Home school student sent to school for religious beliefs

My last post seemed to be a bit prophetic concerning the legal system, school bias against homeschooling and coertion.  Today I came across this remarkable headline “New Hampshire Court orders Home School Child into Government Run School”.  More shocking to me was this statement “her religious beliefs are a bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews”.  Then we have this remarkable statement:

In the process of renegotiating the terms of a parenting plan for the girl, the guardian ad litem involved in the case concluded, according to the court order, 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” and “different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief…in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs.”

The child is from a family in which the parents are divorced.   This came in the process of renegotiating the terms of the divorce related to the child.  But, this event which has not made national news coverage should be frightening to all parents not just home schooling parents.  You should be frightened by this because this is exactly what many statists believe about parental rights.  There aren’t any parental rights. 

In this event an entity of the government has essentially said that a child’s right to freedom of religion has been trumped by the social concerns of liberal society that wants every child exposed to as many world views as possible.  Also, the government holds that every world view is equivalent to every other world view.  This is right out of the United Nations Rights of the Child treaty that argues that children have the right to defy their parents in selecting the view of God and religious practices as children.  Their parents have no rights in teaching their children their religious views that are part of their family and their heritage. 

This court has gone too far.  The court even admits that the child is doing extremely well in her home schooled environment. 

Although the marital master making recommendations to the court agreed the child is “well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising, and intellectually at or superior to grade level” and that “it is clear that the home schooling…has more than kept up with the academic requirements of the…public school system,” he nonetheless proposed that the Christian girl be ordered into a government-run school after considering “the impact of [her religious] beliefs on her interaction with others.”  The court approved the order.

So here we have a child who is well-adjusted, academically successful, on grade level and in every other way appears to be a healthy well developed child.  But, that isn’t enough for the state.  In this case a “marital master” – a person – has unilaterally decided that this child’s constitutional right to freedom to practice her religious beliefs is trumped by the statist philosophy that children should be exposed to every belief system in order to be able to make a choice.  The marital master has unilaterally decided that they child living in a world where everything that happens is instantly broadcast to everyone has not been exposed to enough alternate viewpoints.  So, the conclusion was reached that the only way for this child to be acceptably socialized in the government viewpoint was for the child to be placed in a government school. 

Are you disturbed yet? 

Then lets look a little further into the opinion of the marital master:

Marital Master Michael Garner reasoned that the girl’s “vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view” and then recommended that the girl be ordered to enroll in a government school instead of being home-schooled.  Judge Lucinda V. Sadler approved the recommendation and issued the order on July 14.

Still believe the government thinks our children belong to you?  Mr. Garners reasoning goes something like this.  The child made a vigorous argument defending her beliefs.  So, rather than conclude that the child has thought out her belief system in a rigorous way, he makes the startling conclusion that the child must not have been “exposed” to enough varying religious, cultural or social systems and philosophies.  Using the same reasoning I can say to you that your argument to me that there is a God simply says that you are an uninformed dolt.  So obviously you must be “exposed” to the state’s idea of whether or not there is a God.  I could also say to you that your argument that you have an inherant God given right to raise your child is held only because you have been in an insular environment in which you were not exposed to enough other statist ideas about who really should be in charge of raising your child. 

Frightened yet.  We live in political times in which many, many people believe in the supremacy of the state in making decisions about almost every aspect of your life.  We live in times when the government is gaining more and more power to tell you, an American citizen, a free agent, that you are, in fact, not wise enough to raise your own child.  In my opinion this decision is a landmark legal decision that every parent, home schooler or not, should be absolutely horrified to see. 

There is no legal basis for the court’s decision.  This is a decision made on the basis of the recommendation of a New Hampshire state beaurocrat.  The court’s decision was apparently made on the basis of the opinion of one person who has a particular world view.  Even the New Hampshire Supreme Court holds that home schooling is an inherant part of the American experience.

“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.”

These are perilous times.  These are times when every home schooling family and every family who believes that parents have a God-given right to raise your children in the faith traditions of their family.  Remain vigilant, remain alarmed, and be alert to any abuse of someone else’s rights.  They may be coming for you next.  You must get up every morning and think how can I advance the cause that I believe in. 



Filed under home school, home school law, parental rights, parenting, school law

5 responses to “Home school student sent to school for religious beliefs

  1. Hmmm...

    Well, from your first bit of outrage, you fall into the method that some conservatives use on purpose… that is repackaging a comment *about* the court as having been spoken *by* the court. The statement that shocked you so much (“her religious beliefs are a bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews”. ) was actually from the *article’s author* and not the court. Moreover, the article you use as your source is actually third-hand material, and obviously biased at that.

    This type of sloppy (or intentionally misleading) reporting is what makes me ignore the remainder of your arguments. If you can’t be honest from the start, I can’t trust *anything* you have to say.

    • johnmcgeough

      thanks for your considered comment. You said the statement that shocked me was from the *articles author* and not the court. Let me quote…”According to ADF allied attorney John Anthony Simmons, the court acknowledges that the girl in question is doing well socially and academically, but he adds that the court went too far when they determined that the girl’s Christian faith was a “bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews.”
      So it was you who misread the original piece and the court order if you read it. It was the court that ruled that the girls faith was a “bit too snicerely held.” Wrong on point one.
      The article I used was reporting from an original source, the court order. And as I have read the original court order that would be called first hand reporting. Wrong on your second point.
      And as you of course know that a quote of an original source does not bias make. Wrong on your third point. You are apparently the dishonest one as you attempted to state three points that were, on their face, incorrect. As for your statement that my writing was sloppy or intentionally misleading..you are entitled to your opinion. Thanks so much for reading the piece. I invite you to return and follow the blog. Many blessings.

      • Hmmm...

        Actually, try parsing that again, and you will see the quote is in reference to comments by *the attorney* for the mom. You will not find that quote anywhere in the official documents. I should know.

  2. johnmcgeough

    Again thank you for your considered comment. Let’s try it again… “the court went to far”…. thanks so much for your comment. Please keep reading the blog.

  3. Wonderful Post.

    Thanks for the post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s