I don’t know all the details about this case, either. But, in disputes between two divorced parents - or even between two parents who were never married - the courts tend to rule in favor of public school, no matter how much evidence the homeschooling parent presents. This case made the news because of the religion angle. But, most cases don’t make the news. And HSLDA won’t represent a homeschooling parent in a divorce case.
Two of you are treating this case as if it’s a “father’s rights” case. But, if the story had been reversed, and the father had primary custody and was homeschooling, while the mother was fighting to put the child in school, and the judge ruled to put the child in school, how would the father’s rights crowd here react, I wonder?
Once in awhile, maybe a homeschooling parent might win the right to continue with homeschooling. But, ask yourselves: Why do we never hear of cases where a judge has ordered children to stop attending public school and begin homeschooling? There are some dangerous schools out there, with drugs, gang activity, etc., yet I’m not aware of a case where a judge ordered parents to stop sending their children to a dangerous school.
I can find no further details on this case, but it’s not a father’s rights case. It’s just another run-of-the-mill anti-homeschooling case. And, as ican’tbelieveit pointed out, this ruling might’ve violated one parent’s and the daughter’s rights to freedom of religion.
If the father is systematically destroying the relationship with the mother I would support the mother.
Wrong.
I'm treating this as a child custody dispute where one parent wants what they think is best for the child and another parent wants what they think is best for the child and they are both acting like children and can't come to a reasonable agreement so the court has to step in and cut the child in half. I believe Wmfights is making the same point.
This has nothing to do with the father's rights versus the mother's rights. It has to do with the fact that neither the father or the mother are willing to compromise and this forces the courts to make the decision for them. In this case the court ruled in favor of the father. Usually when a judge makes usch a ruling that makes the other party more flexible and they can then work out a deal, if they are so inclined.
Instead the mother chose to drag in outside parties and the news media and make a federal case out of it.
This tells me that the court probably made the right ruling and if the court had suggested resolving the case by slicing the child in two, the mother would have preferred that method to allowing the father to get his way.