport simply does not provide enough info.
These are the kind of battles that were waged against Jehovah’s Witnesses and Pentacostals in Soviet Russia.
In a generation, the government has change from upholding the rights of individuals to forcing groupthink on the country.
Of course there is more going on here. Home schoolers are anathema to the left because they cannot propagandize them. I hope this family defies the court and dares it to put them in jail for educating their child as they deem appropriate.
Who gave the government the authority to determine school curriculum?
And the Judge would reply, "I am not a member of Congress. Therefore I will make any "law" I so deem fit."
In a normal circumstance the courts should have no say at whether the parents should home school their children, but in the event of a divorce or a child custody case the courts are called on to determine the best interests of the child regardless of the wishes of the parents.
I suppose that where the father insists on the girl going to public school and the mother insisting on homeschooling her that the judge could order the child cut in half so that one half could go to public school and the other half could be homeschooled, but unfortunately that would have had to have been done at the embryonic stage in order to be successful.
This is not really a freedom of religion issue, this is a selfish parents dispute where the child is a pawn in a divorce proceeding.
If I were the judge and I was convinced that the child was being homeschooled by a bitter wife who had a vendetta against her husband and the husband had requested the child be sent to public school then I don't think I would have ruled differently. While certainly a public school environment is not spiritually friendly, neither is being indoctrinated 24 hours a day by a vengeful mother a very spiritually friendly environment either. The child will eventually grow to hate her father because her mother has taught her to do so, or hate her mother for hating her father.
So without the option of cutting the child in half, the judge had to make a decision that was going to make someone mad. And she did.
You read the secret code!
No. We're positive that there is a lot more going on. The federal government wants to take your children away from you and indoctrinate them to be good little liberal lemmings. Lemmings that do not worship the one and only true and living God (Elohim) and that DO worship o-bomb-a-nation.
Yes... There is a LOT going on here.
Remember, the United States Supreme Court that has, in the past, ruled in favor of parents and our children no longer exists.
This was not an appellate case, but was nothing more than an interlocutory ruling by a family court judge. The judges generally don't even write the orders, the orders are drafted by the moving party and the judge simply approves or rejects the order that was drafted by the moving party.
It is only on appeal that the reasoning behind the order must be stated. But then only if the appeal has been granted.
Without the whole story, you are making very telling judgments of your own.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2326201/posts
and she is now living with her mother who has been homeschooling the child since first grade. As part of the schooling, the young girl has been attending supplemental public school classes.
The girl is not being indoctrinated 24x7; she is being exposed to the public school environment already.
The parties worked out a custody agreement whereby all major decisions of the child were to be by joint agreement. This is what happens when one party decides they know best without going to court to modify the previous agreement. This happens all of the time and the court takes the path of least resistance in resolving the matter.
The mother can home school (debrief) the child after she gets home from the government school. I found with my boys that worked best for us as we had immediate examples to discuss our world view rather than abstract examples.
Nobody has the "whole story". My point is simply that when there is a divorce, the courts are called on to resolve disputes between the parents and to ultimately decide what is in the best interest of the child. This ruling is not applicable to home schooled children in general, but to this home schooled child in particular. The mother does not have the right to home school the child unless the father agrees. If there is a dispute about where the child is to attend school, then, where the family law courts have jurisdiction over the child, then the courts will make that decision.
They did it in this case. There is always one party that leaves Family Court angry. This time it was the mother.
The custody agreement gives the father rights as well. While I think he is being a jerk he still has some rights in how his daughter is raised.
“it’s clearly the non-custodial father is trying to mess up their lives.”
How do you know he is ‘trying to mess up her life’, he may genuinely believe its better for her.
No, your point was very clear. You feel like the mom was indoctrinating the child 24x7. When this was shown to not be true, you changed your point.
The same thing should hold true for the mom not wanting the child to be educated in a public school. If they can’t agree, the child shouldn’t be forced into a public school.
Funny about that “indoctrinating 24/7”, like it’s a bad thing:
Deut 6:5-9
5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.
Deut 11:19-20
19 Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 20 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates,
In the cases I’ve seen where the non-custodial father has rights, when it comes to homeschooling, the father, who generally wants the kids he isn’t raising in public school, prevails at the discretion of the judges.
How can the father, who doesn’t live with the family, know what’s best for the child when he never sees the day to day interactions.
The general mentality is that public school is *normal* and that children should go there to be raised *normally*. While it is TYPICAL, it is not normal to spend the greater part of a day in an institutional setting like that.
And besides, the whole premise here is that someone decided that the child’s upbringing is to restrictive and needs to be broadened.
Who made that decision and on what basis?
What gives the courts the right to rule on the validity of any one religion? That means they have to define said religion and rule on the exercise of it. That violates the Constitution, which guarantees the free exercise of religion.
If the father is concerned about his daughter’s religious upbringing, instead of strong arming the mother into the action he desires, why doesn’t he make a good faith effort to reconcile the marriage and be really involved in their lives.
Homeshooling is being used as a weapon here since the courts have determined that .....
New Hampshire Court orders Christian homeschooled girl to attend public school
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2326201/posts
“According to ADF allied attorney John Anthony Simmons, the court acknowledges that the girl in question is doing well socially and academically, but he adds that the court went too far when they determined that the girl’s Christian faith was a “’bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews.’”
The issue isn’t that she’s not doing well socially and academically, but that they object to the religious views she’s being taught.
I agree, maybe the court did, the article was only a couple paragraphs long. We don't have a lot of detail.
Instead they paint this broad-brush, anti-religious statement, able to be useful in other venues, about how negative it is for churches to teach their members TRULY to believe the tenets of their faith (rigidity.)
I'm only guessing, but the judge is probably not some radical leftist. The judge actually is trying to protect the father's rights. Apparently, the daughter is being turned against the father and he can't be all that bad he does have joint custody.
In a divorce proceeding where the parents can't agree on where the child should be educated, the decision is left up to the courts. Here the parents could not agree, so the courts made the decision. If the parents wish to have the child educated at home, all they need to do is to tell the judge they have agreed to allow the child to be homeschooled and that will be the end of it. The point is they can't agree, so the courts are forced to make this decision.
The decision, as presented, was based on the religious exposure of the child, and the limitation thereof. It violates our constitution.
Especially knowing the child is being educated partially in the public schools!
The dad did this to be spiteful. How about that!
From the article.
We don't learn a lot, but it seems the mom is manipulating the child against the father who does not share the mom's religious beliefs. We don't know if the father is a Christian as well.
What would we be saying if the mom is Pentecostal and the father is Roman Catholic?
And the child always loses.
At least in this case the father is trying to be a part of the child's life. I've seen posts on this thread suggesting the mom should just pack up and leave with the child. What about the father? Shouldn't the courts be encouraging a relationship between father and daughter?
You don't understand Family Law. This is a dispute between private citizens and not a dispute between the State and an individual.
It doesn't matter if religion is part of the mix, the court has jurisdiction, just as they would have jurisdiction over a dispute over whether the child was going to go to a fundamentalist Islamic madrassa or a public school if the Father was a christian and the mother was a fundamentalist Muslim.
If the mother were a fundamentalist Muslim who wanted the child to go to an Islamic Madrassa and the Father who was a Christian convert wanted the child to go to public school, how would you rule?
Dad trying to be a part of the daughter’s life? Really, you can get this from this article? Really? You mean like Michael Newdow?
In favor of the parent who has custody.
Thank God you’re not a Family Court judge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.