Did you see this video on Fox News? Too religious to homeschool?

[ThatCyndiGirl]

The kid could not attend an Episcopal church without a freakout, nor could she attend a Catholic church without a freakout and threatening to walk out "if the priest put one of those things around his neck". This IS a kid who is dangerously immersed in a religion in an unhealthy way and who sees NO other way, without intervention.

 

I am so glad that the court ruled in favour of the father.

 

Did anyone else notice that the therapist deliberately 'disobeyed', in regards to scripture reading/conversion, the girl to gauge her reaction? It was an appropriate move and told the therapist a LOT. This child needs to begin to learn how to deal with people who do not agree with her beyond, "OMG!!! YOU'RE GONNA BURN IN HELL!" Being around differing ideas will likely give her some maturity.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

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.

 

Yes, but out here parties can go back to court whenever there is a change in circumstances and petition for an adjustment. So if someone agrees to long alimony, and then the wife gets a job or something, he can argue that she doesn't need it so much, and if the original agreement was unusually long, more than is normal, he has a very good chance of prevailing.

 

It does vary by state, though.

[Carol in Cal.]

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?

 

It is clear from the life insurance stuff, and the reference to there not being enough time to fully consider the financial issues, which are unspecified, that there have charges and motions for contempt and a lot of wrangling just about the life insurance, Roth, and bank account, which don't add up to much really. The bottom line is that the ex's have spent thousands and thousands of dollars arguing about what seems to amount to 3000/year plus a little life insurance coverage, the ownership of which is not even debated. So what else is in play financially? The LI history shows that they are fighting extraordinarily bitterly about finances, and implies to me that there are more financial issues than that that are in question, that the court hasn't even gotten to yet.

 

If the child goes to school, then if the mom has no excuse to stay home, in my state that could effect any child support or alimony that she would normally get. That's what makes me think that the financial stuff is playing into the school issue.

 

If I were the dad, I would hate to have a child being raised with these particular religious views, but still, this has been her entire history and so he looks pretty suspicious objecting to it now. And, most seriously, the decision should not rise or fall on the religious specifics having become unacceptable to him at a late date. That would be an extremely dangerous precedent.

[Mom0012]

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'm sure, as you said earlier, it varies from state to state. In my sister's case, all 3 of her children are in school, but they each have special needs. It was a big deal to prove their special needs because otherwise the judge could have ordered her to get a job, which would have then lowered the amount of child support she received. Here, child support is based on some fixed formula using each parents' income.

 

Lisa

Edited January 30, 2011 by LisaTheresa

[Kari C in SC]

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?

 

I gotta agree with you. I would want to know how involved her father is in her life. If he is a very involved dad then I would say he has every right to have input on where is child goes to school.

 

And... gotta say my sister was a religious fanatic. Her girls are now grown and some of the things they tell me she did and made them do are absolutely nuts! I only wish that they had a dad that was involved in their lives more to maybe add sane balance. Now, of course, I have NO IDEA about this specific case. The mom may be a very normal religious person or she may be off her rocker. We don't really get that information from the video.

[Kari C in SC]

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!

 

Or maybe her religious views went to the extreme later on. Maybe he was okay with it until she started to do strange things. We really don't have the information.

[Murphy101]

This IS a kid who is dangerously immersed in a religion in an unhealthy way and who sees NO other way, without intervention.

 

This child needs to begin to learn how to deal with people who do not agree with her beyond, "OMG!!! YOU'RE GONNA BURN IN HELL!" Being around differing ideas will likely give her some maturity.

 

Hmmm.

 

One. I didn't see anything dangerous. And neither did the court or they should have removed her from her mother.

 

Two. The child was spending HALF of every week with her father, plus she was already in several public school classes per the recommendation of the ad litem. (NOT just church activities which the father complained of). This is not a situation where the father had little time or opportunity to influence his own dd. Exact opposite actually. I actually think the father may have shot himself in the foot on this bc now he has tremendously LESS time with his daughter. Maybe that is what he wanted.

 

Three. That is not the purpose of school and not a valid reason under NH law to force school. In fact, under NH law public schooling CANNOT be used to undermine religion. That is a horrible precedent for any court to set!

 

I happen to agree with you. That the girl needs an attitude logic adjustment. I just disagree that public schooling is the answer to that.

 

Mostly, I think the parents need to grow a pair and parent her. If my child said they were going to storm out and throw a hissy fit - I would make it abundantly clear that they would regret it when we got home. I would not be happy if my in laws took my kids to a different church, but I would be furious if my child behaved that way about it. Both parents need to learn how to answer her questions without getting their undies in a wad. Because kids, even teens, heck even grown adults, can say some pretty stupid crap and there is a more mature way to answer than to spaz out that they are too religious or going to hell. One should not need a court to correct this situation.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Martha
Replaced hussy with hissy. Lol

[amey311]

http://www.appealslawyer.net/briefs/Kurowski_brief.pdf

The fathers brief to the Supremem Court of NH

 

 

Yeah, they can say this isn't entirely about religion, but the mother's religious beliefs and the way she's teaching them to her daughter ARE alienating affection. From the brief above:

 

[she] was told by her mom in front of me numerous times that he’s a sinner. He doesn’t want to be in heaven with you. She told me this numerous times, twice at the parking lot at Sanbornton General Store.… he said, your dad is a sinner. He’s not

going to go to heaven. He doesn’t want to be with you.

 

IT says he's Episcopalian and her exact denomination isn't named. They differ on how one gets to heaven (he says thru acts, she says only thru being born again).

 

These things possibly wouldn't be so seemingly polar opposite if she was being raised with both parents. There are couples with different belief systems here and they manage to make it work. I'm sure I'm being naive here, but are there couples here, who in this same situation (believing in different paths to heaven) sincerely believe that your spouse isn't going to get there with you despite being a moral, loving human being??

 

The religious beliefs of the mother in isolation are fine (not what I would pick, but whatever). The problem, honestly, is that she can't work in isolation. I know there are loads of people here whose children don't go to the mall like this girl (because of inappropriate music and dress) or who separate themselves from people who are dancing, etc, but you do that within your family group and can choose to associate only with like-minded people.

 

That brief was very interesting to read, especially the bit where it's mentioned to the mother that the daughter told the GAL that she had fun at her father's house. The idea that daughter would keep that from the primary parent (who has made it clear that the father is going to hell) didn't occur to her.

 

And then the whole bit about Hillary Clinton being a sorceress? Just :001_huh:

 

But that's my agnosticness showing, I'm sure.

[LidiyaDawn]

IT says he's Episcopalian and her exact denomination isn't named.

 

IFB, I assume - that's the only place I've seen Patch the Pirate clubs.

[amey311]

Or maybe her religious views went to the extreme later on. Maybe he was okay with it until she started to do strange things. We really don't have the information.

 

Actually, one of the briefs says

 

Despite Mr. Kurowski’s opposition, he went along with Ms. Voydatch choice to home-school the child from first through fourth grade.

 

Plenty of parents in divorce settings make initial agreements and then have to modify those agreements. If they were having other issues that needed mediation, I can see where this is one he decided to table until a later date. There are MARRIED couples that initially make the decision to homeschool and then later make a change.

 

What if this situation were reversed? Would it be okay for a mother to homeschool secularly and then the time spent with her father to be very religious, with the father telling his child that the mother will burn in hell because she won't come to Jesus? Should the mother be obligated to take the child to church?

 

I'm not sure I reversed that well - I'm up and typing too early for me, really. We had to get DH and Thing 1 out the door early for a hockey tournament.

[LidiyaDawn]

I would still continue to teach my children the truth regardless of where they went to school; this mother likely will as well. I don't think that sending the girl to a local elementary is really going to change things that much, assuming that the faith in the home is very strong, especially if the intentions of the father is to "expose" the child to "other religions" and such... when's the last time you saw a group of grade six kids sitting around discussing eternity? ;)

[Joanne]

Wow. As if we need another post in this thread.

 

However, I have recently been through a 4 year long custody battle that ultimately turned into a homeschooling one.

 

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.

 

It's been somewhat addressed in this thread, but decision making and physical custody are separate. My xh has as much "say" over medical, educational and social decisions as I do. In Texas, we have "custodial" and "non custodial" parents. That refers to the primary residence, but not to decisions.

 

In my experience and research (which was extensive ;)), when an alternative to the mainstream decision is made by a co-parent, and that decision becomes a dispute between co-parents, the mainstream option typically "wins". The court favors the normative.

 

In my case, as the custody battle waged on, my xh began using homeschooling as a straw man. Ultimately, so that he could "win", he claimed all he wanted was for my oldest to be in public school. This I acquiesed to in a mediated agreement. I could have gone to court (and possibly gotten my right to homeschool - a decision we agreed on while married - upheld). I also could have sued for legal costs (which ultimately totaled more than a college education).

 

I probably would have gotten legal cost help and lost homeschooling. What I know now is that it would not have been an intentional indightment against homeschooling. It would have been a function of litigating dysfunctional families through the Family Court System. The system is by nature limited. They would have supported a going on 16 year old in going to public high school. Period. You can opine on about "homeschool rights", or about the specifics of my case.......but the bottom line is that the courts favor the mainstream AND they usually fall on the side of preserving relationship and decision making even in cases where there is reason to more strongly agree with one party over the other.

 

Don't look for actual justice in the Family Law system. If you define justice by "fair when you consider all realities", you won't find it. It's a sick, twisted, self perpetuating system that ultimately serves only the system.

[LidiyaDawn]

. They would have supported a going on 16 year old in going to public high school. Period.

 

I saw you mention this in another thread somewhere and I wondered something - so as you've mentioned here, I might as well ask. Does this 16 year old WANT to be in public school? How could anyone force that? I'm just thinking (perhaps not everywhere? but in many places) you can quit school at 16. Leave home. Etc. So I'm having trouble imaging this, how a court could force it. (Especially when most courts start listening to the wishes, in custody cases, of kids from about 12 and up.)

 

What would happen if your 16 year old simply said "No. I will not go to the public school. I'm going to homeschool." ?

[Joanne]

I saw you mention this in another thread somewhere and I wondered something - so as you've mentioned here, I might as well ask. Does this 16 year old WANT to be in public school? How could anyone force that? I'm just thinking (perhaps not everywhere? but in many places) you can quit school at 16. Leave home. Etc. So I'm having trouble imaging this, how a court could force it. (Especially when most courts start listening to the wishes, in custody cases, of kids from about 12 and up.)

 

What would happen if your 16 year old simply said "No. I will not go to the public school. I'm going to homeschool." ?

 

The battle started when he was 12. It ended this year. His wishes at 12 were different than the wishes he had at 15.

 

The courts (in Texas) do "listen" to the wishes of children at 12. But "listen" does not equate to grant the wishes of. The Texas courts have actually changed how they do this since my case initiated. They used to have an affidavit of choice. In the time we battled, this affidavit was removed as the courts felt it put too much pressure on children.

 

My son, at 12, stated he wanted to live with his Dad and go to public school. Note I said "stated". The truth was more complicated than that. ;) By the end of the battle, his stated desires were very different.

 

In any case, he is at public school and now, in a sick twisted irony, has less say about his educational setting than before.

[purplewoman]

I thought this tidbit was interesting in the brief filed by ADF.

 

 

The Petitioner chose not to be actively involved in Amanda’s life for

 

 

quite some time.

 

I've been following this case for quite some time now. It is almost identical to the custody case I fought with my ex a few years ago. Just like in my case, it appears that this father was absent from his daughters life for quite some time, and then later reappeared and sued the mother.

 

I would like to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. But, I think it's wrong to have nothing to do with her for years and then reappear and change her whole life to fit into what he wants. I saw in there somewhere that he also has another daughter just 3 years younger than this girl, and would like them to be together more. My ex requested more time with my kids so they would be playmates for his current stepkids. I wonder if that is happening here? (This has not been a healthy situation for my kids.)

 

The only difference between this case and mine is the fact that I have sole custody. I'm blessed to be in IL, where they don't (or at least didn't a few years ago) force parents to have joint custody if they don't agree to it. Basically, my ex had to prove me an unfit mother or the homeschooling situation to be harmful in order to change it. He couldn't and I'm still homeschooling today.

 

Honestly, I think everyone is reading too much into the financial stuff, too. The courts (at least in IL) review the our finances as a normal part of the process every time we go to court. Either of us can request a review any other time, too. The Dad could be after more money, but the way the paperwork reads it just doesn't look like this was a priority for anyone. In my opinion, it looks like a standard review of the situation.

 

The one thing I did find interesting about the whole life insurance situation is that the Dad hasn't been paying what he was ordered to by the courts. Courts routinely order divorced parents to have life support policies on themselves and name their ex as the beneficiary when they have children. I'm kind of surprised they let him get away with a savings account instead. Then, he didn't even fund that. I think this guy has deadbeat Dad written all over him.

 

Honestly, I'm very surprised this judge ordered this girl into school. Normally, the standard is not to change anything significant in a child's life (like school) unless there is something very wrong with the current arrangement. In all the briefs and judgments I've read about this case, the girl seems to be well educated and well socialized. I think the fact that the Dad focused on religion is the only reason the case has come this far.

[Rebel]

I haven't read all the replies yet, but my divorce agreement specifically says each parent may teach the child his or her own religious values when they have physical custody of the child. Both my ex and myself could convert to different religions or whatever, but we still would have the right to train our child in those beliefs. This was standard in Texas at the time, not something we added for ourselves. I DID add a clause saying I had sole power to make decisions regarding education for our son. At the time, I was thinking about homeschooling and wanted to prevent future problems from son's father.

[Joanne]

Honestly, I'm very surprised this judge ordered this girl into school. Normally, the standard is not to change anything significant in a child's life (like school) unless there is something very wrong with the current arrangement. In all the briefs and judgments I've read about this case, the girl seems to be well educated and well socialized. I think the fact that the Dad focused on religion is the only reason the case has come this far.

 

Actually, I'm not at all surprised. The courts tend to favor status quo *unless* a non normative/alternative decision is being disputed. In that case (usually medical, sports, educational), the mainstream norm is favored.

 

To address another part of your post empathetically, my xh was never involved in the children's education when we were married and, although he fought for public school for one of them, hasn't been involved since the divorce or during the custody battle. Even though this was documented and substantiated, the courts likely would have favored his stated public school preference. (This was not a religious based homeschooling issue).

[Murphy101]

Don't look for actual justice in the Family Law system. If you define justice by "fair when you consider all realities", you won't find it. It's a sick, twisted, self perpetuating system that ultimately serves only the system.

 

Well now on that we absolutely agree.

 

However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't challenge it.

 

In fact, it is the duty of every citizen that can do so.

 

Otherwise, we simply perpetuate stupidity and injustice, no?

 

I want to be clear here.

 

I do not agree with how either parent in this case is handling the comments and questions of their dd. They are both being intellectually and emotionally immature and vindictive. And it is literally costing them both time with their daughter. I don't argue that at all.

 

I just do not believe public schools are or have ever been a solution to that problem for EITHER parent.

 

I don't understand the father. If my dh had a choice between having his time with his children reduced to a 3rd of the time he currently had or letting the other parent he had major disagreements with homeschool. He would choose more time with his child. (Of course thats just one reason why i think he is so awesome and are willing to keep having his children. :D ) If he felt she was bored with the curriculum, then change it. There are other programs that offer live online instruction and or hands on activities. Of course, that means more parental involvement. I get that he wanted to reduce the mother's influence. But prior to this argument he was seeing his child for half of every week. That is more than a LOT of married fathers get with their children!

 

I do think the mother is a ignorant about typical children behavior. There are many things I might not allow my children to do. But I wouldn't be in the least surprised to learn they enjoyed those things when I'm not around and wouldn't think them anything other than normal for that either. That was just stupid of her.

 

I also think a mother who tells her child that daddy doesn't love them, especially when it appears he does, is fostering self-loathing in a child. They are half of that other parents. You can't teach a child to hate half of who they are made from with instilling some self-loathing. Maybe dad is a sinner. Probably. All humans tend to be. Including mom. God help her when dd comes around to inspecting mom's soul as harshly as she's been taught to judge her father. And she will. They always do eventually.

 

But again. None of this really had a dang thing to do with education. It's just the backdrop excuse for two parents to be selfish idiots.

 

If the courts had stated that because the parents could not reconcile upon a choice for education the court was defaulting to govt public schools - I would have understood.

 

The problem here is that the court specificly and repeatedly states the ONLY reason hey are putting this girl in school is with the goal to purposely undermine and reduce the religious influence of the mother. And that is flat out wrong and not the purpose of public schools and a VERY scary precedent for any court to make.

[elizabeth]

Pages 7, 8, and 9 of the brief submitted by the father's counsel clearly indicate that the father was concerned about the lack of involvement with her instructor due to the use of BJU videos as the exclusive means of educating the child. It does matter. Greatly. Thus my admonititon to keep records . There is no mention of standardized gtesting either. Merely reference to a portfolio review. Sitting in front of a computer for 6 hours a day is not educating a child. The methods used and the lack of adequate independent standardized evaluation made it far too easy for the father to make his case for institutional schooling. The rigidity of her religious beliefs is highly problematic , inflexible and frankly would give any judge I know ,pause. The guardian ad litem was also not impressed with the educational choices in terms of quality and interaction with instructor. However, I firmly believe it is about the near pathological response of the child to beliefs that do not conform to her rigid attitudes regarding religion. The tie between the type of materials used , the quality of the educational environment and her religious beliefs are inextricably entwined. As a lawyer I still say keep your records, be organized and absolutely employ some method of objective standardized testing yearly .

In the end I think it is about religion, diversity and the child's right to be exposed to the marketplace of ideas. Not in a prescriptive and normative fashion but rather as a basis for comparison. Tough cases make bad law . This case stinks on all sides.

[Catwoman]

(Of course thats just one reason why i think he is so awesome and are willing to keep having his children. :D )

 

 

Yeah, and going through all the trouble of getting a divorce would really cut into tEa time, and who really wants that... ;) :D

 

Cat

[Murphy101]

Eleizabeth, the court reports repeatedly note that the child has taken yearly standardized tests and is academically in par or above. And the father does not argue AT ALL that her education has not been academically sound. He argues she is bored (which I think reasonable) with it and too immersed in her religion.

 

Yeah, and going through all the trouble of getting a divorce would really cut into tEa time, and who really wants that... ;) :D

 

Cat

 

:lol: Yes, that too.:D

[Catwoman]

Sitting in front of a computer for 6 hours a day is not educating a child.

 

That's true, but just to clarify -- we use BJU DVDs, and although the video teacher does the basic instruction, parental involvement is absolutely assumed. Before each class, there is a segment for parents to watch, so they know what will be covered in the lesson, the assignment for the lesson, and anything they'll need to work on or review with their child. It is assumed by the video teacher that the parent is checking homework and grading assignments and tests.

 

Additionally, BJU DVDs certainly don't involve 6 hours a day in front of a TV or computer. It's a lot closer to 2 hours a day, plus assignments done offline.

 

I'm not defending either parent here, because I don't know them and I can see serious problems with the way both of them have handled the situation, but I wanted to point out that video classes do not equal a lack of parental involvement.

 

Cat

Edited January 29, 2011 by Catwoman

[purplewoman]

The problem here is that the court specificly and repeatedly states the ONLY reason hey are putting this girl in school is with the goal to purposely undermine and reduce the religious influence of the mother. And that is flat out wrong and not the purpose of public schools and a VERY scary precedent for any court to make.

 

:iagree:

[Catwoman]

Elizabeth, the court reports repeatedly note that the child has taken yearly standardized tests and is academically in par or above. And the father does not argue AT ALL that her education has not been academically sound. He argues she is bored (which I think reasonable) with it and too immersed in her religion.

 

Ultimately, the truth may simply be that these two adults can't stand the sight of each other. The mom stupidly made too many comments to the dd about how the father doesn't love her, and how he's not saved and won't be going to heaven. The father got angry and figured he'd get even. He may have also been concerned about the daughter's growing religious fanaticism. (Truthfully, who wouldn't? It sounds like the kid is a real fire-and-brimstone type, who resents anyone with differing beliefs. If this is a new development in her personality, I can understand the dad's concern.)

 

I don't think we can assign blame without knowing whether or not the mom was always super-religious and always raised the dd the same way, or if she has recently become this way, and it alarmed the father. If she was always like this, it would seem that the father is using it as an excuse to cover a different motivation, but if the kid is suddenly telling everyone they'll be going to H*ll if they don't believe X, Y, and Z, I can understand that he may have a genuine and valid concern. I'm just not sure how public school could possibly cause the dd to turn into a different kid, though, particularly since she attends classes and outside activities, and hasn't exactly been locked in her mom's basement for the past several years. :glare:

 

Court documents are nice, but they never tell the whole story, and the media always puts a spin on everything, so things get even more convoluted.

 

Mostly, I feel sorry for the little girl. She's caught in the middle of a big mess.

 

Cat

[Catwoman]

The problem here is that the court specificly and repeatedly states the ONLY reason hey are putting this girl in school is with the goal to purposely undermine and reduce the religious influence of the mother. And that is flat out wrong and not the purpose of public schools and a VERY scary precedent for any court to make.

 

While I think it may be true that the mom is what I would consider to be a religious fanatic, it appears that there is no evidence that she ever mistreated her dd, nor that she has isolated her from the outside world or deprived her of classes or activities with other children.

 

IMO, it's not up to the judge to decide what constitutes "too much" religion. I think there would also need to be solid evidence that the mom has abused or isolated the child in other ways, or that the kid has received no education whatsoever at home. That does not appear to be the case at all.

 

Cat

[lionfamily1999]

While I think it may be true that the mom is what I would consider to be a religious fanatic, it appears that there is no evidence that she ever mistreated her dd, nor that she has isolated her from the outside world or deprived her of classes or activities with other children.

 

IMO, it's not up to the judge to decide what constitutes "too much" religion. I think there would also need to be solid evidence that the mom has abused or isolated the child in other ways, or that the kid has received no education whatsoever at home. That does not appear to be the case at all.

 

Cat

I'm not sure the mom is a fanatic, otherwise I agree. I think this case is a good example of why we have a separation of church and state. Given an in the government would happily put restrictions on religion.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I wonder if people would be so quick to side with the mother in this case if what she was teaching her kid was that xians are "wrong, evil, going to hell"? This child WAS rather isolated until the GAL stepped in and insisted that the child be enrolled in ps classes. Her instruction was from BJU, not exactly an unbiased source of information. (My kid has used BJU in the past, I'm not casting aspersions here, it is rabidly anti-anything other than xianity. Even dd's xian classmate said of the BJU curriculum, "do they really think that this is the way to bring people to xianity?!")

 

"I think this case is a good example of why we have a separation of church and state. Given an in the government would happily put restrictions on religion." A good start would be taxing churches. It's about time. http://taxthechurches.org/

 

This kid was rather isolated inside a community that basically told her what to think. I was reared in a similar situation. It is one that is loathe to open itself to inspection OR intellectual inquiry. To them, intellectual curiosity is asking, "so what does agape really mean?" but if you dare question you are ostracized.

 

I TRULY wonder if so many here would defend her if she were being taught that all xians were wrong. We may say, "oh, yes, we would", but I doubt it.

 

I think that the dad went along with homeschooling UNTIL he saw how isolating the mother's harsh religious influence on the child became. I truly believe that having a CHILD approach an ADULT to tell them that they are going to go to hell for not believing in the same thing is WRONG. Forcing a child to worry about such things is WRONG. Placing that level of anxiety on a child is WRONG. Would people think it's appropriate for MY children to approach religious people to try to talk them OUT OF their beliefs? It's JUST AS WRONG. (and we don't teach our kids to do that, btw.)

 

The child was told by her mother that her father didn't care about the child because he refused to convert and therefore, "doesn't love you like he says he does". That, imo is CHILD ABUSE to psychologically manipulate a child like that. This is beyond school choice, beyond homeschooling.

Edited January 29, 2011 by ThatCyndiGirl

[lionfamily1999]

If she was Muslim, if she was a Jehovah's Witness, if she was any of the number of other denominations that condemn other Christians then I would still support her. If she was being raised athiest and taught that all religious peoples were morons, I would support her and I would not demand she be put into a situation where she was forced to relate to nonathiests because her lack of belief in religion was too rigid.

 

How is does taxing churches equate to separation of church and state?

 

As Martha said earlier. She was taking classes at the ps per the al instructions. They seemed to think she was fine.

[Murphy101]

I wonder if people would be so quick to side with the mother in this case if what she was teaching her kid was that xians are "wrong, evil, going to hell"?

 

I absolutely would. And for the record, I am not siding with the mother. I think they are BOTH wrong on many counts in how they are handling the situation.

 

This child WAS rather isolated until the GAL stepped in and insisted that the child be enrolled in ps classes. Her instruction was from BJU, not exactly an unbiased source of information. (My kid has used BJU in the past, I'm not casting aspersions here, it is rabidly anti-anything other than xianity. Even dd's xian classmate said of the BJU curriculum, "do they really think that this is the way to bring people to xianity?!")

 

She was not isolated, she was very active in her church and most of her activities were through her church. Her father disagreed with that for numerous reasons. It was not a question of isolation, it was a question of being too involved in a religion her father didn't like.

 

And I happen to agree with you about BJU. In fact, they are very anti-catholic as well. They are anti anything, including fellow Christians, they don't agree with.

 

Even so, I value the right of other parents to use BJU or even agree with that POV. I don't agree with them. It's not the education I want for my kids and it sure is not my religious or parenting style. But they have that freedom.

 

And I think the mother's willingness to enroll in some public school classes shouldn't be dismissed. She was willing to meet half-way. Keep home schooling, but join in several activities outside of just her church.

 

This kid was rather isolated inside a community that basically told her what to think. I was reared in a similar situation. It is one that is loathe to open itself to inspection OR intellectual inquiry. To them, intellectual curiosity

is asking, "so what does agape really mean?" but if you dare question you are ostracized.

 

Are we projecting here? She doesn't seem too isolated inside a community to me. It's not like she lived in a compound or had no other human interaction. Sports, drama, Spanish, art, piano and spending half of every week with a father, stepmother and half sister that don't believe anything she believes does NOT sounds even a bit isolated to me.:confused:

 

I TRULY wonder if so many here would defend her if she were being taught that all xians were wrong. We may say, "oh, yes, we would", but I doubt it.

 

Well I was raised that way and I feel somewhat confident in saying yes. And I am NOT defending this mother. I do not agree with her at all. Or the father either.

 

Again, my issue is less that the court sent her to public school than the reason they did so. Simply saying that they felt public school would be acceptable as the parents couldn't agree to any other option should have been enough.

My problem with the court ruling stems completely from the fact that their entire goal and reason for sending her to public school is ONLY to reduce and undermine her religion. And I firmly believe that to be outside of the courts authority and to be wrong.

 

If they had said they wanted to send a child to a Christian school to undermine and reduce a parent's atheist influence - I would be just as adamant that it was wrong.

 

I truly believe that having a CHILD approach an ADULT to tell them that they are going to go to hell for not believing in the same thing is WRONG. Forcing a child to worry about such things is WRONG. Placing that level of anxiety on a child is WRONG. Would people think it's appropriate for MY children to approach religious people to try to talk them OUT OF their beliefs? It's JUST AS WRONG. (and we don't teach our kids to do that, btw.)

 

If a child is being raised Christian, heaven and hell are going to be discussed and should be. They are going to ask questions about sin, belief, and about what other people believe. They are going to make statements or opinions that are not always accurate and need correcting. That is absolutely normal. They are perfectly normal questions of curiosity from children of an age to seek understanding. My dh is not insulted or angry. My children certainly don't think all people are evil. My children are very curious. They ask a bazillion questions, some highly inappropriate due to their young ignorance, because they are learning.

 

The child was told by her mother that her father didn't care about the child because he refused to convert and therefore, "doesn't love you like he says he does". That, imo is CHILD ABUSE to psychologically manipulate a child like that. This is beyond school choice, beyond homeschooling.

 

Now that I agree with. If the mother is truely saying that, I would have no problem with the father getting FULL custody. What a horrible thing to teach her child. And it will come back to haunt her one day. It's just a matter of time until this girl starts looking at her mother just as critically as she does her father. :(

Edited January 29, 2011 by Martha

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Until the GAL stepped in her outside activities were CHURCH RELATED, which is why I called that 'isolation'. IMO, and I realize that others may disagree, being taught that religion and going to outside activities that reinforce ONLY THAT RELIGION IS isolating.

 

If you only hear that one point of view is right then how would you know any different. Her mother is talking out of both sides of her mouth to say that she is welcome to the idea of Amanda choosing a different religion, then doesn't allow her any access to even LEARN of different religions.

 

I mean, geeze, the kid was afraid to go to an Episcopalian or Catholic church, arguably, OF THE SAME RELIGION, just different denominations. If the mother were REALLY parenting her in a more healthy way she would have said, 'there is nothing to be afraid of, we can still believe what we believe'.

 

Martha: You say, "to reduce and undermind her religion" I say, "to reduce the impact of her religion". Puh-tay-toe/Poh-tah-toe, perhaps. I don't think this ruling will do away completely with the mother's religion in the child's life, I think it will just take away the monopoly it has on the child's heart and mind. Look at how many religious kids are in public schools and who DO maintain the religion of their parents.

Edited January 29, 2011 by ThatCyndiGirl

[Catwoman]

And I happen to agree with you about BJU. In fact, they are very anti-catholic as well. They are anti anything, including fellow Christians, they don't agree with.

 

Even so, I value the right of other parents to use BJU or even agree with that POV. I don't agree with them. It's not the education I want for my kids and it sure is not my religious or parenting style. But they have that freedom.

 

 

We use the BJU DVD program, and when I was trying to decide whether or not to use it, I was warned by many people (mostly people who had never actually used it,) that it was staunchly anti-Catholic, and that it was very fundamentalist and judgmental.

 

Overall, we haven't found many problems with it, and it's not nearly as heavy-handed as I'd worried it might be. Sure, there's an overall Christian emphasis, and there have been a few anti-Catholic remarks here and there, but we have been able to point out the things we don't agree with to our ds, and it hasn't been a big deal at all. Most of the Christian content involves being an honest and decent person, and doing the right thing, which is fine with me. We don't use the Bible course any more, but when ds was little, it was very cute, with lots of stories and little morality tales. I would assume that the Bible coursework may be a lot heavier in the junior high and high school levels, but I am only guessing about that. (Ds is doing grade 7, but I never watched any of the Bible lessons.)

 

The "mom in question" would have had to do a lot of preaching to her dd, in order for her to become as religious as she did; judging from my own experience with it, the BJU curriculum certainly wouldn't have done much to contribute to her being so passionate about it. It's Christian, but it's not over-the-top.

 

Cat

[Scarlett]

Yes, but out here parties can go back to court whenever there is a change in circumstances and petition for an adjustment. So if someone agrees to long alimony, and then the wife gets a job or something, he can argue that she doesn't need it so much, and if the original agreement was unusually long, more than is normal, he has a very good chance of prevailing.

 

It does vary by state, though.

 

Oh, I see what you mean. Yes it would work that way here too.

[Rebel]

I agree. It's better to cover you rear to begin with than to scramble later. I only recently threw out KJ's work and he's in his second year of college. lol

[Murphy101]

Until the GAL stepped in her outside activities were CHURCH RELATED, which is why I called that 'isolation'. IMO, and I realize that others may disagree, being taught that religion and going to outside activities that reinforce ONLY THAT RELIGION IS isolating.

 

Okay. I respectfully disagree.

 

If you only hear that one point of view is right then how would you know any different.

 

Chanting here: the girl spent HALF of every week with her dad and his family. She was with him half of every week, even during school hours. He had just as much opportunity to give points of view as her mother.

 

Her mother is talking out of both sides of her mouth to say that she is welcome to the idea of Amanda choosing a different religion, then doesn't allow her any access to even LEARN of different religions.

 

Okay. Let's say that's true. It could be. So what? Most people are not particularly thrilled, much less welcoming, of their kids choosing a different religion. That is their prerogative. And again, this girl was with her dad, of a different belief, half the time every week and she had no access to learn of his faith?

 

I mean, geeze, the kid was afraid to go to an Episcopalian or Catholic church, arguably, OF THE SAME RELIGION, just different denominations. If the mother were REALLY parenting her in a more healthy way she would have said, 'there is nothing to be afraid of, we can still believe what we believe'.

 

I'm both holy carp! Those are NOT the same religion and I agree, mother didn't need to ring in hellfire and ****ation over it.:lol:

 

 

Martha: You say, "to reduce and undermind her religion" I say, "to reduce the impact of her religion". Puh-tay-toe/Poh-tah-toe, perhaps.

 

Yes it is. I don't believe it is in the scope of our laws or of a free country for a government to do either.

 

I don't think this ruling will do away completely with the mother's religion in the child's life, I think it will just take away the monopoly it has on the child's heart and mind. Look at how many religious kids are in public schools and who DO maintain the religion of their parents.

 

Again, I don't think she had a monopoly bc of how much time e father had for residential shared custody. In fact, I think now the mother does have more of a monopoly. Because five days a week the girl will go to school and five days a week the only one she will discuss it with is her mother, who will likely tell her everything is sinful and so forth.

 

Overall, we haven't found many problems with it, and it's not nearly as heavy- which is fine with me.

 

The "mom in question" would have had to do a lot of preaching to her dd, in order for her to become as religious as she did; judging from my own experience with it, the BJU curriculum certainly wouldn't have done much to

contribute to her being so passionate about it. It's Christian, but it's not over-the-top.

 

Cat

 

I base my personal opinion on the materials, but MOSTLY on the overall company and university. I visited that university ONCE many years ago and it was like anti-catholic Jesus Camp for college kids. And i wasnt xian then, much less catholic. No thank you. Even if the home materials aren't all that bad, I refuse to ever give my money to that organization.

 

Just MY opinion.

 

Again, not expecting anyone to agree with me and I sure do not want the govt forcing public schools based on it even if the govt were to agree with me.

[sheryl]

Wow, I just watched it. I'm so irked with this. It's a parent "right" to teach their dc.

 

I, for one, do NOT want gov't stepping on my toes. Does anyone here want gov't to act as big brother and DICTATING what we can/not do with dc in terms of education? That's just crazy....and incredibly sad that this Mom/daughter have to endure this.

 

There's so much to say, but I'm going to drop it at that.

[amey311]

It's a parent "right" to teach their dc.

 

I, for one, do NOT want gov't stepping on my toes. Does anyone here want gov't to act as big brother and DICTATING what we can/not do with dc in terms of education?

 

One of the briefs included court decisions that already limit this or have otherwise modified it (nevermind that it isn't an actual "Right"). There are ways in which the best interests of the child trump the wishes of the parents, and rightfully so, imo.

[sheryl]

One of the briefs included court decisions that already limit this or have otherwise modified it (nevermind that it isn't an actual "Right"). There are ways in which the best interests of the child trump the wishes of the parents, and rightfully so, imo.

 

 

:confused:

[jplain]

I, for one, do NOT want gov't stepping on my toes. Does anyone here want gov't to act as big brother and DICTATING what we can/not do with dc in terms of education?

I think you're misunderstanding something very basic. The underlying conflict is not between mom and government, but between mom and dad. The court was forced to rule only because the mom and dad failed to sort it out in mediation.

 

That's just crazy....and incredibly sad that this Mom/daughter have to endure this.

The dad is her parent too. His preferences are not irrelevant.

 

And in this particular case, I sympathize with the father. Have you read the briefs linked earlier in this thread? If I had an ex who was teaching my daughter that women can't be president, I'd be incensed. If my ex repeatedly told my child that I don't love her because I'm willing to spend eternity away from her, burning in hell, I might end up in court too.

[Terabith]

This doesn't seem to me to be an issue of government stepping on homeschooling rights toes, at all. It is an issue of two divorced parents wanting two different things for their kid. Right or wrong, the "default" is public school, in our society. If it were the government stepping in and saying, "You are too religious to homeschool," that would be awful. However, it's an issue of a father saying, "I disagree with how my daughter is being educated, and I want her to have a different educational experience."

 

I know if, God forbid, I got divorced and my husband became a Scientologist, I would not want him homeschooling my child and completely indoctrinating her in a culture in which that was the only correct answer and thetans from the sun caused evil, etc. (I'm not equating conservative Christianity with Scientology, by the way, I'm just using it as an example of a belief that is so radically in opposition to what I believe that I would be fearful of my child being brought up in an environment in which that is the belief structure. I am a Christian.) But, In that circumstance, I would want a "value neutral" educational option for my child.

[amey311]

:confused:

 

What's confusing?

 

Do you want an example of when the best interests of the child should trump the wishes of the parent? The first one that comes to mind is again religion based: faith healing. And yes, I have a real-life example. My uncle's parents are Christian Scientists. When he came down with (what the medical community would call) pneumonia, they had practioners in to help them pray, and they prayed and he didn't improve. They eventually broke down and took him to the ER where he ended up on meds and recovered. And they had to do all kinds of penance to be allowed back into the church. I've read many cases that did not end the same way.

 

What about those vegans who were feeding their baby soy milk and apple juice because they didn't want him to get ANY animal products (including breastmilk)? Should their wishes and beliefs in a vegan diet trump the best interests of their child? This is an isolated case - I know many vegans raising healthy, happy children, FYI. I'm not condemning veganism as a whole.

 

Both of those are medical/health related, but they illustrate the idea that children have rights as well, and sometimes those rights supercede the rights of the parents.