home school judge rules student back in school because of her faith

Yesterday I was contacted by a friend who told me that I had drawn the completely wrong conclusion about the issues in the New Hampshire case.  I was told that it’s not about religion it is about the father’s wishes.  Tonight I have been in debate after debate.  I am going to cut and paste some quotes related to this case.  I’m not going to comment, I’ll just leave it to you to decide if this is about the child’s faith or not.

 

It is not the proper role of the court to insist that Amanda be “exposed to different points of view” if the primary residential parent has determined that it is in Amanda’s best interest not to be exposed to secular influences that would undermine Amanda’s faith, schooling, social development, etc. The Court is not permitted to demonstrate hostility toward religion, and particularly the faith of Amanda and Mother, by removing Amanda from the home and thrusting her into an environment that the custodial parent deems detrimental to Amanda. 

 

The Court’s ruling acknowledges that it applied a lesser preponderance standard and a “best interests” standard to conclude that the parenting plan be modified and to order Amanda to attend public school.

 

 

 

 

In addition, the Court created,

 

sponte sua, its own definition of what the purpose of education is: “…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

 

Second, the Court’s own Order admits that the child is well-socialized.

 

“… the evidence support a finding that Amanda is generally likeable and well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising, and intellectually at or superior to grade level.”

 

The Court correctly noted

“its obligation not to consider the specific tenets of any religious system unless there is evidence that those tenets have been applied in such a way as to cause actual harm to the child.” added.) a productive and satisfying life.”

“its obligation not to consider the specific tenets of any religious system unless there is evidence that those tenets have been applied in such a way as to cause actual harm to the child.”

added.) a productive and satisfying life.”

 

 

 

 

Even if the Court could articulate some legally cognizable concerns regarding the religious upbringing of Amanda and the lack of “exposure to other views”, one would assume the Court is not expecting the public school system to be the source of other religious views.

 

 

 

It is a fundamental right of a parent to raise their child according the holdings of the parent’s religion and beliefs. To be compelled otherwise by Court orders puts the Courts (the “State”) in the business of determining children’s religious upbringing.

This is unconstitutional.

 

As Mother testified at trial, the GAL literally crossed people off the list if they were Christians. The GAL did not deny doing so.

 

 

Mother gave the GAL some research concerning homeschooling and asked if the GAL had read it. The GAL refused to read it or even consider it because, as she said,

I don’t’ want to hear it. It’s all Christian based.

I don’t’ want to hear it. It’s all Christian based.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s