It is obvious that you don't "give a hoot" about the education of these children. You're more concerned that they and their mother act as proper subjects do.
She's not capable and the kids will show it later. That's her right and, in spite of the state, it will be done.
Who say's she's not capable? What proof do you have beyond an agent of the state's accusation that she misspelled some words and made some grammatical errors in her own, personal curriculum plan for her children? And, again, where did the state get its authority to judge whether she is "capable" or not (which is entirely subjective) of teaching her own children?
The state promised the taxpayers to educate every child and they are taxed accordingly. Right or wrong, that is where the state derives it's obligation to intervene.
So, in your opinion, the state derives its powers and authority, not from those delegated to it by the people, but instead through the state's ability to force the people to pay the taxes required to fund the state's "promised" activities. And that further authority is derived so as to ensure that the confiscated money is spent in the most practical way.
The laws are on the books, O'Dell did not adhere to them in several instances.
What law did she break in regards to educating her children? Show me the law. She, and her so called advocate, tried every trick in the book. "Christian homeschooler with burned house taken away in shackles" Gee that's a pity but can the kids pass a proficiency test for their respective ages? If they could, none of this would be happening.
No, you would prefer "Evil, illiterate, white trash, abusive homeschooler burns own house down, fights police, and is properly shackled to protect the agents of the state." As for the proficiency test - what proficiency test did they fail? Who administered the test? By what authority did they administer that test or set the standards upon which Mrs. O'Dell's children would be judged? What happens if a student of the socialist schools failed the same proficiency test - would the state shackle the teachers and administrators and forcefully remove the student from the institution and place him into a home school?
Be prepared to meet these kids while they spend a lifetime working at the various car washes in Vermont. Evidently, that's what she wants for them, it's her right.
As I've said before, I'd rather raise a god-fearing, patriotic, righteous son who is a good father to his children and good husband to his wife who earns a living as a car washer than a god-hating (or disbelieving), un-American, immoral jerk who spawns a broken family but who is a college-degreed, highly-paid executive. And who are you or the state to say or want otherwise for my children or Mrs. O'Dell's?
Again, your primary argument is that the needs and "promises" of the state outweigh the rights of the individual. You're saying that it doesn't matter that the state illegitimately assumed power and authority as long as it serves the common good (like preventing children from the hell of growing up to be car washers in Vermont) and that, in your mind, it is justified.