Court orders Christian student to attend public school

Is that the same family that has been fighting for a few years now?

 

There's more to this story that what's in the OP link. The Alliance Defense Fund claims that this is a case of a parent's right being usurped on religious grounds, but the facts of the case say differently.

The girl's parents divorced shortly after she was born. Their custory agreement says that education decisions are the joint decision-making responsibility of both parents (in other words, decisions like this need the consent of both parents). According to the documents filed in the case, the girl's father wants his daughter to attend public schools so she will have more opportunities to socialize with children her age, while her mother wants to continue homeschooling her. Since they can't reach a decision, they have taken the case to family court. A guardian ad litem was appointed, and agreed that it was in the child's best interest to attend school with other kids rather than be homeschooled.

If the parents didn't want a court to make the decision, then they should have reached a decision between themselves. Just because the mother is a woman of faith, that doesn't make the father's position less valid.

I myself don't believe the mother has the daughter's best interest in mind. This is based on the fact that, after their divorce, she moved her daughter out of state, away from the father. When parents divorce, they owe it to the children to remain geographically close to the absent parent so the child can have a relationship with both parents. I suspect that the mother is simpyl using her religious belilefs as an excuse for not getting the desired outcome in court.

If this were truly a simple case of a parent being denies parent rights based solely or primarily on religious beliefs, I'd favor the mother 100%.

 

John's research shows the importance of using news sources that are not infamous for bias and advocacy of a single viewpoint.

 

Many states have "undue burden" case or even statutory provisons that limits or even prevents custodial parents from moving.

 

Well then.... we'll just take your word over the Defense Alliance Fund. I mean who are they?

 

Well then .... we'll just take the word of the Defense Alliance Fund over the facts of the case. I mean what are facts?

 

And of course you, being far removed form the situation, understand the facts better than the Alliance Defense Fund.

 

ADF never noted the facts of the case (standard procedure for attorney represenatation).

 

That case has been on the news for the past few years. It is not new news.

 

My problem with this case is it sets precedent. And what will be the next step where this case is referred to? An Atheist father who's never been involved with his child able to make the same argument? Then what happens after that? How far will the courts go off this decision? I understand the facts as presented but are there any limitations with this judgement?

 

Not really. This isn't the first time that divorced parents have fought in court over a child raising issue. Unfortunately, such cases are sometimes a daily occurrence in some dictricts. In most cases, it's not a "right vs wrong" issue. It's a case of "which is better for the child? The father's request, or mother's request?" It doesn't mean one or the other is wrong, it just means the parents are letting the court decide which parent's plan is better.

In the OP case, they court decided that the father's plan was better than the mother's. That's all.

 

uh...how to address this......Baloney!

Public school does nothing to address these issues and the only problem listed here is the friction between the father and the girl. That needs to be handled by the parents not public schools. If you try to over intellectualize things you miss the forest for the trees.

 

Whether the school was public or not wasn't the issue. The issue was whether the mother's or the father's choice was better. The court sided with the father's choice. Had the father chosen the child to go to a private school instead, the outcome would not have been different.

I agree. But the parents chose not to handle it themselves. They chose to leave it to a court to choose.

It's not "overintellectualizing". It's a simple matter of the parents disagreeing, the parents leaving it to the courts, and one parent not being happy about losing.

 

uh...yes it was. And you have no way of knowing what the outcome would have been otherwise.

And where does it say the mother chose this? You assume mroe than is revealed.

I was talking about you

 

The facts of the case say otherwise. The mother's objection was not that the school was public, she objected to the notion of her child going to school at all.

When the parents divorced, they entered into a parenting agreement filed with the court. The parents did not comply with the agreement, which allows it to be brought to court. That's the choice one makes when divorcing and agreeing to a parenting plan.

I know you were, and you're abviously in error. There was no "overintellectualizing" on my part. It's a simple matter of the parents disagreeing, the parents leaving it to the courts, and one parent not being happy about losing.

 

Show me these facts

This ignores whether or not the mother wanted government interference at this moment.

Sure you are. You add assumptions to the whole thing

 

In the OP link, there is no objection from the mother on the school being public vs private. The objetion in the OP is one of the mother wanting the child to be home schooled, vs the father wanting the child to attend a traditional school.

Then she should have adhered to the agreement, which requires her to come to an agreement with the father.

Actually, it's you who is making the false assuming that the issue is centered around topic of public school.

 

You have a habit of using obscure facts to support ideas that the former do not automatically lead to.

Or visa versa

The issue is centered on her being home schooled, the government forced her into public school. That is the issue.