Yesterday I outlined a recent court decision in the state of New Hampshire the has forced a Christian home school child to attend a public school solely on the basis of her religious convictions. The child’s Attorney at Law John Anthony Simmons has filed a brilliant motion asking the court to reconsider it’s ruling. The motion filed by Attorney Simmons can be found in it’s entirety here. Just read it with the lights on in your house. It is a nightmare.
In this case the mother has had custodial custody of the ten year old child most of the child’s life. During that time the mother has chosen to home school her daughter from the first grade. There is clear evidence that the child is thriving in the home school environment. The father is bringing up the common myth that home school children are less appropriately socialized than those in public school. The child is academically advanced and is “generally likeable and well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level.” The child’s father brought up the same issue in 2006 but lost in court.
The mother has gone as far as enrolling the child in three public school courses as a means of enriching the child’s education in an attempt to be considerate of the fathers wishes.
The court itself stated that there would be only one reason to make such a decision. That would be if there was evidence of harm being done to the child through the mothers actions. The just isn’t any evidence that the mother is unfit. The court then is without justification for it’s decision.
The fact that the father brought up the issue in 2006 and lost causes the court to be actually unable to take up the matter of home schooling under the principle of Issue Preclusion. Attorney Simmons correctly brings to consideration the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Under those amendments the mother has the right to make decisions regarding the schooling and religious training of her child.
The court in suggesting that the child should be exposed to other points of view demonstrates a certain hostility to religion not permitted to the court. Most certainly the court is prohibited from demonstrating hostility to the religious views of the mother and daughter under the United States Constitution. The court does not find that there is any harm being done do the child through the mother’s efforts on the child’s behalf. That does not allow the court to modify the present parenting aggreement that stands related to the child. Simply put the court simply stepped outside it’s constitutional bounds in arbitrarily modifying the binding parental agreement.
Attorney Simmons rightly contends that the court created its own definition of education out of whole cloth:
“…the Court is guided by the premise that education is by its nature an exploration and examination of new things, and by the premise that a child requires academic, social, cultural, and physical interaction with a variety of experiences, people, concepts, and surroundings in order to grow to an adult who can make intelligent decisions about how to achieve a productive and satisfying life.”
The court also simply throws out the state of New Hampshire code regarding what comprises a home school. I have personally been in the courtroom here in Texas when a judge simply threw aside state statutes regarding Texas Home School Law at his whim. It happens. New Hampshire law states:
“Instruction shall be deemed home education if it consists of instruction in science, mathematics, language, government, history, health, reading, writing, spelling, the history of the constitutions of New Hampshire and the United States, and an exposure to and appreciation of art and music. Home education shall be provided by a parent for his own child, unless the provider is as otherwise agreed upon by the appropriate parties…..”The mother in this case is meeting and exceeding the requirements of New Hampshire law. In fact, according to the motion the father does not contest this idea. His whole problem is with his opinion that the child is not being properly socialized. The court itself already admitted that the child is well socialized before it made it’s ruling. The fact that the mother has attempted to address the fathers concern isn’t being contested in this case. Yet the court has seen fit to remove the child from her home school environment and so place her in a public school environment. There is also no evidence provided by the court in why the public school would be a better environment for the socialization of the child. The court also did not offer any other alternative other than removing the child from a wholesome environment to one that at the very least has no evidence to support it’s superiority.
The court seems to have adopted a bias against the religious beliefs of the mother and daughter.
.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. Amanda’s vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to the counselors suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other points of view.”
What the court has done at this point is jump to the conclusion that because the child has a Christian viewpoint there is a problem that must be solved. No other conclusion can be reached. The court has a problem with the fact that the child is a Christian. Can anyone in their wildest dreams imagine what would happen if this child were to be translated into a male Muslim child ordered to be removed from his Muslim school because the court felt that being a Muslim is a problem that requires a solution. The resulting outrage would be unimaginable.
The childs father, in fact, took her to church until she was aged seven years. At that time he stopped because as he testified it was having an “effect on her and she had started believing this stuff.” So, the mothers actions are completely consistent with the fathers previous actions with his daughter.
The mother also testified under oath that the daughter has been exposed to other religious traditions including evolution and creation information. The mother, however, has a constitutional right to rear her child in her religions tradition as the custodial parent.
The state of New Hampshire representative interviewing the mother has shown an outrageous bias against Christianity. The representative refused to interview the individuals supplied as references to her. And the representative actually crossed off references if they were Christians according to the Attorney’s motion to the court.
When the mother supplied the state representative with research about home schooling the person actually said according to the motion I don’t want to hear it. It’s all Christian based. This flagrant hostility toward Christianity should not be tolerated by the court as the court deems itself to operate under the United States Constitution. That statement is outrageous beyond all tolerance. Then the court actually agreed with it seemingly taking sides against the mother and daughters Christian belief system. I find it almost impossible to draw any other conclusion. The state representative then told the mother “if I want her in school then she will be in school”.
No where in the United States of America should such an attitude on the part of public representative be tolerated. That statement shows a bias against Christianity on the part of the state as this is the states representative that is without any doubt what so ever. This kind of bias and outright hostility should have been thown to the gutter by the court. Yet the court accepted it.
As a result of these arguments Attorney Simmons has correctly filed a motion to stay the order of the court. I congratulate him on his fine work on the behalf of this client. This attorney obviously elegantly understands the constitution of the United States. The court however seems to know little to nothing about it.
I am going to continue to watch this case as it moves forward. This has the potential to be a watershed case in the rights of parents to determine the education, socialization track, and religious training of their own children in opposition to the opinion of the state.
This case should also be of great concern any parent of any child, any caregiver, any child advocate or anyone interested in the welfare of children in the United States of America. The statists of our country want to control our every move. They want government to have the last say in most aspects of our lives but particularly in how our children are raised and socialized. The statist philosophy is that they children should be raised to be compliant citizens of the country who are easy to manage. Modern education was established by the large industrialists of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s as a way to gain a compliant easily manageable workforce.
The decision of this court follows that exact path. The state knows best what to do with our children. If you are in any way concerned with the fate of the children in the United States get on the train now. In fact, run because the statist train has already pulled out of the station.