The article below came from ONE NEWS NOW and tells about how a court ordered a ten-year-old girl to go to public school rather than continue to be home-schooled.
New Hampshire Court orders Christian homeschooled girl to attend public school
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 8/26/2009 4:45:00 PMUpdated
8/27/2009 3:00 PM (Central)
A Christian homeschool girl in New Hampshire has been ordered into government-run public school for having "sincerely held" religious beliefs -- and the Alliance Defense Fund is troubled by the ruling.
The case involves divorced couple Martin Kurowski and Brenda Voydatch and their 10-year-old daughter, Amanda. The couple split in 1999 when they were living in Massachusetts, and the proceedings moved to New Hampshire after Voydatch relocated to that state with her daughter in 2002.
Although Voydatch has primary custody over Amanda, both parents agreed to a parenting plan that included joint decision-making responsibility. A court-appointed guardian served as a mediator.
A source of contention between the parents has been the mother' court.The situation was then analyzed by the court-appointed guardian, who made a recommendation to the court. During the evaluation process it was determined that Amanda was excelling in her schooling and used curriculum that was approved by her school district. The curriculum used in her home schooling was created by certified teachers, and Amanda routinely took standardized tests.
Furthermore, Amanda attended her local public school to take art, Spanish, and P.E. classes. Her public school instructors also commented on the fact that Amanda was well-rounded in her social skills. But a sticking point arose concerning Voydatch's Christian faith.
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 appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith." (It's called backbone, something government, especially politicians, hate in the citizenry.) 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."
According to the court order, the guardian concluded that Amanda's "interests, and particularly her intellectual and emotional development, would be best served by exposure to a public school setting in which she would be challenged to solve problems presented by a group learning situation and...Amanda would be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior." NOTE: "Different points of view" translates to "points of view approved by the government". Needing exposure to a "group learning situation" is completely invalidated by the fact that she attended public school for three classes. The problem is that she's a Christian.
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." NOTE: I certainly won't "consider adopting any other religious point of view." Neither do the Islamics. Their religion teaches them to kill anyone who leaves Islam or is not Islamic. But I guess that's OK. Although the court noted that it "is extremely reluctant to impose on parents a decision about a child's education," it ruled that Amanda must attend public school.
Alliance Defense Fund-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons has filed a motion to reconsider. He says this ruling is dangerous to home schoolers because it will set a precedent for other cases.
"Every time you have a court order that uses a wrong standard or misapplies constitutional law, every one's rights are eventually at stake," the attorney explains. "Because what happens with precedent is it gets expanded -- it gets cited in other cases."
Simmons believes this case goes beyond the initial divorce and custody battle with this ruling because the standard used in the decision contained in the court order is troubling. He contends that the child's religion should not have played a role in the decision, and that the court should have focused solely on the academic merits of Amanda's education which proved to be excellent.
I agree with Mr. Simmons. This whole thing went far beyond the merits of the case. The girls religious beliefs should never have entered into it. The academic merits should have been the only thing considered, and since she was excelling beyond full-time public school students, there should not have been a problem. Mr. Simmons is correct in that when such a mishandled ruling is made, the case is used as a precedent and its scope always gets expanded. So, is a parent's option to home-school their child in danger? Yes, it most certainly is. If Mr. Simmons is unsuccessful in his appeal, it will be one more freedom we will have lost.
Other than discriminating against her for her religious beliefs, I think it's another case of a home schooled child putting the heavily funded government school system with degreed professionals to shame.
What's coming is home-schooling your child will be illegal at some point. The government does not want a child to be educated without government influence. The government and pro-public education special interest groups have been very successful in spreading many myths and outright lies about home-schooled children to the point that people look at you strangely many times if you say anything about it. Home-schooled children are looked upon as social and psychological misfits, because after all, the government knows better how to take care of your child than you do.