"[E]ducation is by its nature an exploration and examination of new things," the court order read. "[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."
When are we going to stop letting government tell us how to parent? When are they going to leave us alone and stop acting like omniscient gods that define what is and is not required of a child? How, by the way, do they know the child was not getting all those so called "requirements" from other sources??? Leave us alone!!
Posts
As I stated in other blogs about this and similar cases this is a DIVORCE case. It's clear from reading everything that the parents (Father AND mother) of the children are NOT in agreement with HOW the children are suppose to be raised. That's why all of these things are before a judge...
ReplyDeleteWhat's the Judge suppose to do? He has to side with someone... Why is when judges side with the father it's an injustice??
Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it's the REASON the judge chose the father's side that bothers me. She could have put the child in school WITHOUT discrediting homeschooling all together.
I've you read the actual order? In the order it states that the daughter believes that the her father does NOT love her because he does NOT share her (and the mother's) religious beliefs. When I read something like that it makes me wonder what the mother is teaching her daughter.
ReplyDeleteThere is much more to it then it simply because the mother is Christian and trying to instill Christian values.
In my humble opinion, child should NOT feel that a parent does NOT love them simply because they do NOT share the child's religious beliefs. There is something serious wrong with that picture.
Also, in the order it clear that the Dad wants his daughter in public school. The DAD has listed his reason, and one of the FATHERS reasons is he wants his daughter exposed to other beliefs in hopes to better their relationship. The Father, feels that his relationship with his daughter is strained because of her beliefs, such as that he does NOT love her because he does NOT share her (and the mother's) religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteHow many children are stuck in the "middle" of a divorce and "taught" a negative attitude about a parent?? What does that have to do with homeschooling? Will putting her in public school change that?
ReplyDeleteIf the mother is the primary custody parent, she has the right IMO to decide how she is educated just as she has the right to choose her health care, diet, and clothing.
This is just one family and one example BUT it sets precedent. THAT'S the reason I HAVE to care.
I'm not saying that public schooling would change the negative attitudes that may be taught about the child.
ReplyDeleteI have to respectively disagree that just because the mother may have primary "physical" custody, mean that the father's opinions are chucked out the window. They together brought this child into this world and they BOTH have equal say regarding a child's formation, be it education, religion, etc.
All of this was before a judge because THEY, mother and father, could not agree on these terms. I think another poster I read on a different blog said it best: "The parents are responsible for this situation and now they want the government to fix it"
The parents asked the government (Judge) to fix this situation, because they simply could NOT and would NOT agree to what is best for their child.
The judge simply just sided with the father, agreed with the points that the FATHER made: that being in public school would expose his child to more beliefs then just the mothers. (This is what the Father wanted, and these were Father's reasons for wanting his daughter in public school.)
I like the point that the parents asked the government to fix it. Unless of the course the mother was forced into court.
ReplyDeleteThe father's opinion shouldn't be chucked out the window, but NOW who is going to have to be the one to help the child with her homework because her hours at school were not used efficiently? Or the hard work of filtering out any harmful influences the child may encounter? (sex/drugs/profanity etc.) The MOTHER will, not the father.
There are real reasons and benefits for homeschooling that this mother obviously felt were necessary and worked for her family. It's not a decision one makes on a whim.
Divorce or not, couldn't the judge's words also be applied to any homeschooled child? Doesn't it also put the rights of other homeschoolers in danger of being pegged as "unexposed to other beliefs and therefore not properly educated." I just don't think the courts should have an opinion on what makes one "to grow to an adult who can make intelligent decisions about how to achieve a productive and satisfying life."
What in the order makes you believe the mother was force into court?
ReplyDeleteI didn't say I knew that for sure. I just meant she was probably happily living her life and he took her to court over it. It DID say she had tried to compromise with SOME public classes before. I just can't say for sure they were equally bickering and "asked the government to fix it". Sounds like the Father asked.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's clear from the order that this has been an ON going issue since their daughter was in 1st grade. Seeing she's 10/11 now that's easily been for at least the last 5 years.
ReplyDeleteShe has, for at least the last 5 years, have been homeschooling, regardless that the father NEVER approved of it. And even though the father NEVER approved of it, he did oversee his child homeschooling when she was with him during "school days".
The mother, in the order, stated she felt that the only opposition that the father had was do to his fears, that his daughter wouldn't have exposure to "other" children etc. So the mother felt that she had remedy that by signing her daughter up for certain classes @ the local public school.
The truth is that was NOT the father's only opposition.... He was and has been concern about his daughters religious up bringing....
There was so much more in the order as well. They had issues over the current residency plan (i.e. when the child was to be with mom or dad). The mother was saying that the daughter was suffering from emotional harm from spending "too much" time with her father.
The counselor that the child has been seeing does NOT agree with the mother's beliefs, in that regard. The counselor stated that she felt it good for the child to spend time with her father and her half-sister, and that there should be no restriction in that.
They were also in court oder if the child should continue receive chiropractor care, which was another thing they could NOT agree on. The father was saying NO to chiropractor care, but the mother was insisting that her daughter need it.
The judge ruled on the side of the mother, regarding the chiropractor, as long as those appointments did not interfere or where planned at times the child was or is suppose to be with her father.
There was more before the judge then just homeschooling. For heaven sakes they couldn't even agree on if the child should see a chiropractor.
Interesting. I posted about this same case on a forum that I frequent, and I didn't know that the father cared if the girl was in homeschool or not. I think in this case (or any other divorce cases where this type of situation comes up) whichever parent is given custody should retain the right to school the child in the way he or she sees fit. It would be equally unfair for the father to be granted custody but be required to homeschool. I agree with Pamela that the mom, as the primary custodian, will be the one left cleaning up the mess public school might make.
ReplyDeleteI'm very worried about the wording of the decision, even if it boils down to a matter of divorce.
Thanks for the spirited debate. Although I'm not quite sure why the details of this couple's divorce fascinates you so, the main point of the original post was to highlight the court's wording and their implications to the rest of us.
ReplyDelete