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!
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.