Taking Liberties: A Mother’s Told She Can’t Home School Her Daughter


#1

http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/01/27/taking-liberties-a-mothers-told-she-cant-home-school-her-daughter/

The mother speaks out
Mom Who Says She’s Deemed

Of course the government doesn’t want homeschooling. The government schools are the number one venue of communist, socialist, atheist and liberal indoctrination.


#2

I have a couple of questions after watching this interview. Does the ex-husband share custody? It looks like he does. In that case, he should be able to have a say in his daughter’s education. Just because the mother is, well, the mother, doesn’t mean she has any more right to the child than does the father - I’m sensing some pro-mother bias here for this reason. How does he want the girl to be raised?

If the father does not want his daughter to be exclusively home schooled in that environment, and the two parents share custody, obviously some sort of compromise will need to be reached. There’s really no other solution without trampling on one of their rights.


#3

Not be able to watch the video, I don’t know what it said. But if the mother is the primary custodian, she should, by default, have the say over the child’s education. Years ago, when a child was adopted, the fact of prospective parents being strong Christians was considered a plus - by government agencies, no less, and this was because of the benefit to the child, because children raised in strong Christian homes, generally turned out (and still do) better than those who weren’t.


#4

Try this Susanna, first text link I found.

“Taking Liberties,” Indeed: Fox Presents Parental Dispute As Battle Over Religious Freedom | Media Matters for America


#5

So - the father says the child is being raised to be “too religious” and he objects to this. The mother (who apparently is the primary custodial parent) is told that she has no rights in raising the child according to her beliefs. Must the non-custodial parent’s “rights” override those of the custodial parent? Anyway, if the child is forced to go to public schools, no doubt the mother will continue with the religious training at home. The father is just using “education” as an excuse to give his ex-wife a hard time. Anyway, that’s how I see it.


#6

First, this is an appeal to the NH Supreme Court, not the original trial court. The case cannot be retried; the NHSC can only rule on the specific matters being appealed. Here is the article from the Alliance Defense Fund, who is representing the mother:

NH Supreme Court to hear arguments in case of home-schooled girl Thursday
Alliance Defense Fund
1/5/11

“Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children,” Simmons said. “Courts can settle disputes, but they cannot legitimately order a child into a government-run school on the basis that her religious views need to be mixed with other views. That’s precisely what the lower court admitted it is doing in this case, and that’s where our concern lies.”

“The daughter was, by all academic and social measures, doing very well while being home-schooled, as the lower court itself admitted,” Marcelle added. “But it used the Christian faith of this mother and daughter as a weapon against them to force the girl into a government school. There was no legitimate reason to do that.”

The court acknowledged that, while being home-schooled, the girl was “well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising, and intellectually at or superior to grade level,” but then it ordered her out of the home schooling she loved so that her religious views will be challenged at a government school. That’s where Simmons says the court went too far.

Note, first what the trial court acknowledged: the girl was “well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising, and intellectually at or superior to grade level”. IOW, the quality of the girl’s education and her general social development were not the basis of the trial court’s decision. The trial court ruled that the child is “too religious” and that her religion needed to be challenged in PSs. That’s an interesting admission of PS hostility to religion, a violation of the First Amendment, BTW. The appeal, the matter on which the NHSC is being asked to rule, is on whether the trial court can, constitutionally, use being “too religious” as the basis for any decision.

My opinion is that the trial court judge violated the Constitutional with such serious bigotry that she should be removed from the bench.


#7

And to think that originally it was the churches that ran the schools in this nation - and that universally, Christianity has carried education to many under-developed lands.


#8

Just…wow. So basically the courts ruling is “First amendment? FIRST AMENDMENT??? We don’t need no steenking first amendment!”

I have to say that my reaction to this is considerably …stronger… than Pete’s.


#9

The Founding Fathers would be too religous for these morons as well


#10

NH Supreme Court: homeschooled girl must go to public school against mom’s wishes
by John-Henry Westen
LifeSiteNews.com
Thu Mar 17, 2011 15:19 EST

CONCORD, NH, March 17, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld a lower court order Wednesday that sided with the father of a homeschooled student and forced her into a government-run school against her Christian mother’s wishes.

The court made clear that it was not addressing larger religious liberty and homeschooling concerns and was basing its ruling only on the narrow and specific facts of the case.

“While [the case] involves home schooling, it is not about the merits of home verses public schooling,” stated the justices in their opinion.

“We affirm the decision on the narrow basis that it represents a sustainable exercise of the trial court’s discretion to determine the educational placement that is in daughter’s best interests.”

Judicial tyranny is once again allowed to trample First Amendment freedom of religion. Martin Niemoller wasn’t just making an observation on his (and his nation’s) past, but may also have been prophetic.