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."
To clarify what I wrote. The commands of God are for Christians. Unbelievers have no part in that. Civil ceremonies and divorces should be reserved for unbelievers. Christians (husband and wife equally yoked) should have religious ceremonies and shouldn’t have divorces. If we had it to do over, we wouldn’t marry under civil law. We will teach our children differently especially now that gay “marriage” had become legal in some places.
'In my youth,' said his father, 'I took to the law, And argued each case with my wife; And the muscular strength, which it gave to my jaw, Has lasted the rest of my life.' --Alice in Wonderland
Give your wife a big hug and kiss for her patience.
Yes freerepublic can be as bad as having an affair! :)My hubby isn’t home tonight so he doesn’t know I am neglecting him LOL! Goodnight.
She was found to be academically and socially well adjusted.What grade level did she perform to; suitable for her age?
Others might accept "She was found to be academically and socially well adjusted" but that doesn't directly address the point I raised earlier ...
(There may be no direct answer to that question, I realize that, but I'm still posing it as a point of order.)
Tested above grade level.
That settles it then.
She was attending several classes in the public school and those teachers found her to be academically and socially well adjusted. She wasn’t secluded by any stretch of the imagination, but seemed to have a fairly balanced system.
A self proclaimed pro-Christian web site gave some cherry picked quotes and called it “Christian.” FRiend, a lot of things purport to be “Christian” today, even talking the lingo, that come with a closet full of abominable skeletons. Case in point, Obama’s “witness” last year at Saddleback Church.
Again, unless it is proven the activity is criminal, it is our RIGHT to worship freely. Unless you are into limiting that.
If I were the father who believed in an orthodox gospel and knew the mother was into magic mushroom “Christianity” I’d do all I could to get the daughter to a less insane situation. If I was too poor for a private school I’d choose the least scandalous public institution possible.
Then maybe, as a dad, you shouldn’t have messed up your marriage to begin with. Already been hashed through.
OOH... even more funny, calling a public school the least scandalous option... oh my gosh, cracking me up. I should go back to bed, darn insomnia.
Quite the joke, that doing wrong in the past (if indeed the chief wrongdoing wasn’t on the part of the missus — note the judge favored the dad) precludes one from doing right in the present and future.
You might learn to read some day.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
This appears to be a pretty open and blatant statement that the purpose of the order is to alter the religious viewpoints of the child. As such, it is completely unconstitutional.
Leave New Hampshire.
With or without a court order prohibiting her from leaving the state with the child, there is an Interstate Compact agreed to by all 50 states that requires that orders regarding custody and details of same be honored in all the other states. This case is one that suggests that we begin depriving courts of much of their jurisdiction over such matters. One more area where our rights of appeal are only to God Himself from the doings of a court system absolutely run amok.
“All they want to hear is that the wife is to be subservient and do everything he wishes.”
Umm, excuse me.
While it is true that all libtards are vile scoundrels, it is not true that all men are libtards.
Without needlessly fancy and obscure legal definition, the principle of laches essentially means: If you have rights but do not assert them for a very long time, you lose those rights.
In this case, the father may well have had some sort of legitimate claim to assert that he preferred gummint skeweling for his daughter. That I personally cannot imagine an excuse that would justify gummint skeweling is irrelevant. She is his kid and her mom's kid and not my kid. And not the judge's kid either. It is conceded by the "marital master" that this young lady is well-adjusted and doing very well academically and otherwise. This is not some strange cult situation where Mom is locking the daighter in the basement. Indeed (although not at all necessary) she sends the young lady to gummint skewels for "supplemental classes" in subjects which Mom probably does not feel a sense of confidence teaching. The young lady has been thriving in homeschooling for about five years and likely more. Dad did nothing to change the arrangements until now. What he proposes is to fix something that is not broken for whatever reason of his own of whatever validity.
I think Dad should bear a heavier burden, at least, for sitting on his rights all those years and only now going to court to upset his daughter's applecart. The young lady is also reaching an age where her views ought to be taken into consideration (not obeyed but simply given consideration).
The young lady is also NOT the "marital master's" kid.
Granted that we are only hearing from Mom's attorney and there may well be another side to this story, no one seems to deny that the child has thrived under the status quo. In a secular court, it does not particularly matter what anyone thinks Scripture has to say. Scripture is not binding on secular courts nor should it be. Ours is not a sectarian society. However, it also does not matter that the "marital master" thinks the young lady's views overly rigid in matters religious. It is simply NONE of his bidness.
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.