VT Christian Homeschooling Mom Taken Away In Shackles!

Source: The Curmudgeon: A Vermont Newsletter (reprint permission is hereby granted by the publisher to any and all other news agencies and their readers or viewers)

On Wednesday, October 16, Patricia L. O'Dell, 34, of S. Newfane, was arrested at 3:05 pm at the Bennington District Court in Bennington, Vermont for contempt of court. Mrs. O'Dell had been cited into court yesterday morning for refusing to submit to fingerprinting and a photograph for police files.

Mrs. O'Dell was ordered to submit to this procedure on October 7 at another arraignment hearing for 'custodial interference' and 'impeding an officer' as part of her release conditions. That condition involved Mrs. O'Dell going to the Bennington police station within 5 days of her release. On the following Friday, October 11, four days later, Mrs. O'Dell contacted U.S. Attorney Brian Marthage in Bennington through an advocate to inform him she wished to turn herself in because she was still refusing to have the prints and photos taken. Marthage informed the advocate that the courts are closed over the weekend and according to his calculations the fifth day would be Monday, October 14. Mrs. O'Dell waited the weekend and all day Monday until 5 pm. On the morning of October 15 she arrived at the police station to turn herself in and still refused to submit to the fingerprinting and photograph. She was promptly given a citation to appear in District Court the following morning at 11:30 am.

Mrs. O'Dell arrived at District Court at 11:30 am and was told her case had been moved to 12:30 pm. Mrs. O'Dell was finally called into the court room at approximately 2:30 pm where she represented herself and entered a plea of 'not guilty' to the charge. When questioned by Judge Howard about her refusal to submit to being photographed and fingerprinted Mrs. O'Dell informed him she believes a person is innocent until proven guilty and the procedure violates her rights. After hearing testimony from the prosecutor who expressed his concern for Mrs. O'Dell's ongoing contempt and that she basically "holds the keys to her own jail cell", Judge David Howard ordered a 'show cause' hearing be scheduled for the following week. Mrs. O'Dell was then released and presented with the conditions which she was expected to sign. Upon reading the conditions Mrs. O'Dell found difficulty in agreeing with the requirement that she abide by Family Court orders. One such order is that she turn over her 15 year old homeschooling son to state custody. Mrs. O'Dell refuses to do that because she feels strongly that it would compromise her religious beliefs and her son's Christian education. She also fears he would be subjected to abuse in the hands of SRS (Social Rehabilitative Services).

Upon Mrs. O'Dell's final refusal and a warning from the deputy sheriff that she would be taken into custody if she did not sign, she was quickly escorted from the court lobby to a small holding room where she was searched and relieved of her wrist watch and wedding band. She was place in hand cuffs attached to a leather belt around her waist and her ankles were secured with cuffs and a length of metal chain. These were placed on her to prepare her for transport by the Bennington County Sheriff's department to the Chittenden Regional Corrections Facility at 7 Farrell Street in South Burlington, Vermont.

It was brought to the attention of the attending sheriffs that they needed to take special care with Mrs. O'Dell's right wrist and hand which were wrapped in a support bandage. Mrs. O'Dell says this injury was a result of state trooper Jesse Robson's actions on Friday, September 13 when he tackled Mrs. O'Dell to the ground at the home of Mrs. Pat Stewart on Rocky Lane. Mrs. Stewart is Mrs. O'Dell's mother. Robson allegedly then placed his knee in Mrs. O'Dell's back and cuffed her hands behind her back. Officer Robson then tightened his grip on her arm while twisting it in an attempt to prevent her from shouting to her family members to not let the other officers into her mother's home without a search warrant, according to Mrs. O'Dell. Robson was there that day with several other officers to take Mrs. O'Dell's four children into state custody for what he describes in his affidavit as "The basis for the children being taken into custody was educational neglect."

Mrs. O'Dell also accused Officer Robson of pulling her by the hair and squeezing her face with his hand at the time of this incident. When Mrs. O'Dell was taken into custody she claims she was never read her Miranda rights although Robson questioned her extensively and alone in the cruiser and at the Shaftsbury barracks. She says she also suspects the reason why she was not photographed when she was first arrested was because Robson left marks on her face and those marks would have shown up in the photograph. Robson was unable to take Mrs. O'Dell's fingerprints because she was suffering pain from Robson's alleged abuse that caused injury to her right hand and wrist.

Mrs. O'Dell sought medical treatment at the Southwestern Vermont Medical Center at around 12:20 am once SRS took possession of her three daughter and she was released from custody. Her arm was wrapped and placed in a sling by attending physician Dr. G. Pellerin. According to the medical report Mrs. O'Dell had a hand injury, sprained wrist and contusions. On Saturday, October 14 a highly visible thumb size contusion could be seen on Mrs. O'Dell's upper inside left arm where she alleges Robson grabbed her. The marks on her face were no longer noticeable.

Besides the alleged abuse by Officer Robson there is a huge discrepancy in the times of the arrival of the police officers and the time the search warrant was signed. According to Officer Robson and Sergeant Lloyd N. Dean, another state police officer at the scene, they arrived at approximately 4:15 or 4:39 pm. The search warrant was not signed by Judge Howard until 6:35 pm. This would show the officers entered onto the Stewart property without the proper warrant. According to Mrs. O'Dell's family members the officers were told more than once they needed a search warrant to enter the property. It was decided by Dean that he would leave to obtain the search warrant. Family members also say the back door to the kitchen was kicked in by two officers just prior to anyone actually being handed the search warrant. The search warrant specifically says "This warrant may (not) be executed without knocking and announcing the presence of law enforcement officers and their purpose." Neither the word 'may' or 'not' were either circled, underlined or crossed out. The requirement for the serving officer to knock and announce is a federal law.

Prior to Dean obtaining the search warrant O'Dell's youngest daughter, Elizabeth, age 8, was chased screaming through the wooded lot near the Stewart home for some distance before she "just disappeared", as her mother stated. This was of great concern to both Mr. and Mrs. O'Dell because just that morning Mr. O'Dell had been squirrel hunting in that same wooded area and he warned his wife to not let the children play in them for fear of them getting shot by hunters he saw there. Mrs. O'Dell says she was terrified for her daughter's safety because the five police officers who were chasing her were showing little, if any, regard for the hunting taking place in those woods.

The O'Dell family has been living in their car, in motels and have camped out in warmer weather since they lost their West Haven, Vermont home to a fire in December 2000 just three days after Christmas. The family is not entirely homeless though. With the insurance money from their destroyed home they purchased a one acre lot located on Hunter Brook Road in South Newfane in the fall of 2001. They also purchased a second hand mobile home from a woman in Shaftsbury to place onto their new lot. This mobile home was well kept and within the O'Dell's budget. The previous owner was happy to have the mobile home taken off her hands because she needed it removed in order to replace it with her new one.

Patricia found a company in New Hampshire willing to transport the mobile home to S. Newfane for a fee of $950.00 but the company had difficulty getting the home onto the lot. The mobile home continues to sit at the end of the O'Dell's driveway where it was left in the late fall of 2001. Plans are underway to connect the mobile home with the property by a group of concerned citizens who have taken the initiative to get the project done at no cost to the O'Dell family. The goal is to get the mobile home installed by Thanksgiving so the O'Dell's will once again be able to live in comfort and together as a family.

The O'Dell family purchased their S. Newfane lot as is meaning they had to remove the dilapidated mobile home and addition that was already on the property. These structures had been empty for several years and had been vandalized. There was also an abandoned car on the lot that needed to be hauled away. The O'Dell family went to work and dismantled both structures leaving huge piles of materials they intended to recycle into small structures for their pets and livestock. Mrs. O'Dell's goat would provide her with fresh milk since she was unable to tolerate cow's milk and the family would have fresh eggs and meat from their flock of chickens.

Unfortunately, a few members of the S. Newfane community decided to intervene in the O'Dell's plans and progress. According to a Newfane selectboard meeting on January 1, 2002, line 7B, item #4 a "motion was made by R. Marek and seconded by F. Bacon to have the Town Constable and the Windham County Sheriff's Department work together to file the necessary paper work to bring charges of cruelty and abuse against Patricia O'Dell and to have the animals removed from Ms. O'Dell's control. Unanimous. The Windham County Humane Society has home for all of the animals; dogs, cats, chickens and a goat."

While the O'Dell's were working to prepare there property and establish their new home they were living temporarily in a homeless shelter in Bennington. They traveled the distance of 38 miles each day to there secluded wooded lot located on a dirt road to feed and care for their animals they had built temporary shelter for. Since they were not allowed to have pets or livestock at the shelter they felt it best the animals remain on their new land. Apparently town officials were entering the O'Dell property without authority or permission to do so according to Mrs. O'Dell. At some point those authorities, without a search warrant and without warning simply removed the O'Dell's animals from their property when the O'Dell's were away.

According to another Newfane selectboard meeting on February, 7, 2002, line 7B, item #2 "R. Marek questioned what may happen if the amount due to the Windham County Humane Society if the alleged owner of the animals, Patricia O'Dell, does not pay for the housing and other services provided by the WCHS. Suggestions were made but no conclusions were reached at this time." According to Mrs. O'Dell her animals were never abused or neglected and the town had no right to enter her property illegally and seize her animals. She has since acquired the paperwork from federal court and plans to file a 'Notice of Claim' against the Newfane Town Selectboard, the Town Constable, the Windham County Sheriff's Department and the Windham County Humane Society for $10,000,000.00 and she fully intends to send the town a bill for the value of her animals.

A work crew will arrive at the O'Dell property in S. Newfane on Saturday, October 19 at 8:00 am to remove the unwanted materials and metal framing from the old mobile home. The old car will also be towed away along with remnants of the dismantled addition. Once this is done the new mobile home can be pulled up to the lot and set into place. The plumbing, water and electric will eventually be reestablished. This work is being done by volunteers from Vermont, New York, New Hampshire and Massachusetts who will donate their time, money and materials for the project at no cost to the O'Dell family. These volunteers include former homeless people, home educators, politicians, ministers, off-duty police officers, mothers, fathers, teenagers, youngsters, contractors, veterans and others. According to one of the organizers the work crew is not a formal organization but are a group of caring, concerned citizens who have seen the need to assist a family that is struggling to stay together and improve themselves. They welcome anyone who wishes to join them in this effort by simply showing up at the property this coming Saturday. They also want the media to know they are welcome as well.

According to first hand accounts SRS is using the O'Dell's homeless situation as an excuse to keep the children in their custody. SRS is also acting on an order from the Vermont Department of Education for a charge of 'educational neglect' stemming from a Home Study Hearing held November 20, 2001 for Patricia O'Dell. According to written documentation surrounding this hearing Mrs. O'Dell established her right as a Christian home educator to homeschool her children without state or local interference and that she was providing her children with more than a minimum course of study as required by state regulations. According to documentation several state witnesses accused Mrs. O'Dell of having 'standards' and expectations that were too high for her children.

When Mrs. O'Dell first began to homeschool her children she received what some might call 'approval' from the Vermont Department of Education's Home Study Consultant Natalie Casco. According to law, however, 'approval' is not needed to homeschool in Vermont, nor are there any qualifications necessary to homeschool your children. Mrs. O'Dell is a homemaker and has a high school diploma from Mt. Anthony Union High School in Bennington. Mr. O'Dell dropped out of school in the eleventh grade and is on disability for a physical problem. A parent wishing to homeschool their child need only send in an 'enrollment notification' along with a course of study covering the six basic topics and proof of screening showing the child has no impairments. A child is automatically enrolled at that time but the state can call a hearing to determine whether or not the application is complete. The key word here is 'notification'.

The state statute also reads "a person having the control of a child between the ages of six and sixteen shall cause the child to attend an approved public school, an approved recognized independent school or a home study program for the full number of days for which that school is held...." The key word here appears to be 'a' home study program, not the VT DOE's home study program. Mrs. O'Dell states that her children attend their homeschool 365 days a year. They have never been tardy or absent, since they can homeschool anywhere, anytime, even when they are with relatives or friends. In public school her children were accused by staff members as having behavior problems. In their homeschool Mrs. O'Dell says the behavior of her children is not a problem for her.

Mrs. O'Dell's children appear to be happy, healthy, normal, rambunctious children who enjoy their freedom to choose what they like to learn and learn best in the loving, secure, Christian environment that Mrs. O'Dell provides for them. They use few workbooks and almost no text books. The use reading books including classic stories and do many hands-on learning which Mrs. O'Dell says works best for all her children. Mrs. O'Dell finds little need for testing because she can see their day to day progress since she lives with them. When the need arises to concentrate more on a subject or area of interest Mrs. O'Dell takes the time to do that and will give that particular child more attention than the others. The children learn from each other as well, helping each other with reading, math or chores.

When Mrs. O'Dell feels the need for support or assistance she calls on several others in her homeschooling community for help. Because of the lack of funding and their homelessness that community has come forward and established a fund for the O'Dell children at A Teacher's Closet in downtown Rutland, a teaching/learning material supply store. The O'Dell children were all provided with book bags filled with materials, supplies and books that can be used anywhere they may be including in the car, at a campsite or in a motel. Mrs. O'Dell says that due to the lack of education on the part of the public school system she has had to do much remedial work with her three older children. Her youngest had never been to public school until SRS intervened by taking the children. SRS with the VT DOE's blessings have place Mrs. O'Dell's three youngest children into public school against her wishes. Her oldest son, Andrew, is presently not in the physical custody of SRS.

Since the taking the children by SRS from Mrs. O'Dell's custody on September 13 she has discovered her three daughters have been subjected to blood tests, physical examinations, x-rays, psychological testing, and counseling, all against their will and hers. Both she and the girls have been denied their right to freely exercise their religion and SRS is withholding the affections of Mrs. O'Dell from her daughters as a tool to get the children to cooperate with them. Mrs. O'Dell was only allowed two one-hour supervised visits with her daughters each week until her arrest yesterday. Now her children will not be able to see her at all while she sits and waits in the S. Burlington prison.

Mrs. O'Dell says the first year Natalie Casco 'approved' her homeschooling they made her agree to keep two of her children in special education classes at the local school. However, Mrs. O'Dell found this burdensome and her children were being abused and bullied whenever they were on school property, sometimes even by the teachers in charge of their care and well-being. At other times the teachers themselves would actually do the work for the O'Dell children just to show they were making progress under their tutelage.

The second year Mrs. O'Dell homeschooled she chose to withdraw her children from special education classes, which is her prerogative according to the VT Supreme Court ruling in the Karen Maple case (May 2000). After much research and discussion with other homeschoolers Mrs. O'Dell also sights the 1920's Education Trilogy (Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Farrington v. Tokushige as well as Wisconsin v. Yoder in 1972) as supporting her constitutional right to homeschool and to provide a Christian education for her children. Things were fine in her W. Haven home and the local school didn't really bother her until her home burned to the ground just after Christmas. Within two months of the fire and with no place to live the Fair Haven Elementary School principal, Gloria Moulton, began pursuing the O'Dell family with the threat of SRS intervention. According to Mrs. O'Dell the harassment and persecution continues to this day. Mrs. O'Dell's present incarceration for pursuing a Christian home education for her four children appears to attest to that fact.

Evening all! :)

I hope you don't mind me just jumping in here but it is purported to be "educational neglect." Rather a vague accusation, don't you think?

We have had five children, and we Home Educated them from conception onwards. We did this at a time when Home Educating was not at all popular (our oldest will be 26 in January), and the few people who were nosey enough to presume to tell us our business left us with the *distinct* impression that if we wished to Home Educate our children in peace, we should do so quietly and without any fanfare.

Well, it worked! :)

Our youngest child (the only one still at home now) got her High School Diploma via a government sanctioned correspondence course, and passed with a 97.1% grade average last November. That was nearly a year ago now, and she was barely 13 at the time.

Other than during the course required for the acquisition of a High School Diploma, we have never permitted our children to be evaluated by anyone scholastically. We also used the "Unschooling" approach to learning, which is a pretty laid back but hands on and thorough way to teach your kids.

Our youngest is this year concentrating on her writing career (she is a published poet already), and she is also working on her vocal and instrumental talents, since she feels she may want to also work in the music industry more fully. Right now she participates in our family's Christian band since we perform Christian Family Concerts for several weeks each year.

She has also committed to becoming fluent in French this year. She likes "projects" to work on, and hopes to spend some more time in Europe when she is 18+. That's the reason for the French. She plans to learn one language a year, and we have provided her with the means to do that via internet software, and the occasional bit of assistance here and there when she *asks* for it. ;)

Of course, being the children of missionaries, our kids have all seen much of the world already, but that's with us. Somehow they all seem to like it better when they get old enough to branch out on their own, - as it should be.

My point in all of this is that we have beautiful, intelligent and well educated children, who are (for the most part) making the most of the gifts they've each been given in life. We are very grateful to have had the time with them that we did.

Still, we have just shy of four years yet before our youngest is 18, and she has so many really productive plans for the next four years it makes my head spin! LOL!

I pay no attention to the naysayers when it comes to Home Education. After all, - it was good enough for Jesus Christ, and it most certainly hasn't hurt our children any.

FWIW, - Anij

"Patricia O'Dell is listed as the sole instructor for the home study program. During the years that your children attended public school, public school staff observed that Mrs. O'Dell was limited in her own abilities to read and write. In addition, the home study curricula that Mrs. O'Dell submitted for the 2000-2001 school year were replete with spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors. Accordingly, I have a significant doubt as to your ability to provide instruction in a minimum course of study, as defined in 16 V.S.A. Section 906."

Looks like good evidence of her inability to homeschool was willingly handed over. O'Dell is listed as the sole instructor, so she is the best the kids would have to learn from.

She also has some strange ideas about high school diplomas.

Patricia also ripped them about the high school diploma that she received from Mt. Anthony Union High School. If she is so stupid then why did they give her a diploma. She was under the impression she was smart enough for them to give her the diploma but if they think she's too stupid to homeschool with only a high school diploma then evidently they failed in teaching her anything. Patricia questioned them about the requirements for a parent to homeschool their own children. There are none. A parent doesn't even need a high school diploma in Vermont to homeschool their children.

Amen to that!

Mrs. O'Dell is NOT illiterate. She has a high school diploma from the public high school in Bennington, Vermont (Mt. Anthony Union High School) and her husband didn't drop out until after 11th grade.

Mrs. O'Dell's children were taken BEFORE she was expected to give up her fingerprints and be photographed. Mrs. O'Dell was arrested and questioned extensively but was never read her Miranda rights. The police NEVER had a search warrant when they first arrived and took the youngest child.

No one in the state of Vermont can show me the law which Mrs. O'Dell broke concerning the so-called charge of 'educational neglect'--not even the VT DOE. Mrs. O'Dell has not been charged with truancy, abuse or neglect.

It took ABC/22 TV station in Burlington, Vermont, SIX days to get into the jail to interview Mrs. O'Dell. After placing several phone calls to state senators and getting the run-around from the jail since October 17, ABC/22 was finally told they could see Mrs. O'Dell for 45 minutes today (Oct.22).

Mrs. O'Dell's mother, Mrs. Stewart, finally heard from Mrs. O'Dell in jail on Monday, Oct. 21 for the first time since her arrest. Mrs. Stewart was informed by her daughter that she is still wearing the same clothes she was arrested in and the jail refuses to give her any clean clothing or hygiene items. Nice bunch of people!

The state of Vermont took Mrs. O'Dell's children, half her income (since now she must pay child support to the state) and prevented her from establishing her new home after her other home was completely destroyed by fire. Nothing like kicking someone when they are down and out.

Mrs. O'Dell's troubles with the schools in Vermont started when she took her four children out and depleted the school's budget by over $20,000.00. Mrs. O'Dell also sent the schools a letter withdrawing her permission for the schools to collect Medicaid funding for her children, thus shutting off the cash flow to the school in both directions.

Mrs. O'Dell was legally enrolled in the state's home study program for the three years prior to her arrest. All of sudden the state DOE has declared her 'unfit' to homeschool her children. Why now? Because she bucked the system, that's why.

Now that the state has taken back Mrs. O'Dell's children they are once again collecting the $20,000.00 that comes with them. Quite possibly 'double-dipping' into Medicaid funds as well since that is a popular procedure among Vermont's public schools. The VT DOE and the public school did the same thing to Karen Maple and she was eventually exonerated by the VT Supreme Court in May 2000.

"The nutcase stories are the ones the leftists drag out and prop up as examples of what they are dealing with."

This is a good point because the school and state officials have put up a 'wall of silence' on this one so that Mrs. O'Dell's story WON'T get out. They know Mrs. O'Dell's constitutional and God-given rights have been violated all over the place.

One small article appeared in the Bennington Banner on Thursday, October 17 by John Lemay. It took ABC/22 TV in Burlington, VT, 6 days to finally get into the jail to interview Mrs. O'Dell and only after they pressured the jail to let them in.

Looks like good evidence of her inability to homeschool was willingly handed over. O'Dell is listed as the sole instructor, so she is the best the kids would have to learn from. She also has some strange ideas about high school diplomas.

Who is to judge her ability to homeschool? The state!? Who granted the state the authority to determine if Mrs. O'Dell has the ability to homeschool her own children? Where did that power come from?

Let's review - maybe it will sink in this time:

The legitimate powers and authority of the state are delegated to the state by the people. Therefore, all powers and authority assumed by the state that were not explicitly delegated to it by the people are illegitimate. Illegitimate power is another way of saying tyranny.

Now, in order for the people to delegate a power or authority to the state the people must first possess that power or authority. Our Republic is founded upon the principle of individual, inalienable rights granted to each person by his Creator. From those rights an individual derives certain powers and authority over himself, his family, and his property. For example, the inalienable right to be free grants the individual the right to protect his freedom. The inalienable right to enjoy the fruits of his own labor grants the individual the power to protect his property and to hold authority over it. The inalienable right to life grants the individual the power to protect his life.

This individual power and authority extends only to one's self or to one's family. And individual does not legitimately possess the power or authority over someone else, their property, or their family. For example, if you had a neighbor whom you felt was an inadequate home educator you do not possess the legitimate power or authority to take that neighbor's children away and educate them differently.

If an individual does not possess a certain power or authority, they cannot delegate that power to the state. Again, if you individually do not possess the legitimate power or authority to take an errant neighbor's homeschooled children away you cannot delegate that power to the state.

So, I ask again, where did the state get the power that you so readily endorse? Where did they get the authority to determine if Mrs. O'Dell has the ability to home educate her children? Where did they get the power to remove the children if they made the determination that she couldn't? If they state did not always possess that power, at what point did they assume that power? How was it possible for them to assume that power? And, to pre-empt one of your obvious arguments, what political philosophy or idealogy holds that the needs of the state or of the society outweigh the rights of the individual?

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.