Posted on 11/24/2009 7:20:44 PM PST by Man50D
And if she had been pro-obama the verdict would not be that she was too vigorous in her defense of him.
"1984" was too prophetic.
From previous articles I’ve read about this case, it appeared that the inflexible religious viewpoint the girl is getting through her homeschooling is alienating her from her father. Given that she’s already had several years of it, it’s reasonable for the court to order that she now be exposed to viewpoints that don’t encourage her to alienate her father. It would not be reasonable for the court to simply conclude that it’s perfectly fine for the girl to be alienated from her father — that would be giving undue preference to the mother’s religious beliefs.
Your argument seems to dismiss the girl’s father as invisible and irrelevant. In fact, he is neither, and the court is charged with giving equal weight to his views. This is not a one-parent child.
Because I counseled other home educators, I have been exposed to thousands.
There’s never been one case that I’ve seen that didn’t have the father turning against home education, even when he’d been actively, even rabidly, pro- homeschooling before the divorce.
The many stories posted here through the years support your statement, too. Fathers who were pro-homeschooling suddenly change their minds after the divorce. Either they want their ex-wives to go to work, or they want to exercise some control. Whatever the reason, the anti-homeschool court system seems willing to go right along with whatever the anti-homeschool parent wants.
Again, if you read the story, you'll see that the girl already was taking classes at the public school, and she was involved in other activities like sports. So, she already was being exposed to other points of view. The mother has a particular faith, and the girl shares that faith and probably will continue sharing it even when she's in public school full-time.
The father used the religious angle in court. But, this story really comes down to the court system being opposed to homeschooling. The courts look for any reason to place the child into school. This child was doing well, and her mother was following the law by filing records with the state. So, the court couldn't get her on that. Using her religious faith as a reason, though, sounds like a violation of 1A.
If this father wanted his daughter removed from school full-time and homeschooled, and the mother wanted to send her to school, the courts would've sided with the mother. This is all about public school vs. homeschool. And, I think you're a schoolteacher, so you're probably always going to side with school.
Ahh yes, divorce. But this is not the issue...the real issue is this: The man in this divorce hates the Christian God. Its clear this is Anti-Christian bigotry. Anyone who dares to suggest anything else wants to deny the obvious.
Not only do I resent people such as this, but I resent tyranny from the bench when one judge forces the religion of no religion on a person who clearly wants to be where she is at.
It’s what is good for the child at the end of the day that is important. Which parent “wins” or “loses” is of no consequence except for how this outcome affects the child.
The judge was way out of line and 40 years ago he would have been run out of town on a rail.
In this case the father is apparently not a believer.
If parents cannot agree on how to raise a child, the court has to make a decision unless one parent has fully custody.
This is one of the problems with joint custody, which has become so popular in recent years. If parents can’t get along while married, how are they going to be able to cooperate after a bloody divorce?
I can’t imagine where you got the idea that I’m a school teacher. I’m not, never have been, and have never considered it. I once volunteered as a teacher’s aide in an inner city public school for one semester (about 25 years ago), with a kindergarten class whose well-meaning teacher didn’t know how to spell some of the words the kindergarteners were supposed to be learning.
I’m very pro-homeschooling, but I’m also very pro-intellectual honesty. There’s a reason HSLDA doesn’t get involved in cases where the disagreement over homeschooling is between the parents. The courts are not legally empowered to side with one parent’s wishes or belief system over the other parent’s, nor should they be. The mother has had her way for several years; now it’s the father’s turn. Previous articles about this case described an interview the judge had with the girl, in which she argued very forcefully about how no beliefs different from her own were acceptable. The judge reasonably views this as evidence that the mother’s religious teachings are alienating the girl from her father, who obviously doesn’t share the same religious beliefs. The father, on the hand, is demonstrating flexibility, having been willing to allow the mother to homeschool the girl for several years, and being still willing to have the mother take the girl to church services, Sunday school, and other church activities. The judge’s decision does not involve keeping the girl away from exposure to her mother’s religious beliefs, it just involves arranging for a more even balance between exposure to the mother’s beliefs and the father’s desire that she be exposed to the wide range of beliefs the regular attendance at public school would provide.
If it were up to me, there would be no such thing as public schools, and the argument would have to be between home schooling and a private school. But for now, we’re stuck with the abomination of public schools, and many people don’t have enough money left after being taxed, to pay for private schooling.
LOL!
If it were up to me, there would be no such thing as public schools, and the argument would have to be between home schooling and a private school.
But, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree about the ruling in this case. The girl was receiving a balance between a home-based education and classes at school, plus extracurricular activities. Even if she spends more time in school, she's going to hold the beliefs she holds because her mother is raising her in those beliefs. (FTR, I'm not a churchgoer myself.)
Let's suppose the girl had been going to school, but the father wanted her out of school because she was being alienated from him through her teachings at public school. I doubt the courts would've ordered the daughter into homeschooling. The courts really are biased against homeschooling and in favor of public school because homeschoolers are still small in number, and judges don't really understand what it's all about.
I’m not going to criticize a judge over speculation about what s/he might have done if certain facts had been reversed. If you dig up some of the old articles about this case, there were some that cited specifics of the girl’s interview with the judge (or might have been with a social worker), and she came across as rigid to the point of being rude and having no idea that being rude would not help advance her beliefs in the minds of those who don’t share them. In that context, her father’s wanting her to spend a lot more time dealing with people who don’t share her religious beliefs is a good thing, not because it will change her religious beliefs, but because it will put heavy pressure on her to learn to be respectful towards people who don’t share her beliefs (including her father).
I wouldn’t make the assumption that if a child of divorced parents had been public-schooled and was using foul language, adopting Goth-style clothing and make-up, and behaving in a sullen manner, despite getting good grades, that a court wouldn’t honor one parent’s wish to start homeschooling, over the wishes of the other parent who viewed the behavior as “just acting like a teenager”. If the child’s manner is such that it is reasonably likely to impede her eventual functioning as a productive member of society, then it’s reasonable to accede to one parent’s desire for a change.
Some judges may be biased against homeschooling, but it’s not fair to assume a particular judge holds that bias, when there is no evidence showing that. This family has clearly been involved with the courts since the divorce, and somewhere along the line, a judge (maybe this one or maybe a different one) was fine with the mother having primary custody and homeschooling. But when confronted with the combination of a formal objection from the father, and evidence in the form of the girl’s behavior that her homeschooling was instilling a tendency to be unpleasant towards anyone who expressed disagreement with her religious beliefs, it wouldn’t have been reasonable to allow the homeschooling to continue.
More details on the case can be found on the court documents. I posted links to them in post #47 on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2394555/posts?page=47#47
Any excuse for the judge’s decision is a stretch. The girl was found to be well-liked and sociable. The court objected only to her “rigid” religious beliefs. More info is available at the link above.
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.