"Too Religious for Homeschooling"

[Mellybug]

Stunned. I just saw this on the news. Basically it is a custody/religious issue but I'm amazed that a judge would say (per the lawyer in the interview) that the child in quesiont "..Amanda reflected her mother's rigidity on matters of faith and because of that rigidity she needed to be ordered into government run schools". This case is to be heard by the NH Supreme Court and I'm interested to see what comes of it. If the judge really gave the reasoning he did for his decision I don't see how this can be said to ONLY be a custodial issue. If he did say it, it really seems to be a constitutional violation. News Clip Here

[nicolasconnault]

Stunned. I just saw this on the news. Basically it is a custody/religious issue but I'm amazed that a judge would say (per the lawyer in the interview) that the child in quesiont "..Amanda reflected her mother's rigidity on matters of faith and because of that rigidity she needed to be ordered into government run schools". This case is to be heard by the NH Supreme Court and I'm interested to see what comes of it. If the judge really gave the reasoning he did for his decision I don't see how this can be said to ONLY be a custodial issue. If he did say it, it really seems to be a constitutional violation. News Clip Here

Wow. I plan to homeschool my children. I'm glad I'll be doing this in Australia rather than in the USA! This definitely sounds anti-constitutional to me.

[Jaybear]

Wow. I plan to homeschool my children. I'm glad I'll be doing this in Australia rather than in the USA! This definitely sounds anti-constitutional to me.

If you have two divorced parents with joint custody, and they don't agree the child should be home schooled, you send the child to public school.

Are you saying that in Australia, a child can be homeschooled over the objection of a parent with joint custody.

[Jeff K.]

The judge based his decision on the perception of religion, which makes it unconsittutional. If he gave clear unequivocal evidence that the isolation would be harmful, or perhaps that the education was insufficient and the child was behind, there would be legitimate reasons for instructing the girl to go to school. But by making religion the issue, the judge purposely walked upon contstitutional grounds which I believe he will lose.

[Mellybug]

Jaybear, generally speaking, 'joint custody' is rarely fully joint. If the child resides with the mother then she, as the primary decision maker/custodial parent, gets to make the decisions regarding schooling, religion, which Dr. is to be her primary care and so forth. That is a completely different issue and while the details vary from family to family that is where most start out. The problem here is if the Judge really gave the reasoning he did, then he has overstepped his bounds with regard to interfering with the mother's right to practice her religion and raise her child in it. I haven't read the actual case so obviously I don't know if the father has a different faith and the Judge is trying to give some equality to the father in letting the child be exposed to his religion too. Even so, if that is the case, his approach is one I can't see as constitutional, and the precedent it would set along with the implications of it are especially not so.

As far as I can tell, a judge has no place or right to rule in any way on a person's 'rigidity on matters of faith' and use that as a basis for legal decisions which interfere with a parents rights to raising their children and practicing their religion (part of which practice is raising your children in your belief system). It is unconstitutional.

[frankenstein]

ehh, never trust a lawyer on fox news, wait for the Judges words to be published.

this is definitely a time for the full quote and context.

[Jaybear]

The judge based his decision on the perception of religion, which makes it unconsittutional. If he gave clear unequivocal evidence that the isolation would be harmful, or perhaps that the education was insufficient and the child was behind, there would be legitimate reasons for instructing the girl to go to school. But by making religion the issue, the judge purposely walked upon contstitutional grounds which I believe he will lose.

Have you actually read the ruling? I would caution agaisnt reaching any conclusions based on what was presented on Fox News.

Here is what the father says:

Martin Kurowski, Amanda

[frankenstein]

dads brief here

mothers brief here

audio link to NH Supreme Court here

I wonder if they are LDS, because listening to the oral argument "being with each other for eternity" came up as part of the religious beliefs.

[Mellybug]

Jaybear,

The isolation issues and 'social' well-being of his child are definitely of concern. I'm not arguing that and I am looking forward to seeing the proceedings if they become available. My concern here is as I stated. If the father is bringing social/well-being concerns then the judge should address the case on those fronts. The case should NOT be decided on the religious beliefs, but rather on whether the child is on grade level and doing well for academics and socially if there are concerns then it needs to be investigated in other ways. Religious 'rigidity' is not legal grounds for deciding that a child has to go to public school.

Again, it'll be interesting to see what the details of the case actually are.

[Mellybug]

Thanks Frankenstein. I'll check it out.

Do you know where the transcripts from the actual decision reported in the story can be found? This is the appeal from that...... It'll be interesting to see how this decision comes down, but I'm still interested in the last...

[frankenstein]

transcript from the lower court

The Court is extremely reluctant to impose on parents a decision about a child's education, which commonly emerges after sincere and thorough discussion between parents who are both committed to the child's growth and development. In the absence of effective communication between the parents whose case reflects a history of opposing opinions on a variety of issues, the Court is guided by the premise that education is by its nature an exploration and examination of new things, and by the premise that a child requlres academic, social, cultural, and physical interaction with a variety of experiences, people, concepts, and surroundings in order to grow to an adult who can make intelligent decisions about how to achieve a productive and satisfying life.

The parties do not debate the relative academic merits of home schooling and public school: it is clear that the home schooling Ms. Voydatch has provided has more than kept up with the academic requirements of the Meredith public school system. Instead, the debate centers on whether enrollment in public school will provide Amanda with an increased opportunity for group learning, group interaction, social problem solving, and exposure to a. variety of points of view. Considering the testimony of both parties and the Guardian ad Litem, and by the standard of a preponderance of the evidence, the Court concludes that it would be in Amanda's best interests to attend public school.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court is mindful of its obligation not to consider the specific tenets of any religious system unless there is evidence that those tenets have been applied in such a way as to cause actual harm to the child. The evidence in this case does not rise to that level, and therefore the Court has not considered the merits of Amanda's religious belIefs, but considered only the impact of those beliefs on her interaction with others, both past and future. The Court declines to impose any restrictions on either party's ability to provide Amanda 'with religious training or to share with Amanda their own religious beliefs.

[Jeff K.]

Have you actually read the ruling? I would caution agaisnt reaching any conclusions based on what was presented on Fox News.

Here is what the father says:

If true, I applaud the father for looking after the best interest of his daughter.

I went to CS Monitor and not Fox to come to the conclusion. The ruling was in regard to religious upbringing. One wonders what the judge would have done to an Amish mother before him. Again there had to be clear and unequivocal evidence regarding the isolation being damaging to the student.

[Jaybear]

The case should NOT be decided on the religious beliefs, but rather on whether the child is on grade level and doing well for academics and socially if there are concerns then it needs to be investigated in other ways. Religious 'rigidity' is not legal grounds for deciding that a child has to go to public school.

The is a court battle between two parents.

Religious rigidity is a valid personal reason for a parent to object to his/her child's home schooled education.

This is why the father had concerns:

The order states that the court considered evidence about Amanda's religious faith only because she was "unhappy that her father did not love her enough to want to spend eternity with her by adopting her faith.

[frankenstein]

In her Further Report and testimony, the Guardian ad Litem echoed her previous concerns that Amanda's relationship with her father suffers to some degree by her belief that his refusal to adopt her religious beliefs and his choice instead to spend eternity away from her proves that he does not love her as much as he says he does. Amanda expressed these feelings to the counselor.

Despite Ms. Voydatch's insistence that Amanda's choice to share her mother-'s religious beliefs is a free choice, it would be remarkable if a ten year old child who spends her school time with her mother and the vast majority of all of her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other r-eligious point of view. Amanda's vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to the counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.

------------------

i agree that this will most likely be overturned, as religion played too much into the decision. "Amanda's vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to the counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view." pretty soon, private religious schools might be the target because the kids at private religious school largely are all the same religion.

[Bsix]

I find this court intervention as rather disturbing on a couple of levels.

1. The court is intervening in the most granular level in the parenting of this child. I think this is taking rights away from the parents to raise their children. The court has stepped well beyond establishing and enforcing the ground rules by which the PARENTS determine the education of their daughter...the court has become a third parent and has assumed the role of absolute authority.

2. No matter how you slice it, religion is at the core of the Court's determination. While the court did not make a ruling on the basis of any specific set of sectarian tenents...it has made its decision based on the religiousity, conviction, and spiritual upbringing of the child.

Had this case not included a religious context, I don't think that the court would have acted to force the girl into public school. Home schooling is legal, kids have issues with their divorced parents, divorced parents fight all the time over parenting...etc.

I do not personally think that the Court should have the right to make a determination on the basis of religion. The court should simply dictate the rules by which the parents work the matter out. The court should rule on which parent has the right to determine the education of the child. (I would say it should be the custodial parent.) After that, the Court has no business other than enforcing the custodial ruling.

The court has put itself in the position of being the arbitor of what is "best" for the child and is using the acceptability of religious beliefs as the core basis for its decision.

Bad precident.

Six

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The is a court battle between two parents.

Religious rigidity is a valid personal reason for a parent to object to his/her child's home schooled education.

This is why the father had concerns:

So his real concern is he doesn't like to hear the pleas of his daughter for him to repent. His real issue is he is prideful and doesn't like to be told his lifestyle isn't in accordance with the will of God. That goes a long ways towards explaining this quote by him...

[frankenstein]

bad precedent that the judge used religion.

normal procedure for the judge to use "best interest of the child". and in this specific case when it came to the "schooling" issue,

In their Parenting Plan (Index #77), the parties agreed to joint decision-making responsibility for Amanda, ... The parties reserved for the Court the issue whether Amanda would attend public school for the 2009

[BookofMormonLuvr]

bad precedent that the judge used religion.

normal procedure for the judge to use "best interest of the child". and in this specific case when it came to the "schooling" issue, the court showed the that parents agreed that the court would decide if the parents couldn't.

nonetheless, there is no reason for the girl to be forced into public school. that a child seems like a nutty religious brat who attempts to push her religion on others is no reason to force a kid into public school.

A desperate plea that your father accept Jesus Christ and repent makes a little child a "nutty religious brat who attempts to push her religion on others"? Really?

I guess the makes LDS Missionaries nutty religious, know-it-all's who attempt to push their religion on others. How dare they tell people to repent and get married or quit drinking, smoking, or doing drugs, what gave them the right to push their religion on others?

[frankenstein]

A desperate plea that your father accept Jesus Christ and repent makes a little child a "nutty religious brat who attempts to push her religion on others"? Really?

did you read the Judges opinion, particularly the part about the girl not cooperating with the Gaurdian Ad Litem?

Amanda challenged the counselor to say what the counselor believed, and she prepared some highlighted biblical text for the counselor to read over and discuss, and she was visibly upset when the counselor (purposely) did not complete the assignment.

i find that bratish and a bit nutty.

I made no reference to the dialogue with the dad.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

did you read the Judges opinion, particularly the part about the girl not cooperating with the Gaurdian Ad Litem?

i find that bratish and a bit nutty.

I made no reference to the dialogue with the dad.

Highlighted scriptural text dealing in specific subjects with "homework" assignments for the next visit.... sounds familiar.

[frankenstein]

Highlighted scriptural text dealing in specific subjects with "homework" assignments for the next visit.... sounds familiar.

missionaries in ones home, or even speaking with the missionaries and accepting to meet the missionaries.

vs,

A counseling session which is ordered to determine whether a child is negatively suffering from visitation with her birth father.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

missionaries in ones home, or even speaking with the missionaries and accepting to meet the missionaries.

vs,

A counseling session which is ordered to determine whether a child is negatively suffering from visitation with her birth father.

She is a little girl who parents divorced, and who's Dad is suing her Mom and forcing her to go to counseling sessions with the intent of making her go to public school.

Maybe you could cut her some slack?

[frankenstein]

She is a little girl who parents divorced, and who's Dad is suing her Mom and forcing her to go to counseling sessions with the intent of making her go to public school.

Maybe you could cut her some slack?

you do not seem to have read the facts of the case.

Amanda was enrolled with a counselor ... Ms. Voydatch [mother] sought modification of the parenting schedule in part because Amanda was experiencing "extreme difficulty," and in which she alleged that "Amanda's emotional and mental health have been negatively impacted by the increased time with the Petitioner [father]."

emphasis added.

the counseling session was not done with intent of making her go to public school the counseling session was done to determine if the daughters visit with the dad would causing the daughter problems. the counseling was requested by the mother who homeschools the daughter.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

you do not seem to have read the facts of the case.

emphasis added.

the counseling session was not done with intent of making her go to public school the counseling session was done to determine if the daughters visit with the dad would causing the daughter problems. the counseling was requested by the mother who homeschools the daughter.

Be that as it may, and the argument could be made who could be blamed for here needing to see a counselor, she remains a little girl who's whole life has been turned upside-down through divorce and litigation. So my original point still stands that perhaps you could cut her some slack.

[frankenstein]

Be that as it may, and the argument could be made who could be blamed for here needing to see a counselor, she remains a little girl who's whole life has been turned upside-down through divorce and litigation. So my original point still stands that perhaps you could cut her some slack.

i see your point, and i stand by my comment, the religious views as stated to be those of the mother, and the rigidity of said views as well. however, despite my opinion about nuttiness, I do not believe, rigidity of religious views is grounds for forcing a child into public school, which said force/compulsion is intended to challenge the girls religious views.