August 27, 2009 7:55 PM
NH Court orders homeschool girl into public school - time to stand up for parental rights!
N.H. Court Orders Home-Schooled Girl into Public School
ADF asks judge to reconsider her over-reaching decision.
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has asked a New Hampshire court to
reconsider its decision to order a 10-year-old home-schooled girl into
public school.
"Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for
their children," said ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons. "In
this case, the court is illegitimately altering a method of education
that the court itself admits is working."
The parents of the girl are divorced, and the mother has been
home-schooling her. In the process of renegotiating the terms of a
parenting plan for the girl, the guardian ad litem concluded that the
girl "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith"
and that the girl's interests "would be best served by exposure to a
public school setting."
Judge Lucinda V. Sadler approved the recommendation and issued the order July 14.
"The New Hampshire Supreme Court itself has specifically declared,
'Home education is an enduring American tradition and right,' " said
ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson. "There is clearly and without
question no legitimate legal basis for the court's decision, and we
trust it will reconsider its conclusions."
Mike Donnelly, staff attorney at the Home School Legal Defense
Association, agreed this is "not the place for the courts to be
inserting themselves."
Don't forget to pray for this particular family and other families whose rights are threatened.
This is a hot issue I haven't had time to address - but parental rights are under assault in this country as leftist forces are at work to have the U. S. sign onto a treaty that would grant "children's rights" while taking away those of their parents.
Having lived in California and Virginia - states at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to parental rights, I will tell those of you in more traditional states that there are states that actually think your children need liberating from your antiquated and dangerous point of view. In California, for example, though a school nurse cannot give an aspirin without your permission, she can take your daughter off-campus for a secret state-funded abortion and you will never be informed.
And there is a saying, As goes California, so goes the nation. . .
Thank God there is an organization working to inform us about these issues - and anything that threatens your rights as parents. I've mentioned them before, but am long overdue in reminding you to bookmark ParentalRights.org to stay up to date with the challenges against parental authority nationally and internationally.
I am sorry to add to your burden as parents. It's too bad we can't relax and just parent our families. But these are dangerous times and even the most complacent among us need to start standing up, coming out of the closet as conservatives and spreading the word among our circle of influence. Too much is at stake to sit back and see what happens.
That is not to detract from the power of God. But God's work requires human hands and voices and gifts. Please help inform others - through email, Facebook, Twitter (use the Share button below). Even if you've been quiet until now, you need to begin speaking out. Teach your children.
I strongly recommend a subscription to
World magazine. It is one of the best investments you can make for your family. When our issue comes, there are five readers - including teens - vying to get their hands on it first. And my married children have gotten their own subscriptions.
It is time to be wise as serpents and meek as doves. But it is also time to decide whom you will serve - God or the government.
Posted in Christian Persecution, Homeschooling, Oppression, Parental Rights | Permalink
Comments
According to OneNewsNow, not only are the parents divorced, the girl's father is opposed to homeschooling and they took the issue to court because they couldn't resolve it themselves.
I disagree with the court's reasoning, but the judge had to side with either the father or the mother. One of them was going to be legally forced to acquiesce to the other. That's what happens when a married couple lets their disputes get so out of hand that they have to ask the state to get involved, sort out their arguments, and dissolve the marriage. It's one of the many reasons I despise divorce.
Posted by: Michelle Potter | August 27, 2009 10:32 PM
As the former marine says to the congressman at the town hall meeting (one of many) that you can find on You Tube: "Stay away from my kids!!"
I feel for parents that are entangled with the legal system/government in any capacity. I know that there are times when intrusion saves lives but they are overreacting and, in so doing, are impinging on the rights, the constitutional rights, of the family. What happened to the right of privacy? Does that only work when you want to kill your child and not when you want to educate him/her? Hypocrisy, thy name is bureaucracy!!!!
Posted by: Lynn | August 28, 2009 9:21 AM
[Note from Barbara: as you read this comment, ask yourself if Alyssa is probably pro-choice, in which case she would not believe in a father's right to let his child live. Great example of how the left lacks consistency, but picks and chooses what's convenient in each situation.]
All of the one sided news releases on this subject are pure absurdity and extremely hypocritical.
Something mentioned in every single article that has somehow been poured all over the public view, "John Anthony Simmons, the attorney for the girl’s mother, said parents have a "fundamental right to make educational choices for their children." However, it only mentions what the “mother” wants for the child, a very one-sided view obviously planted by the mother and Attorney Simmons.
Well, there is another view that needs to be introduced, and that would be the “FATHER” of the child. He has a say as well, a 50% vote for what happens to his own daughter. And the father feels his daughter would be better served in a public school. It’s odd that this point of view is left out all of the articles on this subject.
The Court never states that they wanted the child to be steered away from her religious beliefs or the teachings of her mother, but considering the “father’s” wishes and what they feel to be in the child’s best interest, for her to be opened up to other children other beliefs so she can be more rounded and not put in a small box by a close minded parent ignoring the desire of the other parent who should be 50% involved in the decisions made for their child. Let us not forget that.
This point is even more interesting since Attorney Simmons is also a long time supporter of father’s rights. I guess it all depends on what he wants at any one given time. That sounds very hypocritical to me.
Lastly and certainly not least important, another point of view consistently left out of all these articles is what the CHILD wants. How interesting.
So before all of you jump on the bandwagon, step back and attempt to view the entire picture and not just what is being hand fed to you.
Posted by: alyssa | August 28, 2009 10:44 AM
Horrifying! I hope they're able to get that ruling overturned.
A little off topic, but I want to hear the line on how VA is different from CA. Last year I lived in CA, and this year we're in VA...In terms of homeschooling, CA was more free because all I had to do was enroll in a private school (or create one of my own), but now that we're in VA we're required to provide evidence of progress, thus testing! And I have to submit far more info to the school boards than I did in CA. Yet, I'm told it's so easy to HS in VA. What is your experiences and take between the two states when it comes to parental rights...I'd love to read your expanded thoughts on that. Which is the easier state in your opinion and experience?
Posted by: Angoraknitter | August 28, 2009 11:03 AM
I disagree with you on this, Barbara. Yes, the court should not interfere with parental rights.
The mother does have a right to direct the education of her child, but so does the father who apparently wants the child to go to public school.
Why are the mother's rights more important than the father's? It also seems as though the mother is not, at this time, permanently prohibited from homeschooling but that it is a temporary situation while custody etc. is worked out.
BTW - I think a restoration of father's rights would be very helpful to the pro-life movement. If a father wants the right to raise their child, he should have a say.
Posted by: Milehimama | August 29, 2009 1:24 PM
I agree that the father should have a say in the education of his daughter, but here's the real question nobody seems to be asking: has the father been able to prove that his child is being neglected or her education is suffering in any way as a result of her mother's choice to homeschool? Is the mother breaking any laws? The answer, of course, is no.
THAT is why I think the court is out of line here. The daughter has already proven that she is academically sound (if not excelling), and does not appear to have any social or emotional problems...unless you consider "strong religious convictions" to be a "problem". Ah, NOW we're down to the crux of the issue!
Giving your child strong religious convictions is not harmful, neglectful or abusive. Frankly, it's the opposite, though it appears this Secularist court is loathe to admit that.
The judge is out of line because he is pulling an imaginary standard of "harm" out of thin air, (which is really thinly veiled anti-religious bigotry), and using THAT as an excuse to force the mother to change her parenting style.
THAT is an infringement of parental rights. Turn the tables around for a second, and ask yourself: would you agree with the court FORCING the father to homeschool or send his child to a religious school if it was the mother claiming that her child was "too secular" and not receiving enough religious instruction? Somehow I think our Secularist courts wouldn't be very sympathetic to her view, and would instead require her to prove some kind of true neglect, educational or otherwise.
Posted by: Rachel | August 29, 2009 4:34 PM
I just read more details of this case and amend my previous comment.
According to other reports, the judge specifically thought the daughter was too religious and ordered her to public school NOT because that was her father's wishes, but to expose her to other religious beliefs. I also read that when the girl tried to talk to her guardian ad litem (how sad that the divorce is so acrimonious), the guardian purposely ignored and snubbed her (instead of listening to her, as is the guardians JOB).
In light of those new details, it is horrifying that a judge can arbitrarily decide any family is "too" something and prescribe a PUBLIC school as the antidote. (And what does it say about the NH public school, that it is seen as an ANTIDOTE to Christianity?)
Posted by: Milehimama | August 30, 2009 2:01 PM
This is happening all over the country...a friend of mine was recently forced to send her children to Public School in a similar situation: divorced parents, the mother took the kids and tried to homeschool them in a Christian environment. Pray for our country's priorities!
Posted by: Cynthia Jeub | August 31, 2009 4:18 PM
Post a comment
