But the procedural and factual history is not clear. First, it appears the parents were divorced in 1999 when a "plan" was approved by the court under the terms of which the mother obtained custodial responsibility for the child. It is not clear whether the plan was and agreement between the parent or if it was imposed on the parents by the court. In other words, it is not stated whether the father approved of the original plan or not. For some reason, again not stated, the plan is currently in the process of being modified. Again, it is not clear what the position of the father is with respect to this modification.
At any rate, it appears that the court appointed a guardian ad litem but it is not clear whether the guardian ad litem was requested by the father, imposed out of the discretion of the court because of the circumstances of the case, or simply automatic under the statute and practice in New Hampshire. So it is not clear whether either the court or the father believed that there was a potential for a variance between the mother's opinion and the actual best interest of the child.
Evidently, the guardian ad litem took the following positions (it is not clear from the article whether all these assertions concerning the guardian ad litem are from the court record, that is testimony taken in court, or dehors the court record or whether they are denied by the guardian ad litem):
But during the process of negotiating the terms of the plan, a guardian ad litem appointed to participate concluded 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" and "different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief ... in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs."
According to court documents, the guardian ad litem earlier had told the mother, "If I want her in public school, she'll be in public school."
So we do not know if the findings of the guardian ad litem are reflective or in opposition to the desires of the father. We do not know if the father contributed to the record concerning his desires or his knowledge of facts of the case.
The matter then went to a "Marital Master" who registered a "proposal" that the child attend public school, evidently a full-time basis, because she had been attending on a part-time basis:
The marital master hearing the case proposed the Christian girl be ordered into public school after considering "the impact of [her religious] beliefs on her interaction with others."
It is not known whether the Marital Master took testimony or rendered his opinion on papers . We simply do not know what the procedural and factual record was.
It is not absolutely clear but it seems that the next step was to appear in court before a regular statutory or constitutional judge who issued an order compelling the child to attend public school full time. Again, it is not clear from the record why this judge issued the order. In other words, did he take testimony, did he receive data from father, did he rely completely on a record of the master, where there psychological reports, did the cite only the report of the guardian ad litem?
My first problem with this case is to question why a guardian ad litem was appointed at all? Procedurally, this is a convenient way to the court to short-circuit the eternal wrangling which can go on between two parents using a child in a "war of the roses." My main objection is that it implies that parents, even parents who are at war with each other, cannot represent the interests of their own child. It implies that there is a standard which must be adhered to apart from the interest expressed by the parents. In this case, this is exactly what the mother is alleging and what she is saying is unconstitutional. She says that she alone, as the custodial parent, should be empowered to determine the religious upbringing of a child and to determine whether the child should attend public school or be homeschooled. The appointment of a guardian ad litem suggests that parents in general are unqualified to make these decisions.
The record of this case-as much as we know it- does not show that the child in any way is adversely affected by the mother's decisions so far on these issues. In fact, her grades tend to show the opposite conclusion. One wonders what more a guardian ad litem, a marital master, or a matrimonial judge would want from a 10-year-old girl:
A 10-year-old homeschool girl described as "well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level" has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too "vigorous" in defense of her Christian faith.
To whom was she "too vigorous" in defense of her Christian faith? The article says:
The decision from Marital Master Michael Garner reasoned that the girl's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view."
So I conclude that somehow the record has other testimony, or an original report of the school counselor, or a hearsay statement of a school counselor secured by the guardian ad litem, or the hearsay statement of the school counselor secured by the marital master, to the effect that the child was "too vigorous."
It is revealing of our system to step back and consider the step-by-step process in determining this child's rights. We have a school counselor probably reporting to a guardian ad litem who reports to a marital master who renders a report which is approved by a judge. Notice how many steps removed from the child expressing her "vigorous" desires. Please note also that each one of these players has been introduced by liberals allegedly to act on behalf of the child. School counselors are there to help the child with problems in school. The Guardian ad litem was her there to protect the child against her parents and to represent the child's interest if they are not otherwise represented. The Marital Master is there because he has more time to investigate the facts of the case. A judge is required under the law of every state to act in the "best interests" of the child.
This is a liberal's dream and a nightmare for the parents of the child.
Each one of these individuals acquires, maintains, and advances his professional position by being politically correct. Normally in these cases a psychologist is introduced. God help the litigant who finds disfavor from a court-appointed psychologist in one of these cases. In every step the system is designed explicitly or implicitly to launder out any value which speaks for religious commitment. Every step is justified as a protection for the child.
But many of the steps are simply designed to buffer the court from wading into these questions. The court is eager to avoid trials in these matters and certainly eager to avoid controversial findings of fact by simply rubber stamping the findings and recommendations of the professionals in the chain. This is done every day.
I belabor the procedural history of this case to demonstrate how, with every good intention, liberals empower bureaucrats to "do good" but only succeed in dehumanizing the decision-making process. Not one of these individuals involved in this case would accept that they are bigoted against Christianity. Every one of them would claim that he is acting in the child's best interest. All of them are no doubt behaving fully in accordance with their academic and professional training. Yet everything in the system is calculated, with or without the intention of the parties involved, to eviscerate the First Amendment. It is all done in the name of the child. It is all done in the name of socializing the child. Every step in the process is legal, every step is plausible, and , even so, every step usurps more and more freedom from parents. Every step can itself be justified but in their cumulative effect, they can be Orwellian.
