Court orders Christian student to attend public school

[I Am Blessed 24]

A Christian homeschool girl in New Hampshire has been ordered into government-run public school for having "sincerely held" religious beliefs.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=659638

 

[annsni]

Furthermore the court order states that despite Amanda's mother insisting that her daughter's religious beliefs were her own, "it would be remarkable if a ten-year-old child who spends her school time with her mother and the vast majority of all her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view."

Yet if this child was deciding to be homosexual, they'd be all over supporting her, wouldn't they?

Idiots. Stupid.

 

[gb93433]

A Christian homeschool girl in New Hampshire has been ordered into government-run public school for having "sincerely held" religious beliefs.

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

 

[Johnv]

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%.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

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

 

[FlyForFun]

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%.

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

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

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

 

[Johnv]

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

 

[Revmitchell]

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

 

[Johnv]

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

 

[gb93433]

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

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

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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?

 

[Johnv]

My problem with this case is it sets precedent.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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!

The court order stated: "According to the guardian ad litem's further report and testimony, the counselor found Amanda to lack some youthful characteristics. She appeard to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith." The guardian noted that during a counseling session, Amanda tried to witness to the counselor and appeared "visibly upset" when the counselor purposefully did not pay attention.

The guardian also noted that Amanda's relationship with her father suffered because she did not think he loved her as much as he said he did due to the fact that he refused to "adopt her religious beliefs."

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.

 

[Johnv]

Public school does nothing to address these issues and the only problem listed here is the friction between the father and the girl.

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.

That needs to be handled by the parents not public schools.

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

If you try to over intellectualize things you miss the forest for the trees.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

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

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

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

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.

I was talking about you

 

[Johnv]

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

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.

And where does it say the mother chose this?

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 was talking about you

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

Show me these facts

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.

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

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.

Sure you are. You add assumptions to the whole thing

 

[Johnv]

Show me these facts

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.

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

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

Sure you are. You add assumptions to the whole thing

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

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

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

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

Or visa versa

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

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