I've adopted no one. I'm simply disagreeing with yours and RGSpincich's premise that the state has ultimate responsibility over everyone's children. HSLDA won't even tough Mrs. O'Dell's case, apparently. I admit there are other issues here that have lead to her situation and things she could have done to better deal with her legal problems. However, that does not excuse the abuses by the state nor your endorsement of those abuses.
HSLDA has taken alot of criticism for not taking cases but usually it doesn't have much to do with the circumstances or the case but whether or not the person was a member.
The mistake made here was sending the children to school in the first place. Once your kids are in the system, taking them out of the system generates a red flag.
My daughter doesn't have a social security number though every "professional" I came in contact with tried to convince me to sell her down the river. With advice like that, its no wonder this country is so far down the socialist path.
Specifically, Cindy Wade is the largest problem facing the O'Dells. Where are the fathers? Two of the children are from previous relationships (or so it seems) and no mention of them taking their kids. Maybe the charge that the state took the kids is bogus.
In case you were wondering what the HSLDA people were saying about the case. They recognize Ms. Wade's complicity in O'Dell's problems.
From: "Tim Terhune"
Date: Mon Oct 21, 2002 2:53 pm
Subject: O'Dell family and legal advise
Re. your post on VT-homeschooling O'Dell family Monday, October 21, 2002 7:38 AM.
Dear Cindy,
Though you may not be comforted in this, it appears we may have found common ground with the statement Marieken made that:
"People should take care whose advice they follow when dealing with the court system."
I would add that in my opinion no homeschooler should even think about managing a hearing called by the DOE against a home study program without a lawyer.
I apologize to the readers for being unclear in an earlier post where I lead some to believe that homeschoolers were not allowed to have a lawyer at DOE hearings. What I was intending to communicate was that in Juvenile Court, the court will provide for the parent (or defendant) to have a lawyer if they don’t have their own or cannot afford one, to ensure that the legal interests of the parent are protected. At a DOE hearing you can have a lawyer if you can find one and can afford it, but there is no assistance by the system to protect (ie court appointed lawyer) the parent’s legal interests.
This is why I urge families to become HSLDA members before they get into a jam with the state. Even if you never envision needing their assistance, your membership helps to defray the expenses assisting other families in Vermont and elsewhere.
Cindy, you are without doubt the principle conduit for information regarding the O’Dells situation and for seeking to help their family. For that I would like to thank you and commend you for your dedication and sacrifice.
My concern is for those who read your reports that might not know which half of the information you report is factual and which is “spin” or outright falsehood.
I appreciate that you quoted the troopers reports identifying “educational neglect” as among the issues leading to the apprehension of the O’Dells children. Nevertheless, this does not make this a homeschooling issue. Just because someone does not have their children in public or private school does not automatically make them homeschooling by default.
I will not suggest what Patricia is guilty of or what constitutional law she broke as you demand. However I can say that by your own evidence she had her right to homeschool terminated when the DOE called her to her second home study hearing last year. As far as I know she did not appeal that decision. Now maybe she was homeschooling and maybe she wasn’t, but legally she was disallowed from homeschooling and I’d think that pretty well sets the legal stage. In addition, you told me information that I will not divulge on this list that affirms to me that there is no “evidence” that the O’Dells were homeschooling.
You were her advocate then as now. Why didn’t you inform Patricia of the importance of appealing the hearing officer’s ruling to the Supreme Court? You knew from your experience with Karen Maple that that is the route to take if you think you are justified in opposing the hearing officer's ruling. Ignoring the “wheels of justice” when one doesn’t agree with their direction is to invite getting steamrolled, which is what is happening now to Patricia.
Cindy, you report that, “Patricia is in jail for refusing to be fingerprinted and photographed… Obviously what Patricia is doing is called civil disobedience.” Very well if that is something you want to champion, but don’t call that being in jail for homeschooling.
You also wrote, “Parker was paid by HSLDA only after Patricia was asked to sign up as a member and someone else paid her $100 membership fee.” It is my knowlege that Parker was NOT paid by HSLDA for work performed on Patricia’s behalf. Furthermore, Parker agreeing to assist Patricia had nothing to do with membership with HSLDA. If you are right, then there are some serious financial deceptions going on. If I am right, you are treading on a bunch of lawyers toes that if they cared could probably sue you for the misinformation you are spreading. And who’s business is it anyway who paid for what.
Eric Parker did a great work for Patricia in averting her first hearing with the state. Everyone involved to my knowledge thought the agreement arranged to settle between Patricia and the DOE was fair and reasonable. Yet Patricia failed to keep her end of the simple agreement to have her children assessed.
I would highly recommend Eric Parker to any homeschooler who finds themselves being persued by the state. Unfortunately he does not have a $100. a year membership program to defray his costs as HSLDA does. With the added liability of some homeschooler spreading untruth about them when out of graciousness they lend their assistance, I would doubt he would ever care to be involved in a homeschooling case again.
Vermont homeschoolers ARE experiencing an escalation of confrontation with the DOE. I do not feel at liberty to disclose details, but the DOE is working to expand it's control over homeschoolers. Homeschoolers who never had a problems before with the DOE have been called to hearings this year. This year the DOE has invaded homeschoolers privacies by directly contacting the handicap screening professionals for new homeschool enrollees and phoned the teachers doing end-of-year assessments without the parents consent or knowlege.
HSLDA is continuing to assist member families in Vermont who are experiencing the abuses of the DOE. That is what they are there for. If they freely came to assist every family that got into trouble whether they were members or not, guess what, no one would become members and their help would be unavailable to most homeschoolers.
HSLDA’s intervention in the Maple case was key in my opinion to persuading the Supreme Court to rule favorably on behalf of homeschoolers. I for one am comforted to know that an HSLDA member family who has a dispute over their enrollment can afford to stand upon the statutes, the constitutions and their convictions against the continuing encroachments by the DOE of violations of the law.
Sincerely,
Tim.