ChristusG Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Have you seen this news story? Too Religious To Homeschool This is crazy!! I wonder if it really has to do with religion? Or if it's mainly the ex-husband wanting to cause trouble and they are grasping at reasons to put the kid back into public school? If it's really about religion then I don't see how in the world they could force the mom to put the kid in school....that's such a violation of rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplain Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 You're suggesting the ex-husband is just wants to cause trouble? :glare: Isn't he the girl's parent too? Shouldn't he have equal input regarding decisions about the education his daughter receives? Whose rights do you believe are being violated here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lolly Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I'm afraid I agree with the attorney's statement that it is not about religion, it is about divorce dispute. The father thinks one thing is better for the child; the mother thinks differently. Could the father be just doing this to hurt the mother, yes. Could the mother's religious views becoming so radical (to father) be part of the reason for the divorce, yes. No way we can know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 This is why the homeschool defense league won't get involved in divorce cases. YIKES! You have to wonder if this is a case of the father's power play against his ex-wife rather than the actual issues of religion in homeschooling. Dawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldskool Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Not sure what to think. It will be interesting to see what the court decides. Lesley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 “One wants the child very isolated and cloistered and the other wants the child to be worldly and be exposed to all the experiences one ought to have as an adolescent.” Ought? I think he means that the other parent would like his dd to experience. There is no "ought" about it. Simmons disagrees. He says Voydatch and her ex-husband had already agreed to home-school Amanda. He says the disagreement emerged over Brenda’s religious beliefs. IDK that the other parent gets equal say, tho I agree I think their say should be considered. I think it depends. Who has custody? Is he going to be the one to take her to and from school and school events? Bet not, but that would be GREAT. Otherwise, it sounds like he wants to dictate how the mother and daughter lives without him. Too bad. Frankly, if he isn't going to put up, then he should shut up IMO. Also, school is for academics, not social experiences. Is he going to pay for all those experiences? Sports, music, prom and nearly anything else will require more time and more money. Is he going to be POd if dd is constantly needing more money or doesn't want to visit him some weekend bc she would rather go have some experience he fought for her to have? Or is only mom supposed to deal with that? I am NOT saying he is a turd like that, but these are valid questions that should be asked. Because again, if the answers are that he doesn't want it bad enough to make it happen - then this isn't even about religion. It is about him trying to dictate how his ex and dd live without him and no, I don't think he should be allowed to do that. I tend to feel the same about married couples. I would be more than a little ticked if my dh tried telling me what to do while he doesn't help to make it happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplain Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Who has custody? Custody is joint, according to one of the opinion pieces I read. I don't have any reason to think that's untrue, given that the piece was very much opposed to the father's position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Custody is joint, according to one of the opinion pieces I read. I don't have any reason to think that's untrue, given that the piece was very much opposed to the father's position. So what does that mean? Every other weekend? Every other week? Split weeks? I personally think that if the mom has custody M-F, then she should have a bit more say. It also brings another question: If they have say, split week custody, why doesn't he get more involved in the home schooling (that he previously agreed to) and take the dd to whatever events? He does not need moms religious permission to do so. And if he did, will that change in school or will mom simply say fine, the court says I have send you, but they can't make me let you participate in those ungodly experiences and activities I religiously disagree with. I'm just not getting how just attending public school will mean this girl gets whatever experiences the father seems to think she should. If mom has a religious objection, she is still going to say no. And if dad isn't going to make it happen, then it won't be happening. If they have join custody and the father feels mom is too isolating, why hasn't he stepped up to give social opportunities? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) Divorces can get nasty. Edited January 30, 2011 by LibraryLover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-FL Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Otherwise, it sounds like he wants to dictate how the mother and daughter lives without him. Too bad. I tend to feel the same about married couples. I would be more than a little ticked if my dh tried telling me what to do while he doesn't help to make it happen. :iagree: Just from the current info, xh sounds like a controller. May not be, but if they had already worked out the schooling issue in the divorce (as was stated) why is this coming up now? Makes you wonder the "why" of the divorce. Was it an affair and now he's feeling that mom is "too religious" and if dd was like the rest of the population (as seen on TV) she'd support his lifestyle? All speculation, of course, but it does seem there's more to the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiCO Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Have you seen this news story? Too Religious To Homeschool This is crazy!! I wonder if it really has to do with religion? Or if it's mainly the ex-husband wanting to cause trouble and they are grasping at reasons to put the kid back into public school? If it's really about religion then I don't see how in the world they could force the mom to put the kid in school....that's such a violation of rights. I'm guessing that the mom got way more extreme in her religious views after the divorce. If I were that dad, I would sure be suing to get that kid into school, just so she would be away from the mom for 7 hours a day. However, I think the attorneys are both making inflamatory statements. I don't believe teenagers "need" to have certain experiences, and I don't believe this is about freedom of religion. As someone else said, whose freedom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 :iagree: Just from the current info, xh sounds like a controller. May not be, but if they had already worked out the schooling issue in the divorce (as was stated) why is this coming up now? Makes you wonder the "why" of the divorce. Was it an affair and now he's feeling that mom is "too religious" and if dd was like the rest of the population (as seen on TV) she'd support his lifestyle? All speculation, of course, but it does seem there's more to the story. :lol: It's funny how we all look at the meager facts presented in the article and apply our own bias. My first thought is that mom's religious views have gotten extreme and are driving a wedge between the dad and the daughter. I'm feeling sorry for the dad who is supporting his daughter and getting only judgment in return. Wonder if either of us are anywhere near the truth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristusG Posted January 28, 2011 Author Share Posted January 28, 2011 You're suggesting the ex-husband is just wants to cause trouble? :glare: Isn't he the girl's parent too? Shouldn't he have equal input regarding decisions about the education his daughter receives? Whose rights do you believe are being violated here? Not necessarily "causing trouble." I know that divorces can get ugly. If everything didn't pan out the way the father saw fit, then maybe he's just looking for anything he can do to retaliate at the mother. Not saying that's what happened....just wondering if it is really about religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I'm not automatically thinking dad is a turd. I'm posing questions that need to be addressed to determine if he is being reasonable or just a PITA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remudamom Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 If anyone is doubting that the ex could just be trying to stir up trouble, it's nowhere near the realm of the impossible. You guys remember my sis and her ex. He is still constantly doing everything he can to make sis and the girls unhappy. Also anyone who is related to or friends with sis. He's beyond sick. It's not divorces that are nasty, it's individuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Personally, I don't think religion should have even been allowed to be discussed. Plenty of secular parents are just as isolating and or over protective. If he has a legitimate complaint that his dd is unhappy due to isolation or is receiving a lower than the public school education - then that is the only issue that matters or should be discussed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Personally, I don't think religion should have even been allowed to be discussed. Plenty of secular parents are just as isolating and or over protective. If he has a legitimate complaint that his dd is unhappy due to isolation or is receiving a lower than the public school education - then that is the only issue that matters or should be discussed. I disagree. I think that in a divorce if one parent feels the other is working to alienate the children from him or her, based on religious grounds or any other grounds, that is absolutely something that should be brought up, before a judge if necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom2denj Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 You're suggesting the ex-husband is just wants to cause trouble? :glare: Isn't he the girl's parent too? Shouldn't he have equal input regarding decisions about the education his daughter receives? Whose rights do you believe are being violated here? If you listen to the entire story, the father originally was ok with homeschooing. I think this is more of a case of husband trying to get revenge on ex-wife! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Well, it could be that he's a vicious jerk trying to get back at his ex, has grasped at every other straw and is now going for this one. It could also be that the girl has started visiting him, telling him he doesn't love her because they differ over religion and lecturing him about how he's going to burn in hell. And really we don't have any information whatsoever, since information is either going to be filtered through the mother's lawyer or the father's lawyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I'm afraid I agree with the attorney's statement that it is not about religion, it is about divorce dispute. The father thinks one thing is better for the child; the mother thinks differently. Could the father be just doing this to hurt the mother, yes. Could the mother's religious views becoming so radical (to father) be part of the reason for the divorce, yes. No way we can know. :iagree: On one hand, the father could be afraid that the mother's religious views are being used to isolate the child from the father emotionally/mentally. On the other hand, the father could be using this to strike out at the mother. Again, the mother could be using it to strike out against the father or the mother could really be well-intentioned and is honestly simply trying to educate her child to the best of her ability and with the faith of the home that the child is living in. We don't know. The mother has custody. I would think that if the father had a huge issue with the religion in the home, that he'd be fighting for custody, not just for a certain type of schooling. *shrug* There are so many variables unknown in this situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplain Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 So what does that mean? Every other weekend? Every other week? Split weeks? According to one source, the mother has primary physical custody, but they have joint decision making authority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplain Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 If you listen to the entire story, the father originally was ok with homeschooing. I think this is more of a case of husband trying to get revenge on ex-wife! They divorced when the child was an infant. It is simply unreasonable to expect that his views on the matter of her education won't change over time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXMary2 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 According to one source, the mother has primary physical custody, but they have joint decision making authority. That kind of arrangement would tick me off. Let me get this straight.....mom gets to do all the work but Dad gets to pipe in with his opinions? Opinions/decision making percentage should equal the percentage of time and money invested in the child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplain Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 The mother has custody. I would think that if the father had a huge issue with the religion in the home, that he'd be fighting for custody, not just for a certain type of schooling. *shrug* There are so many variables unknown in this situation. Not true. They have joint custody. The mother has primary physical custody, but they share decision-making authority equally. Primary physical custody does not imply one parent was less fit. It is common because shared physical custody tends to be a very difficult arrangement for all parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Hello! There is a dead elephant on this living room floor, and it's call MONEY! If the girl attends a school, then the father doesn't have to pay the mother to stay home with her. The courts will force the mom to get a job, and his expenses will go down. I would bet anything that that is the real issue for him. The religious one is a red herring, I'll bet. They're arguing about religion because normally that trumps everything else. Religion is less regulated than any other part of American life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Not true. They have joint custody. The mother has primary physical custody, but they share decision-making authority equally. Primary physical custody does not imply one parent was less fit. It is common because shared physical custody tends to be a very difficult arrangement for all parties. Again, the video I saw (posted elsewhere) didn't state what the specifics on custody were. In fact, it left A LOT out of the picture. That was my point. There is too much that none of us know about the situation to make a proper judgment. It's useless for us to play armchair judge and jury ;) (I also never said that the dad was less fit. I stated that if the religion was the main issue, then there should be more than just "where she schools" taken to bat here) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I disagree. I think that in a divorce if one parent feels the other is working to alienate the children from him or her, based on religious grounds or any other grounds, that is absolutely something that should be brought up, before a judge if necessary. Again tho, her religion has nothing to do with that, even if it is her excuse. If she is saying things to make dd hate dad or not want to be with him, then that should be addressed. Especially if they are untrue. There's also the question of what constitutes alienating. Sometimes a parent is a turd and alienates themselves but blames the other parent when older children don't want anything to do with them because of their past behaviors. This is a teenager who likely knows exactly what is going on with this divorce. Is the dd even wanting to attend school? Is she being rebellious and running to daddy bc she hates moms religious views? There are LOTS of questions to be addressed here and 98% of them have nothing to do with religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 There are LOTS of questions to be addressed here and 98% of them have nothing to do with religion. Precisely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paintedlady Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I'm guessing that the mom got way more extreme in her religious views after the divorce. If I were that dad, I would sure be suing to get that kid into school, just so she would be away from the mom for 7 hours a day. Based on something particular in the article about the mom or are you saying that just b/c she's religious in general? I'd hate to think that you'd support someone losing the right to homeschool b/c they were "too religious." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 That kind of arrangement would tick me off. Let me get this straight.....mom gets to do all the work but Dad gets to pipe in with his opinions? Opinions/decision making percentage should equal the percentage of time and money invested in the child. Yeah. That's crap. So even though he isn't around 5/7ths of the time, but he gets to dictate what they do with that time without having to help make it happen? That's BS. If he wants a say - fine. Again, put up or shut up. Primary physical custody does not imply one parent was less fit. It is common because shared physical custody tends to be a very difficult arrangement for all parties. It isn't a question of being fit. It's a question of either being part of the solution or the problem. If he isn't willing to help make public schooling happen, then he is just being a PITA. If he really feels that the mother is either off her rocker nuts bc of religion or that she is turning his dd against him - demanding dd be sent to school is not going to change that in the least. And of course, money could be the core issue here too. Tho again, if it is, that could backfire. Like I said, "opportunities" teens want aren't money or time free. I think if he is going to push for this, the mother should gather how much it would cost and stipulate it be included in the agreement. Bet that gives him an unpleasant reality check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimm Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Regardless of the father's motivations, when you have two parents who disagree on what their child's religious beliefs should be, who gets to decide? Other than the child, of course, when she is older. Asking the court to make some kind of judgment about whether or not the mother's religious beliefs are "too extreme" has some fairly negative repercussions to me. What criteria are they basing this on? Are they going to clearly spell out which beliefs you are allowed to have before you've crossed the line? How much flexibility should you have before you are "too rigid"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelBee Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Hello! There is a dead elephant on this living room floor, and it's call MONEY! If the girl attends a school, then the father doesn't have to pay the mother to stay home with her. The courts will force the mom to get a job, and his expenses will go down. I would bet anything that that is the real issue for him. The religious one is a red herring, I'll bet. They're arguing about religion because normally that trumps everything else. Religion is less regulated than any other part of American life. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I'm confused. Her xh says that her teaching their child about their faith is not want he wants. The judge says that he is sending her to ps, because she shows rigidity of faith... but it's not about religion? It's about the mother being too religious in hsing (which really t-s me off. Hs mothers aren't aloud to teach their children about their faith?!?) and her daughter becoming too religious, but it's not about religion? :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettyandbob Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 There is just not enough information to know what is going on. It could easily be that the ex husband is a jerk. It could also easily be that the mom is alienating the child from her dad under the guise of religious education. As the child's parent the father does have a say in how she is raised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I'm confused. Her xh says that her teaching their child about their faith is not want he wants. The judge says that he is sending her to ps, because she shows rigidity of faith... but it's not about religion? It's about the mother being too religious in hsing (which really t-s me off. Hs mothers aren't aloud to teach their children about their faith?!?) and her daughter becoming too religious, but it's not about religion? :confused: Oh THAT I agree with. The judge is basically saying it's only okay to be religious as long as you aren't .. What? Actually living it? Mention it? Teach it? What the heck does rigid in her faith mean? Not flexible enough to be okay with tossing it as her father would like her to on what ever? I don't think anyone is saying religion is not involved here. What they, or at least I, am saying is that it shouldn't have a thing to do with it. The judge is out of line to even go there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secular_mom Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Not necessarily "causing trouble." I know that divorces can get ugly. If everything didn't pan out the way the father saw fit, then maybe he's just looking for anything he can do to retaliate at the mother. Not saying that's what happened....just wondering if it is really about religion. I'm guessing it is about religion- the problem seems to be that the daughter's behavior has changed due to their religious beliefs/teachings. The dad may have tried to provide social opportunities but the the daughter declined because they don't align with her/her mom's beliefs. But does the child get to choose her own beliefs? Is she choosing? Is she making her decisions about behavior/etc. based on HER beliefs or is she making them because she doesn't want to disappoint her mom? Should the mom be allowed to 'brainwash' the child which may be clearly turning the child against her dad? There's no way we the public can know all the details and all we can do is make assumptions and/or speculate. Are people more inclined to make negative assumptions about the dad because he's a male? Because he says the mom is 'too religious'? Are people more likely to assume it was because of him having an affair or it was his choice or due to some other unwholesome behavior on his part? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) Oh THAT I agree with. The judge is basically saying it's only okay to be religious as long as you aren't .. What? Actually living it? Mention it? Teach it? What the heck does rigid in her faith mean? Not flexible enough to be okay with tossing it as her father would like her to on what ever? I don't think anyone is saying religion is not involved here. What they, or at least I, am saying is that it shouldn't have a thing to do with it. The judge is out of line to even go there. :iagree:It may not really be that the father is focusing on her religion. It could very well be that he just wants to hurt his xw, or is worried about his dd's education (I can give him the benefit of the doubt ;) ). The problem is the case itself is now about religion and homeschooling. I cannot believe that the judge would even consider saying that (too rigid &tc). Now, it's a matter of whether or not homeschooling parents should be allowed to teach their children about their faith. This sort of reminds me of Stripes other thread. The one about whether or not we have to entertain all opinions on every matter. The judge believes that this child needs outside input, because her mother is doing too good a job in raising her to be of the same religion. So, do we all have to give equal time to other religions, do we have to cast doubt on our own religions, so our kids won't be too rigid, they won't believe too much?!? :banghead: ETA Carol in Cal is right, it's not whether or not parents can teach their children religion (specifically hsing parents), it's whether or not the state can interfere or a judge can decide how much religious training at home is too much or too rigid. I'm afraid I agree with the attorney's statement that it is not about religion, it is about divorce dispute. You have to wonder if this is a case of the father's power play against his ex-wife rather than the actual issues of religion in homeschooling. Edited January 28, 2011 by lionfamily1999 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiCO Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Based on something particular in the article about the mom or are you saying that just b/c she's religious in general? I'd hate to think that you'd support someone losing the right to homeschool b/c they were "too religious." Obviously, none of us know the entire story here and we are all putting it into a context based on our own beliefs. So this is where I'm coming from and what I'm imagining- I'm an atheist. I imagine a scenario where mom & dad are liberal Christians. They get divorced, mom becomes much more devout and fundamentalist (literalist.) Dad does not want child being taught that evolution is wrong, and literal creationism is true, so he sues to have the child sent to public school so she can learn more diverse opinions. Attorneys have to put spins on it, and that's what we're hearing. Obviously, I side with dad on this issue. I do realize my imagined scenario could be completely off base. Maybe mom is doing a great job of teaching at home, and dad just doesn't want mom to have that much influence- but he's too lazy to take care of dd himself. Or maybe it's all about the money as someone else said. I would not support a family losing the right to homeschool because they were deemed "too religious", as long as both parents agree on how the kids will be educated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elisabeth in IL Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) I was up way too early this morning and did some "research" on this story. Here are some links..... http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=108084 Posted: August 28, 2009 http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/232795/high-court-hears-home-school-case January 7, 2011 http://www.nhpr.org/node/26912 This one was written Sept. 9, 2009 To me, it seems as if the mother has made some attempts to deal with her ex's concerns that their daughter is too isolated as she had her daughter enrolled in some classes at the local school already. It does seem as if he is being a bit demanding. Also, according to one of the articles they had been divorced since the girl was a few months old. Edited January 28, 2011 by Elisabeth in IL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 The point of law has now moved beyond this family, though. The point of law now is, 'Does the state have the right, under law, to require that someone be raised with less strict religious beliefs, ever?' Letting that stand would be an extremely dangerous precedent on a lot of levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiCO Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 The point of law has now moved beyond this family, though. The point of law now is, 'Does the state have the right, under law, to require that someone be raised with less strict religious beliefs, ever?' Letting that stand would be an extremely dangerous precedent on a lot of levels. I think it's more about if one parent has the right to determine the religious upbringing of a child, without the imput of the other parent. Does the state have the right to choose one set of beliefs over another? I do think you're right though- whatever the court decides has the potential to set dangerous precedents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I think it's more about if one parent has the right to determine the religious upbringing of a child, without the imput of the other parent. Does the state have the right to choose one set of beliefs over another? I do think you're right though- whatever the court decides has the potential to set dangerous precedents. The quote they said was from the judge, though, was about the child being as rigid as her parent in belief. It was not about a parent disagreeing it was about the rigidness of the belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 The quote they said was from the judge, though, was about the child being as rigid as her parent in belief. It was not about a parent disagreeing it was about the rigidness of the belief. Which is the judge's opinion and doesn't make for a good ruling as stated. There should be more stated or less stated that identify with the specifics of this situation and the issues between the parents...not because the child identifies more with one side or the other (I can't see a dad coming in and saying that a child has to be sent to a church school because the child is showing the mother's rigidity in agnosticism, paganism, or atheism...and having a judge agree). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I think it's more about if one parent has the right to determine the religious upbringing of a child, without the imput of the other parent. Does the state have the right to choose one set of beliefs over another? Except that in family law, barring extreme danger to the child or complete alienation from the non-custodial parent, what has been being done right along has priority over the non-custodial parent wanting to change things. So the presumption is that the the non-c has agreed so far and is now changing his mind. Burden of proof is on him to show that he has always objected or that there as been a significant change. For the judge to base the decision on the religious rigidity of the child is the dangerous precedent, and the part that is likely to be overturned, IMV. And especially since letting the decision stand will allow the father to require the mother to get a job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Which is the judge's opinion and doesn't make for a good ruling as stated. There should be more stated or less stated that identify with the specifics of this situation and the issues between the parents...not because the child identifies more with one side or the other (I can't see a dad coming in and saying that a child has to be sent to a church school because the child is showing the mother's rigidity in agnosticism, paganism, or atheism...and having a judge agree). :iagree: I will say, I'm glad he didn't put a gag order on the mother, although I'm guessing he was tempted to. Except that in family law, barring extreme danger to the child or complete alienation from the non-custodial parent, what has been being done right along has priority over the non-custodial parent wanting to change things. So the presumption is that the the non-c has agreed so far and is now changing his mind. Burden of proof is on him to show that he has always objected or that there as been a significant change. For the judge to base the decision on the religious rigidity of the child is the dangerous precedent, and the part that is likely to be overturned, IMV. And especially since letting the decision stand will allow the father to require the mother to get a job. :D I will now stand behind you chanting, "What she said! What she said!" :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paintedlady Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Obviously, none of us know the entire story here and we are all putting it into a context based on our own beliefs. So this is where I'm coming from and what I'm imagining- I'm an atheist. I imagine a scenario where mom & dad are liberal Christians. They get divorced, mom becomes much more devout and fundamentalist (literalist.) Dad does not want child being taught that evolution is wrong, and literal creationism is true, so he sues to have the child sent to public school so she can learn more diverse opinions. Attorneys have to put spins on it, and that's what we're hearing. Obviously, I side with dad on this issue. I do realize my imagined scenario could be completely off base. Maybe mom is doing a great job of teaching at home, and dad just doesn't want mom to have that much influence- but he's too lazy to take care of dd himself. Or maybe it's all about the money as someone else said. I would not support a family losing the right to homeschool because they were deemed "too religious", as long as both parents agree on how the kids will be educated. What if it were the opposite though? What if someone wanted to take away your right to homeschool b/c you were teaching evolution as an atheist? Shouldn't your children be sent to school (even a religious school) to ensure their exposure to more diverse opinions? In your original post you said, "If I were that dad, I would sure be suing to get that kid into school, just so she would be away from the mom for 7 hours a day." Really? I happen to be a conservative Christian who teaches that evolution is wrong and literal creationism is true. Why should that belief be held against someone? Would you support my husband suing to get my kids into school to get them away from me? Wow. :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Peach Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Except that in family law, barring extreme danger to the child or complete alienation from the non-custodial parent, what has been being done right along has priority over the non-custodial parent wanting to change things. So the presumption is that the the non-c has agreed so far and is now changing his mind. Burden of proof is on him to show that he has always objected or that there as been a significant change. For the judge to base the decision on the religious rigidity of the child is the dangerous precedent, and the part that is likely to be overturned, IMV. And especially since letting the decision stand will allow the father to require the mother to get a job. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleWMN Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 What if it were the opposite though? What if someone wanted to take away your right to homeschool b/c you were teaching evolution as an atheist? Shouldn't your children be sent to school (even a religious school) to ensure their exposure to more diverse opinions? In your original post you said, "If I were that dad, I would sure be suing to get that kid into school, just so she would be away from the mom for 7 hours a day." Really? I happen to be a conservative Christian who teaches that evolution is wrong and literal creationism is true. Why should that belief be held against someone? Would you support my husband suing to get my kids into school to get them away from me? Wow. :confused: :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 What if it were the opposite though? What if someone wanted to take away your right to homeschool b/c you were teaching evolution as an atheist? Shouldn't your children be sent to school (even a religious school) to ensure their exposure to more diverse opinions? In your original post you said, "If I were that dad, I would sure be suing to get that kid into school, just so she would be away from the mom for 7 hours a day." Really? I happen to be a conservative Christian who teaches that evolution is wrong and literal creationism is true. Why should that belief be held against someone? Would you support my husband suing to get my kids into school to get them away from me? Wow. :confused: ...but our views aren't valid apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Except that in family law, barring extreme danger to the child or complete alienation from the non-custodial parent, what has been being done right along has priority over the non-custodial parent wanting to change things. So the presumption is that the the non-c has agreed so far and is now changing his mind. Burden of proof is on him to show that he has always objected or that there as been a significant change. For the judge to base the decision on the religious rigidity of the child is the dangerous precedent, and the part that is likely to be overturned, IMV. And especially since letting the decision stand will allow the father to require the mother to get a job. :iagree:I agree with what you are saying, but I am trying to understand the mom getting a job thing. Is this both an alimony and child support case? Did I miss something. When I was growing up my dad's child support was based on state standards...not what my mom brought in. I think this is about money, he is the dad and if he pays child support he should have some say in his dd education. For the judge to make the statements he did, speaks to the good possibility that there was something going on. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and if it does set a precedent. Also, will it be applied universally in similar family court cases. Basically, can you use the argument of rigidity to describe atheists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.