Posted on 03/08/2007 11:03:19 AM PST by Coleus
Honorable Thomas Zampino of the Family Division of the New Jersey Superior Court has ordered penal charges against a home-schooling mother of seven. According to a report by Matt Bowman on the website constitutionallycorrect.com, the mother's supposed infraction is home-schooling her children without supervision from the local school board - a right explicitly upheld in New Jersey law. According to the court's opinion, Tara Hamilton is the defendant in a suit brought against her by her recently estranged husband, Stephen Hamilton. Stephen brought the suit in an attempt to force Tara to enroll their school-age children, aged 12 to 4 years, in parochial school because he believes that they are not receiving an adequate education while being home-schooled. All seven children currently reside with Tara. According to the court document, Stephen claims that "continued home schooling is not in the children's best interest, they lack socialization skills and that it is too difficult for the mother to teach the children at five different grade levels. The father argues that the children are not receiving an education equivalent to a public or parochial school."
Prior to the marital discord that led to this suit, the Hamiltons had similarly home-schooled all of their school-age children. In an effort to implement "certain basic requirements and safeguards", the judge ordered Tara to submit her home-schooling children to standardized tests supplied by the local school district despite NJ law which says, "A child educated elsewhere than at school is not required to sit for a state or district standardized test." The judge also ordered the local school board to file a suit against Tara in order to be able to "evaluate the instruction in the home," a requirement only permissible if the local school board determines that there is credible evidence that the home education is below the standards of the public school.
Because of NJ's explicit laws protecting the parental right to educate their children at home, the judge had only limited options when it came to personally implementing his philosophies of "monitoring" and "registering" home-schoolers." The judge cautioned that, should the school board refuse to comply with his 'suggestions', the court would "consider, by formal opinion, a request to join those parties to action." The New Jersey Department of Education website states, "The provision, "to receive equivalent instruction elsewhere than at school," in N.J.S.A. 18A:38-25 permits parent(s)/guardian(s) to educate the child at home." According to New Jersey law, parents desiring to home-school their children are not required to submit any type of communication of intent to a local school board. Parents are also not required to have their home-school curricula approved by a school board.
A NJ school board may only act against a home-schooling parent "If there is credible evidence that the parent, guardian or other person having custody and control of a school-age child is not causing the child either to attend school (public or nonpublic) or to receive equivalent instruction elsewhere than at school…" Under those circumstances, the school board is permitted to request the parents/guardians of a school age child provide proof, such as a letter of intent, that the child is receiving "equivalent instruction." The judge criticized the NJ law and lamented the fact that it upholds the rights of parents to home-school their children without interference from the government. Implying that children being educated by their parents are unsupervised, the judge stated, "This is shocking to the court. In this day and age where we seek to protect children from harm and sexual predators, so many children are left unsupervised."
The judge continued, "In today's threatening world, where we seek to protect children from abuse, not just physical, but also educational abuse, how can we not monitor the educational welfare of all our children?" He then gave the case of a recently found starving child locked "in a putrid bedroom" as an example of what happens when home-schooled children are not "registered and supervised." In what Bowman refers to as a "judicial temper tantrum" the judge opines, "This is not an attack against home schooling, but rather a statement that it is necessary to register those children for whom this alternative is chosen and to monitor that their educational needs are being adequately nurtured. Judicial interpretation of the statute requires such steps to measure 'equivalent instruction' when the alternative 'elsewhere than at school' is chosen by parents."
Bowman commented on the judge's circumvention of the law by requiring the school board to take the action that he could not, saying, "Well, state law does allow school districts to haul parents into court under state penal law if credible evidence exists that their children's education is improper. Presto! Order the local school district to charge the mom with violation of penal law! Never mind that the school district is not a party to this divorce proceeding. Never mind that "[t]he mere fact that a child has been withdrawn to be home-schooled is not, in itself, credible evidence of a legal violation."" Bowman summed up the opinion saying, "The court's opinion seethes with contempt for parental primacy in education, for large religious families, and for the democratic process itself. Instead of legal reasoning, the court disgustingly showcases the prospect of children "found unfed and locked in a putrid bedroom." Bowman concluded by drawing a scary comparison between the actions of this activist NJ judge and the recent human rights violations against a home-schooling family in Germany. "It can seem distant when we hear news of police raiding homes in Germany and abducting home-schooled children, but in our small world of judicial oligarchy and broken families, Germany is not so far away after all."
To respectfully contact Jon Corzine, governor of New Jersey:
Office of the Governor, PO Box 001, Trenton, NJ 08625, 609-292-6000
www.constitutionallycorrect.com
Read Justice Zampino's full ruling
> I don't know what the answer is, but surely there's got
> to be some reasonable middle ground between full-blown
> government oversight and total parental neglect.
The middle ground is to throw neglectful parents in jail and take away the children when they are found to be neglectful.
The idea that the state, in general, is more responsible, capable, or interested in the welfare of children than parents is a reprehensible and indefensible fiction, though. Mostly, it's a power grab by amoral idiots.
If you live there, you can't be "thrown out". You can leave though.
Not so. All she has to do is call the police and claim that he hit her. He'll be arrested, and a restraining order will then be virtually automatic. Voila - he's out of the house. Any wife can do that to her husband.
A decade or so ago, I sat my two young daughters down one day and, for the fun of it, tested them on their general knowledge of things like American History. It was worse than I'd ever imagined. They knew almost NOTHING. No idea when World War II was, no idea why the Civil War was fought, no idea who Franklin Roosevelt was (beyond being on the dime) -- just nothing. They did, however, know boatloads about the "plight" of the rain forests (today, I guess, it would be global warming) and civil rights.
Finally, in disgust, I pulled one of them out and home schooled her for a semester and, MAN.. did THAT piss the administration off (I still think the kid learned more from me in two weeks than the New Jersey Public Education system taught her in two months!).
Since the N.J. schools are populated by nothing but liberal propagandist Nazis anyway, who are thoroughly convinced that THEY and they alone know what's best for our kids (and if we have anything to say about it, we should keep it to our stupid selves), I'm not surprised that they should turn to their fellow travelers on the courts to support whatever inane restrictions they want to oppose on anyone who dares to stand up to them.
Of course, if President Bush had done SQUAT about his promises to bring a voucher system to our public schools, none of this might be an issue, because these clowns might be running for the hills, or hiding their socialist agendas until a safer time... but, no. That's sadly not to be, as their chokehold on "education" grows tighter and tighter...
not every mother is the best choice or capable of homeschooling. this father may have been helping her and without his help the kids may indeed be getting a substandard education.
Do you happen to know what county?
That's not "thrown out".
A man can also hit his wife and get arrested. Chances are, she better look like she was hit when the cops show up.
I wonder if this isn't a move to lower child support or alimony- if she is homeschooling seven children she probably cannot work fulltime.
Freedom requires risk.
I'll call BS on that. Where'd you get your stats?
"the judge stated, 'This is shocking to the court. In this day and age where we seek to protect children from harm and sexual predators, so many children are left unsupervised.'"
Ahh,... Judge Jerkoff, in case you hadn't noticed... most of the child molestors are public school teachers.
Maybe you're just mad in that homeschoolers reduce the numbers of children sexually available to you and yours, judge.
And, LOL, in New Jersey, folks are paying $12,000 a year and more in property taxes on their homes, with most of that going to to education bureaucracy (mostly administrative and retirement pensions). And, they get matching funds from the federal government for every child enrolled in the public schools - but not for a child who is home-schooled. It's all about the money. Surprised?
In other words, a judge blatantly disregards the law.
This is the part that gets me.
This judge is saying that parents left alone with their own children are not qualified to supervise them? That children alone with their own parents are still considered to be unsupervised?
-PJ
The voucher, in theory is a good idea; but it is a double edge.
See, those vouchers come with money that has strings. Children entering private schools, bring the opportunity of those strings influencing the school system.
"He's not interested in their schooling. He's messing with his ex."
We need to convene grand juries to investigate whether judges are accepting frivolous law suits, and if they are, to indict them.
"Of course, if President Bush had done SQUAT about his promises to bring a voucher system to our public schools, none of this might be an issue, because these clowns might be running for the hills, or hiding their socialist agendas until a safer time... but, no. That's sadly not to be, as their chokehold on "education" grows tighter and tighter..."
Even Ronaldus Magnus didn't do it, but I long for a Prez with the stones to just sequester all funding for the DOE and EPA.
the case was heard in essex county
Dear underbyte,
"there should probably some supervision or test to see if the kids are at their grade level."
Why?
Why would we let folks who fail (government education authorities) supervise folks who succeed (homeschoolers)?
Roughly 25% of students in the United States don't get a high school diploma, no matter how little one might need to learn to get one from many public schools.
Why would we have the folks with that track record manage the folks who, as a group, outperform public schools in every measure?
Maybe we homeschoolers should be set in authority over the lamebrains running public education.
Wouldn't that make more sense?
sitetest
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.