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.
YES!
And the poor child is caught in the middle.
I think the mother HAS compromised. She homeschools her in part and sends her to public school in part. How is sending her to public school FULL time a compromise for the father?
As I said in my post, in these divorce/custody dispute cases, the courts always tend to rule in favor of public school. This is just another anti-homeschooling ruling, except that this ruling might be found to be in violation of the mother's and daughter's religious rights.
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.
Nonsense! As Christianhomeschoolmommaof3 pointed out, the girl is in public school part-time and homeschooled part-time. That IS a compromise.