simka2 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. You put this very well!!! As a Christian this is what I "suspect" is going on...and would be mu concern. I'm having images of mom joining a fundementalist controlling church and husband seeing a change in dd'd behavior and attitudes. The truth is we don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 :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. ? If the mom is homeschooling, she can't work (although I did, but it's uncommon and not great). So the father has to pay more in a combo of alimony and child support that way. If he prevails, then she will be required to work or retrain--so he has an obvious ulterior motive to argue that she should not homeschool, because it will save him a LOT of money. That is why homeschooling parents are so vulnerable in a divorce if they want to continue to homeschool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paintedlady Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 ...but our views aren't valid apparently. Your views are valid, but I'm not the one advocating someone having their homeschooling rights taken away from them based on their religious (or lack there of views). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiCO Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 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. I agree with this. I am assuming a change in teaching philosophy, from liberally Christian to Fundamentalist (literal) Christianity. However-as I previously stated- I have no idea where the dad is actually coming from. I am not saying it's wrong to teach your children from a literal standpoint, or even teaching creationism as fact and evolution as wrong. I strongly belief that's your right as parents, and no- I don't think your children should be sent to public school to get other opinions. I am saying the father has rights also. I know a handful of young adults personally that were homeschooled to believe that creationism is right and evolution is wrong. Every single one of them is a wonderful young adult, and as far as I know they all still believe what they were taught. (I think their being wonderful adults has more to do with their strong moral upbringing and character development than being taught creationinsm though ;)) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 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. Again. This is basically saying it is okay to be religious as long as you don't seem different from anyone else ir base any of your decisions on it? 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? :001_huh:So dad takes her to court so he can force his beliefs instead? Should the mom be allowed to 'brainwash' the child which may be clearly turning the child against her dad? No. Tho what constitutes brainwashing or turning a child against him would need to be clarified. 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? no. 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. And would you side with him if it were the opposite and he wanted them sent to a private Christian school instead of a public school? 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. If he has joint custody, I fail to understand how he is not capable of giving input on religion with his child. Maybe he should make better use of his time with her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I I am saying the father has rights also. Yes, he does. The judge does not appear to have made that argument in his ruling; that is what is going to be the issue on appeal I'll bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiCO 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? The opposite might indeed be true. That's why, in my third paragraph, I said, "I do realize my imagined scenario could be completely off base." I think if the mom had been teaching from an extremely religious standpoint and suddenly turned atheist, the father should be able to protest that as well. Please remember that the overwhelming majority of people in the US are Christians. I started homeschooling my children to keep them away from proselytizing teachers and students in my area. I realize that there is a (sometimes very obnoxious) vocal atheist minority out there, but not all atheists agree with them (just as not all Christians are the same...) 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. Evidently I did not make myself clear in my earlier post- I apologize. I would support your husband *if* you had changed your beliefs and were now teaching them something he had never believed in. I would support you if your husband had changed his beliefs and now disagreed with you. For the record- I have absolutely no problem with people who teach literal creationism. I don't think it's correct, but I don't think you are harming your children in any way and I do not think your children should be taken away from you or educated elsewhere because of your beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiCO Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 ...but our views aren't valid apparently. I'm sorry, but I cannot find where in this thread someone said your views are not valid. Can you please point that out to me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Your views are valid, but I'm not the one advocating someone having their homeschooling rights taken away from them based on their religious (or lack there of views). Thank you :) I am not saying it's wrong to teach your children from a literal standpoint, or even teaching creationism as fact and evolution as wrong. I strongly belief that's your right as parents, and no- I don't think your children should be sent to public school to get other opinions. I am saying the father has rights also. I see :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I'm sorry, but I cannot find where in this thread someone said your views are not valid. Can you please point that out to me? I better understand the original post that the poster I was responding to was responding to........................ if you can follow all that ;) , because of your response to the other post of mine you quoted. This is all starting to sound a little Wonderlandish, but I'm hoping you know what I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Peach Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 What I keep coming back to in this case is, the child will remain in the mother's home, no? So she will still be religiously educating her daughter at home and in their church, and could potentially afterschool her with religious hs materials (she was using BJU). How far can another parent go in regulating this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristineW Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Based on one of the articles posted, I think the sticking point for dad was when DD told her father that she was sad that he didn't love her enough to want to spend eternity with her in heaven. I'm Christian, but my FIL is not. It would be devastating for him to hear that from one of my kids. We go to a fairly liberal church, where the pastors tend to hew to CS Lewis' theology of heaven and hell. If DH became fundamentalist and one of my kids said that to me b/c they thought I wasn't Christian enough, it would be all out war. I'd probably try to get her to change curriculum first. If mom is teaching DD that Dad doesn't love her b/c he doesn't love Jesus, then that undermines the kid's relationship with dad and is within the purview of the court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I'd probably try to get her to change curriculum first. If mom is teaching DD that Dad doesn't love her b/c he doesn't love Jesus, then that undermines the kid's relationship with dad and is within the purview of the court. Forcing her to go to ps, or change curriculums won't change that though. If that's what her mom is telling her (your dad does not love you...) then, short of taking her away from her mother and going to supervised visitation, nothing will stop that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Forcing her to go to ps, or change curriculums won't change that though. If that's what her mom is telling her (your dad does not love you...) then, short of taking her away from her mother and going to supervised visitation, nothing will stop that. but maybe he see's it as a reasonable step, without the all out war of fighting for full custody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 but maybe he see's it as a reasonable step, without the all out war of fighting for full custody. How would that stop her mother from telling her he doesn't love her enough, though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 How would that stop her mother from telling her he doesn't love her enough, though? It wouldn't, but it would reduce the number of hours a day that the girl could hear that message. It would also possibly expose the girl to other caring adults who were not using religion as a means of evaluating the depth or strength of a relationship. (Or possibly she'll get a horrible teacher and become even more convinced that people outside her faith are bad or wrong.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Based on one of the articles posted, I think the sticking point for dad was when DD told her father that she was sad that he didn't love her enough to want to spend eternity with her in heaven. I'm Christian, but my FIL is not. It would be devastating for him to hear that from one of my kids. We go to a fairly liberal church, where the pastors tend to hew to CS Lewis' theology of heaven and hell. If DH became fundamentalist and one of my kids said that to me b/c they thought I wasn't Christian enough, it would be all out war. Well gee guess one could do that. :001_huh: OR one could note that loving her wouldn't change his beliefs. It's stupid theology easy refuted with the most basic of logic that any child of upper elementary and up can comprehend. Does his belief that the moon is not made of cheese change if he loves her and she believes it is? No. Does his belief that murder is wrong if he loves her and she thinks it is okay? No. Does he suddenly believe whatever about God, or even that there is a God, because he loves her and that's what she believes? No. Kids say lots of stupid crap. Some of it repeated from who knows where and some of it just youthful ignorance. It is rare that requires court action or war attitude. Forcing her to go to ps, or change curriculums won't change that though. If that's what her mom is telling her (your dad does not love you...) then, short of taking her away from her mother and going to supervised visitation, nothing will stop that. I agree. That's nothing more than unnecessary retaliation. That not only doesn't solve the problem, but as great potential for backfiring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom0012 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) . Edited January 30, 2011 by LisaTheresa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) If I was doing what is being presented in the article my dh would also fight against me homeschooling. I agree with him. I wouldn't be ok with someone teaching my child that. Sure parents can teach their child as they see fit, but if I was placed in that dad's position I would do the same, as would my dh. Edited January 28, 2011 by Sis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidsHappen 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. Yes, custody (who gets to make the decisions) is seperate from where the child resides which is also seperate from child support. A judge should make a decisions regarding all three things but they are not necessarilly interrelated. For instance, if your ex doesn't pay child support that does not give you the right to prevent him from having visitation. SO just because the child lives with her mother does not mean that she gets to make all of the decisions. Now I don't know all of the details of the case, nor may I agree with the outcome but unfortunately in cases of divorce, they usually try to have an impartial third party make these decisions when the parents can't agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elisabeth in IL Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 they usually try to have an impartial third party make these decisions when the parents can't agree. If one of the articles that I posted is correct, it was the impartial third party that may have made the situation worse or be the one that brought religion into the discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rivka Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 You can read the whole ruling here. Apparently this is quite a custody battle. The father went to court to have his time with Amanda increased, and then the mother went to court claiming that spending extra time with her father was causing Amanda "extreme difficulty." The mother sounds like a piece of work; she's saying that Amanda has all kinds of serious emotional difficulties caused by visitation with her father which are apparently evident to no one but her. She justifies that by saying that she's the only one Amanda confides in, so she's the only one who knows how messed-up she is. Reading between the lines, it also appears that the mother accused the Guardian ad Litem of some things and that the judge doesn't believe her. When Amanda was evaluated by a counselor as part of the whole situation, she apparently interrogated the counselor about her religious beliefs, brought her a bunch of Bible stuff to read, and then got very upset when the counselor didn't read it. That's where the conclusion about her being "too rigid" in her beliefs comes from, and I do have to admit that it seems like a weird thing for a nine- or ten-year-old to do. The court ruling says: "The Court has not considered the merits of Amanda's religous beliefs, but considered only the impact of those beliefs on her interaction with others, both past and future. the Court declines to impose any restrictions on either party's ability to provide Amanda with religious training or to share with Amanda their own religious beliefs." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiCO Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I better understand the original post that the poster I was responding to was responding to........................ if you can follow all that ;) , because of your response to the other post of mine you quoted. This is all starting to sound a little Wonderlandish, but I'm hoping you know what I mean. Now I'm totally lost! :001_smile: But that's OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatCyndiGirl Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 You can read the whole ruling here. Apparently this is quite a custody battle. The father went to court to have his time with Amanda increased, and then the mother went to court claiming that spending extra time with her father was causing Amanda "extreme difficulty." The mother sounds like a piece of work; she's saying that Amanda has all kinds of serious emotional difficulties caused by visitation with her father which are apparently evident to no one but her. She justifies that by saying that she's the only one Amanda confides in, so she's the only one who knows how messed-up she is. Reading between the lines, it also appears that the mother accused the Guardian ad Litem of some things and that the judge doesn't believe her. When Amanda was evaluated by a counselor as part of the whole situation, she apparently interrogated the counselor about her religious beliefs, brought her a bunch of Bible stuff to read, and then got very upset when the counselor didn't read it. That's where the conclusion about her being "too rigid" in her beliefs comes from, and I do have to admit that it seems like a weird thing for a nine- or ten-year-old to do. The court ruling says: "The Court has not considered the merits of Amanda's religous beliefs, but considered only the impact of those beliefs on her interaction with others, both past and future. the Court declines to impose any restrictions on either party's ability to provide Amanda with religious training or to share with Amanda their own religious beliefs." Based on the above post I would say that public school (and, in particular NOT BEING HOMESCHOOLED BY HER RELIGIOUS MOM) is probably in the best interest of this child. I would dare to speculate that the 'issues' that the child had with the father is, in part, his different religious beliefs. If the kid tried to convert him and he refused-MAJOR PROBLEM. That poor kid. She NEEDS some outside influence! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amey311 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 You can read the bullet points of the mother's appeal on the 2009 ruling here: http://www.nhfamilylawblog.com/tags/brenda-voydatch/ I remember reading the initial ruling because a friend asked what I thought. The father has joint custody. There is a limit, I'm sure, to how much the father can be home with the child if he must also maintain an income and private child support for his daughter (I don't know if there is spousal support). I think it's completely naive to think that if the father wants more say in the daughter's education that he needs to be with her more. I also think it's naive to not consider that the mother's religious views may be causing an alienation of affection between the daughter and her father. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatCyndiGirl Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 from the court record: In her Further Report and testimony, the Guardian ad Litem echoed her previous concerns that Amanda's relationship with her father suffers to some degree by her belief that his refusal to adopt her religious beliefs and his choice instead to spend eternity away from her proves that he does not love her as much as he says he does. Amanda expressed these feelings to the counselor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Based on the above post I would say that public school (and, in particular NOT BEING HOMESCHOOLED BY HER RELIGIOUS MOM) is probably in the best interest of this child. I would dare to speculate that the 'issues' that the child had with the father is, in part, his different religious beliefs. If the kid tried to convert him and he refused-MAJOR PROBLEM. That poor kid. She NEEDS some outside influence! The court report and the ad litem note the girl is actually very active at the school already (spanish, art, and drama classes are taken at the school, plus private piano lessons) and all the teachers say she is doing well both socially and academically. The ONLY reason the ad litem seems to think she should be in school is because he doubts she will change her religious beliefs if schooled by her mother. He finds it unusual that she is so versed in her faith and would question an adult about theirs. While I agree that sadly most 10 year olds don't know their faith that well or have the confidence to question adults - that is not a sign of bad parenting or a bad education The ad litem openly says school will give the girl an opportunity to decide her own religion. That is just blatant bias to me. I think the mother probably was exaggerating the emotional trauma of visiting dad. She claims the father simply would not stop bothering the girl about her religious opinions. Which might also be true. It sounds like this is a typical ten year old who has lots of questions about right, wrong, sin, God and so forth and possibly neither parent is handling it well. Mom feels or is attacked for what she is sharing with her dd and maybe says something stupid in frustration and after seeing her dd upset decides dd should spend less time with questioning dad. Dad is trying to share his opinions with dd and she counters with her own opinion or what else she has been taught. Dad gets insulted or hurt and decides it is all mom's fault for being too religious. All in all, prime examples of foolishness, lack of logic and reason four billion twelve to avoid divorce if at all possible. What a mess for that poor girl. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatCyndiGirl Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) IMO, a ten year old girl who not only grills an adult on the adult's religious belief's, but is then upset that said adult doesn't do as the child says (do the homework, read the scriptures, convert) is WAY too parentifed for her own good. While I understand that some evangelicals think that this is just good parenting, it puts the onus of saving the souls of adults onto children and it is NOT healthy, from a psychological standpoint. Martha, I'm not talking about you. I know that you are Catholic and I've never met overly evangelical Catholics. (of course, I could be wrong about that.) Edited January 28, 2011 by ThatCyndiGirl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett 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. This is exactly why my lawyer encouraged me to go for full custody. He said when their is joint custody and the parents can't agree on important issues (education, religion, health) then they are constantly in and out of court. That is if the parent who DOESN'T have primary custody wants to drag it back to court. My own dh has joint custody but it seems to me in reality he gets very little say in matters. He can't even get her to meet us half way for pick up/drop off. :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 If the mom is homeschooling, she can't work (although I did, but it's uncommon and not great). So the father has to pay more in a combo of alimony and child support that way. If he prevails, then she will be required to work or retrain--so he has an obvious ulterior motive to argue that she should not homeschool, because it will save him a LOT of money. That is why homeschooling parents are so vulnerable in a divorce if they want to continue to homeschool. This is not how my alimony worked. It had nothing to do with custody or me homeschooling. I was awarded alimony for 3 years or until I remarried. I could have put ds in school the day after the divorce and got a job making 100K a year and he would have still had to pay me alimony for 3 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) IMO, a ten year old girl who not only grills an adult on the adult's religious belief's, but is then upset that said adult doesn't do as the child says (do the homework, read the scriptures, convert) is WAY too parentifed for her own good. While I understand that some evangelicals think that this is just good parenting, it puts the onus of saving the souls of adults onto children and it is NOT healthy, from a psychological standpoint. Martha, I'm not talking about you. I know that you are Catholic and I've never met overly evangelical Catholics. (of course, I could be wrong about that.) I was this way before the age of ten and it had nothing to do with my parents who were both pretty liberal spiritually and felt their spiritual lives were no one else's business (even to the point of refusing to answer my questions). This child could simply be this way by nature and has internalised her faith at this point to this extreme and it may change over time. I agree with Martha: I don't think either parent is dealing with this well. This may be a child that sees things as very black and white...which means she can only deal with one parent being "right" at the moment...and if that parent is "right" then the other must be "wrong". It's tough enough being a parent, even tougher when you need to navigate such differences with your child and ex. Edited January 28, 2011 by mommaduck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 IMO, a ten year old girl who not only grills an adult on the adult's religious belief's, but is then upset that said adult doesn't do as the child says (do the homework, read the scriptures, convert) is WAY too parentifed for her own good. While I understand that some evangelicals think that this is just good parenting, it puts the onus of saving the souls of adults onto children and it is NOT healthy, from a psychological standpoint. Martha, I'm not talking about you. I know that you are Catholic and I've never met overly evangelical Catholics. (of course, I could be wrong about that.) But is that what happened? The mother says she felt the ad litem was biased against religion. The court agrees with ad litem. Why I don't know. Did this girl go in guns blazing and grilling? Or did this ad litem grill her about what she believes and whether she can prove it and then get the unpleasant reaction if a girl who went home like any properly raised bible thumper come back with highlighted bible and maybe some pamphlets for him? Why did she expect him to look over it? Did he say he would and then didn't? Why didn't he just tell her point blank when she gave it that he wasn't interested? It just seems we are missing some info here. I'd like to know what led up to her doing that. Precisely bc I agree with you that if she walked in guns blazing to convert him, that is WAY off. But I don't know that more time at school would change that. Especially as BOTH the court and even the ad litem DENIED the father more custody time. In the ad litem case, he specifies clearly that especially as the girl is being sent to school, both parents should get equal time. It seems the court has decided school should offer the primary cultural and religious formation of this child. I will say the father doesn't sound like some total turd. It appears that they shared m-f visitation and tho the father somewhat struggled to help her with school work, he eventually managed. I wonder if he simply didn't want to have her or couldn't continue to have her during the week anymore but didn't want mom to have her more than he did? IDK. It seems both parents are now losing out. The father no longer gets to see dd during the week at all, just every other weekend and the court cut out Sunday over nights too. And mom doesn't get her for most of the week bc of school. Also, I'm curious how finances were changed. The first note of interest on the court records are that they didn't have time to address any petitions for financial changes. That could be enlightening as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Thanks for the links. Would have saved a lot of speculation up above. :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 http://www.appealslawyer.net/briefs/Kurowski_brief.pdf The fathers brief to the Supremem Court of NH http://oldsite.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/KurowskiBrief.pdf The mothers brief to the Supremem Court of NH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0106/N.H.-case-Can-a-divorced-parent-veto-home-schooling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Frankly, this is why I throw nothing out. Not a paper, calendar or notebook. You never know when the proverbial s**** will hit the fan. It could be divorce, an angry employee, a disgruntled client etc. The proof ladies is in the proof and if there is not standardized testing yearly, documents kept showing planning and achievement it is really easy for a biased judge to decide against hsing. Trust no one. Document your efforts ,if she had there would be no Supreme Court involvement . This is costing her ex a fortune. Like 30 to 40 thousand dollars minimum. Sorry but planning ahead for the possibility of someone acting like a jacka** is the rule for the day legally. There is no charge for the advice....:lol: Total depravity? I am right there with the most devoted Calvinist on that concept. I see it every day, all day long . Off to soak my head in some noir fiction for more examination of the depths of human misery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Thanks for the links. Would have saved a lot of speculation up above. :/ I try. I really do. Now I need my meds. :lol: And Chocolate. Served by Hugh Jackman. In shorts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 You can read the whole ruling here. Apparently this is quite a custody battle. The father went to court to have his time with Amanda increased, and then the mother went to court claiming that spending extra time with her father was causing Amanda "extreme difficulty." The mother sounds like a piece of work; she's saying that Amanda has all kinds of serious emotional difficulties caused by visitation with her father which are apparently evident to no one but her. She justifies that by saying that she's the only one Amanda confides in, so she's the only one who knows how messed-up she is. Reading between the lines, it also appears that the mother accused the Guardian ad Litem of some things and that the judge doesn't believe her. When Amanda was evaluated by a counselor as part of the whole situation, she apparently interrogated the counselor about her religious beliefs, brought her a bunch of Bible stuff to read, and then got very upset when the counselor didn't read it. That's where the conclusion about her being "too rigid" in her beliefs comes from, and I do have to admit that it seems like a weird thing for a nine- or ten-year-old to do. The court ruling says: "The Court has not considered the merits of Amanda's religous beliefs, but considered only the impact of those beliefs on her interaction with others, both past and future. the Court declines to impose any restrictions on either party's ability to provide Amanda with religious training or to share with Amanda their own religious beliefs." I linked the subsequent briefs on appeal further down. This is most interesting and thank you, thank you for sharing it.:001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 I try. I really do. Now I need my meds. :lol: And Chocolate. Served by Hugh Jackman. In shorts. Sorry Laurie I just realized you meant the other links. Off with chocolate, elavil and Hugh nonetheless. Too loooong of a day.:lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 This is not how my alimony worked. It had nothing to do with custody or me homeschooling. I was awarded alimony for 3 years or until I remarried. I could have put ds in school the day after the divorce and got a job making 100K a year and he would have still had to pay me alimony for 3 years. I'm not a lawyer, but in my state (which is not that of this case), generally the law expects the custodial parent to work. However, there is provision for a transition period for alimony purposes, but during that time the only sensible thing to do is to train to work, because it's short and once it expires it's gone forever. Sometimes, though, if the strong premise was that one parent would stay home with the children, a longer alimony will be provided for, but that is usually at the discretion of the parents' agreeing to it and sticking to it, which puts the custodial parent at the mercy of the non-C's commitment and integrity. Child support depends on what both parents make. It assumes an income whether a parent actually makes it or not. Because of that, if the custodial parent does not make that income, they often cannot make it financially. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 All I can say is, "poor kid!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dulcimeramy Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Frankly, this is why I throw nothing out. Not a paper, calendar or notebook. You never know when the proverbial s**** will hit the fan. It could be divorce, an angry employee, a disgruntled client etc. The proof ladies is in the proof and if there is not standardized testing yearly, documents kept showing planning and achievement it is really easy for a biased judge to decide against hsing. Trust no one. Document your efforts ,if she had there would be no Supreme Court involvement . This is costing her ex a fortune. Like 30 to 40 thousand dollars minimum. Sorry but planning ahead for the possibility of someone acting like a jacka** is the rule for the day legally. There is no charge for the advice....:lol: Total depravity? I am right there with the most devoted Calvinist on that concept. I see it every day, all day long . Off to soak my head in some noir fiction for more examination of the depths of human misery. Oh, Lord. The trigger is tripped. Now I have to spend the weekend organizing my stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Oh, Lord. The trigger is tripped. Now I have to spend the weekend organizing my stuff. Reading Elizabeth's links makes me pretty worried too. Jeezo pete, once I turn that stuff in I don't keep any of it. I have to wonder now if I should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmichigan Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Also, I'm curious how finances were changed. The first note of interest on the court records are that they didn't have time to address any petitions for financial changes. That could be enlightening as well. I'm curious to about that as well after reading about the life insurance/bank account ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 (edited) There seems some confusion. This is not a problem of the mother not keeping proper records. The mother and the courts had PLENTY of records and statements that the child in question was "at or above par academically" as well as accepted and "well liked socially". That is actually the opinion if the ad litem and he references her standardized scores and observations/opinions of her public school teachers. This girl was placed in public school full time (she already had spanish, art, drama and music ther at the urging of the ad litem to which the mither agreed) for absolutely no reason other than her father and the ad litem disagree strongly with her mother's religious influence on her. Edited January 29, 2011 by Martha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 OK, I have read all of the docs, and wow, this is so sad and so ridiculous. My personal opinion is that the mom is in a wacky church that would be completely unacceptable to me, but not a dangerous one for her DD. That being the case, it seems to me that the ruling is dangerous to homeschooling and religious freedom rights. I will be very surprised if it stands in its entirety. I am still surprised that the basis of it so strongly rests on the girl's religious beliefs, which are not outside of the non-denom mainstream. I still think that if it is litigated further the precedent of all these years of prior homeschooling will win the case for the mom. Really, the only reason that this move is even being considered is that the public school is more 'normal' than homeschooling. If it were the mom that wanted the public school while the dad wanted something else (private school, let's say, maybe an Episcopal one), then I am 99% certain that the courts would have been all over the dad as disrupting a stable placement. Again, this decision is alarming from a homeschooling rights and religious rights standpoint. And having read the convoluted set of info and rulings about the life insurance, I still think that this is a 'follow the money' issue by the dad. I'm sympathetic to his position about the social and religious stuff, but really, the mom is raising the child consistently with how she always was, so his position is really weak if he wants to change it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Served by Hugh Jackman. In shorts. When you're done with him, will you send him over to my house? But give me a few minutes advance notice so I can send my dh out to the store with a really, really long list... ;) Cat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 I'm not a lawyer, but in my state (which is not that of this case), generally the law expects the custodial parent to work. However, there is provision for a transition period for alimony purposes, but during that time the only sensible thing to do is to train to work, because it's short and once it expires it's gone forever. Sometimes, though, if the strong premise was that one parent would stay home with the children, a longer alimony will be provided for, but that is usually at the discretion of the parents' agreeing to it and sticking to it, which puts the custodial parent at the mercy of the non-C's commitment and integrity. Child support depends on what both parents make. It assumes an income whether a parent actually makes it or not. Because of that, if the custodial parent does not make that income, they often cannot make it financially. My cs is based upon Xh's income. Not upon mine at all. My alimony was based upon the fact that I've been a SAHM for 10 years (homeschooling had nothing to do with it). My alimony was awarded for me to have time to regroup. But there was no provision that forced that upon me. I could have worked or not and still got my alimony (which has nothing to do with our child. It has to do with the fact that we were married for 26 years and he made a ton of money and I made none. An equalizing thing). Every state is different though. I live in AR. My (new) dh is from OK. OK calculates cs based upon each parents income. And I don't know what you mean by this Sometimes, though, if the strong premise was that one parent would stay home with the children, a longer alimony will be provided for, but that is usually at the discretion of the parents' agreeing to it and sticking to it, which puts the custodial parent at the mercy of the non-C's commitment and integrity. Alimony is either awarded or not. It is either agreed upon by both parties (and signed off on by a judge) or not. If it is part of a court order the party responsible for paying alimony can't just decide to quit paying with consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 OK, I have read all of the docs, and wow, this is so sad and so ridiculous.My personal opinion is that the mom is in a wacky church that would be completely unacceptable to me, but not a dangerous one for her DD. That being the case, it seems to me that the ruling is dangerous to homeschooling and religious freedom rights. I will be very surprised if it stands in its entirety. I am still surprised that the basis of it so strongly rests on the girl's religious beliefs, which are not outside of the non-denom mainstream. I still think that if it is litigated further the precedent of all these years of prior homeschooling will win the case for the mom. Really, the only reason that this move is even being considered is that the public school is more 'normal' than homeschooling. If it were the mom that wanted the public school while the dad wanted something else (private school, let's say, maybe an Episcopal one), then I am 99% certain that the courts would have been all over the dad as disrupting a stable placement. Again, this decision is alarming from a homeschooling rights and religious rights standpoint. And having read the convoluted set of info and rulings about the life insurance, I still think that this is a 'follow the money' issue by the dad. I'm sympathetic to his position about the social and religious stuff, but really, the mom is raising the child consistently with how she always was, so his position is really weak if he wants to change it. I don't have time to read through all the links and briefs...can you tell me how the dad benefits financially if the child is in public school? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmichigan Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 I don't have time to read through all the links and briefs...can you tell me how the dad benefits financially if the child is in public school? I just spent way to much time reading all the briefs and I don't see it myself, maybe I'm missing something. 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.