Has anyone seen this case in NC?

[KIN]

Here is a copy of the article found at: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4727161/

 

Raleigh, N.C. — A judge in Wake County said three Raleigh children need switch from home school to public school. Judge Ned Mangum is presiding over divorce proceeding of the children's parents, Thomas and Venessa Mills.

 

Venessa Mills was in the fourth year of home schooling her children who are 10, 11 and 12 years old. They have tested two years above their grade levels, she said.

 

"We have math, reading; we have grammar, science, music,†Venessa Mills said.

 

Her lessons also have a religious slant, which the judge said was the root of the problem.

 

"My teaching is strictly out of the Bible, and it's very clear. It is very evident so I just choose to follow the Bible,†Venessa Mills said.

 

In an affidavit filed Friday in the divorce case, Thomas Mills stated that he "objected to the children being removed from public school." He said Venessa Mills decided to home school after getting involved with Sound Doctrine church "where all children are home schooled."

 

Thomas Mills also said he was "concerned about the children's religious-based science curriculum" and that he wants "the children to be exposed to mainstream science, even if they eventually choose to believe creationism over evolution."

 

In a verbal ruling, Mangum said the children should go to public school.

 

"He was upfront and said that, 'It's not about religion.' But yet when it came down to his ruling and reasons why, 'He said this would be a good opportunity for the children to be tested in the beliefs that I have taught them,'" Venessa Mills said.

 

All sides agree the children have thrived with home school, and Vanessa Mills thinks that should be reason enough to continue teaching at home.

 

"I cannot sit back and allow this to happen to other home schoolers. I don't want it happening to my children,†Venessa Mills said.

 

Mangum said he wouldn't talk with WRAL News Thursday about the details of the case because he hasn't issued a written ruling yet. He said he expected to sign it in a few weeks.

 

An estimated 71,566 students were taught at home during the 2007-08 school year, according to figures released by the state Division of Non-Public Education. The enrollment amounts to about 4 percent of students ages 7 to 16 in North Carolina – students in that age range are required by state law to attend school. About two-thirds of the schools classified themselves as religious schools.

 

Home school students and their parents plan to come to Raleigh on March 24 to lobby at the state Legislature. They want to demonstrate they have a strong voice regarding education.

 

* Reporter: Valonda Calloway

* Photographer: Greg Clark

* Web Editor: Minnie Bridgers

[G5052]

This is pretty common in divorce type cases. Also, the mother's intentions are curious...It seems as though she was possibly proposing that her ex-dh support her and the kids while she continues to be a SAHM and homeschool them. Many times, though, when two parents disagree on homeschooling, the judge will order the kids to return to ps. It happens more often than not, actually.

 

The person that should be vilified in this sitation is the FATHER. He knows that homeschooling has been wonderful for his kids and HE is the one advocating the change. If the father was "for" homeschooling, the issue would have never come before a judge. It is the father who is doing the kids an injustice here, IMO.

 

If I remember correctly, in one case the mother won the right to continue homeschooling, but had to move in with her parents to ensure supervision of her children when she's at work nights and weekends as a nurse. Another also won the right to continue homeschooling, but I don't know the details. A third lost the right to homeschool because the father disagreed and she gave in because there wasn't enough $ for her to continue as a SAHM anyway. The fourth lost the right to homeschool because it would "interfere with visitation" and the ex gathered all kinds of information that she wasn't homeschooling well.

[Danestress]

it should be a matter of public record....? or is that only when it is final?

 

It should be a matter of public record. But yesterday, the judge gave a ruling form the bench. Typically he will ask one party to write up the order, which he then signs. It looks like the Dad's attorney wrote up the order and gave it to the Mom's attorney and to the judge. The Mom's attorney can then object to things that she thinks inaccurately reflect what the judge said, or she can ask for additional facts that she thinks should be included. In other words, she has an opportunity to say "this isn't really what the judge said." So it looks to me like the Dad's attorney gave the Mom's attorney a copy of proposed written order and she released parts of it to the press before the judge has even signed it.

 

My guess is that the judge is going to change a lot of the inflammatory language before issuing this as a written order. I think the final order is going to say something more like, "I think it's in the best interests of the children to go to public school next year."

 

My other prediction is that the judge is going to tell the Mother that he has serious questions about her judgment and her concern for the kids. I think every child who knows Dad has a girl friend is really upset about it. But when it makes the evening news, it's just a whole lot harder on the children. And Mom and her friends have made sure it makes the evening news and is all over the internet, and no matter how badly they have made the Father look (because obviously it's bad to have affairs) my bet is that the judge is going to be very worried about whether the Mom is harming the children. I really really feel sorry for these kids, and not because they are going to public school.

[sunshine]

:iagree:

Wow, if what is in that blog is all correct all I can say is WOW. This kind of thing happens often (I have two friends who got the short end of the stick too), and unfortunately SAHMs cannot afford the best lawyers to get the best deal for them. Those poor kids are having to deal with the divorce, knowing their father is a cheater and cares more for her than them, and now dad wants to put them in school when apparently they are doing well at home. I would go after him for every dime of ins., doc bills, sports, school trips, and so on on top of child support, but then I am a bit vindictive like that.

 

He cheated, he should get stuck with paying to keep the kids lives the same. Plain and simple! If she had cheated or wanted out then it would be up to her to pay Dad to keep the kids lives the same. He should not get to go out and 'live his life' leaving the family that he created in shambles, and it goes the other way (if the wife had been the reason for the marriage to dissolve).

 

Prayers for the kids.

[asta]

I

My other prediction is that the judge is going to tell the Mother that he has serious questions about her judgment and her concern for the kids. I think every child who knows Dad has a girl friend is really upset about it. But when it makes the evening news, it's just a whole lot harder on the children. And Mom and her friends have made sure it makes the evening news and is all over the internet, and no matter how badly they have made the Father look (because obviously it's bad to have affairs) my bet is that the judge is going to be very worried about whether the Mom is harming the children. I really really feel sorry for these kids, and not because they are going to public school.

 

Yep.

 

 

asta

[cathmom]

North Carolina does not have strong homeschooling laws nor a strong state advocate group. The state group has rolled over to appease the state on several occasions. I will be watching them with great interest. We may be paying the price for not stopping the state from overreaching into our homeschooling lives before now.

 

Could you please tell me the circumstances where this happened?

[Christy B]

Could you please tell me the circumstances where this happened?

 

I'm not the person who first mentioned what you're questioning ("The state group has rolled over to appease the state on several occasions."); but I do live in NC, and I know that the state group does advise homeschoolers to cooperate with "requests" from the state for information that we are NOT required, by law, to provide. The state is very sneaky and sends out postcards that have very misleading language, implying that supplying the information (test scores, etc) is mandatory; when, in fact, it is *against* the law for them to ask for such information.

 

If I'm mis-interpreting or misunderstanding Melissa's comment, I apologize for butting in. I just know that this stand by our state organization has frustrated me. I think they should be busy educating NC homeschoolers on the actual law, not helping the state gather information. (I would have absolutely no problem providing the information -- IF it was part of our law to do so. I object on principal. Principle? I object, anyway.)

[Peek a Boo]

I'm not the person who first mentioned what you're questioning ("The state group has rolled over to appease the state on several occasions."); but I do live in NC, and I know that the state group does advise homeschoolers to cooperate with "requests" from the state for information that we are NOT required, by law, to provide. The state is very sneaky and sends out postcards that have very misleading language, implying that supplying the information (test scores, etc) is mandatory; when, in fact, it is *against* the law for them to ask for such information.

 

If I'm mis-interpreting or misunderstanding Melissa's comment, I apologize for butting in. I just know that this stand by our state organization has frustrated me. I think they should be busy educating NC homeschoolers on the actual law, not helping the state gather information. (I would have absolutely no problem providing the information -- IF it was part of our law to do so. I object on principal. Principle? I object, anyway.)

 

 

We had a similar issue w/ LEAH/ HSLDA in NY --we are NOT required to send stuff to the district return receipt requested or hand-deliver it. There is no penalty on US for them not getting our paperwork, and no burden on US to prove THEY received it. I'll use that money for a coke, thankyouverymuch.

 

eta: make all that PAST tense for ME, lol. Thank God i'm back home in TX! it still applies to homeschoolers up there tho.

[cathmom]

I have been less than impressed with the state organization the last few years, that's why I wanted specifics. I agree that the state and NCHE are vague about the actual requirements.

[pixeldog]

Emails have been flying around our loop here in Western NC. With regard to what the order said, this is part of an article from World Net Daily:

 

Posted: March 11, 2009

11:25 pm Eastern

 

By Bob Unruh

 

WorldNetDaily

 

A North Carolina judge has ordered three children to attend public schools

this fall because the homeschooling their mother has provided over the last

four years needs to be "challenged."

The children, however, have tested above their grade levels - by as much as

two years.

The decision is raising eyebrows among homeschooling families, and one

friend of the mother has launched a website to publicize the issue.

The ruling was made by Judge Ned Mangum of Wake County, who was handling a

divorce proceeding for Thomas and Venessa Mills.

(Story continues below)

 

A statement released by a publicist working for the mother, whose children

now are 10, 11 and 12, said Mangum stripped her of her right to decide what

is best for her children's education.

The judge, when contacted by WND, explained his goal in ordering the

children to register and attend a public school was to make sure they have a

"more well-rounded education."

"I thought Ms. Mills had done a good job [in homeschooling]," he said. "It

was great for them to have that access, and [i had] no problems with

homeschooling. I said public schooling would be a good complement."

The judge said the husband has not been supportive of his wife's

homeschooling, and "it accomplished its purposes. It now was appropriate to

have them back in public school."

Mangum said he made the determination on his guiding principle, "What's in

the best interest of the minor children," and conceded it was putting his

judgment in place of the mother's.

And he said that while he expressed his opinion from the bench in the court

hearing, the final written order had not yet been signed.

However, the practice of a judge replacing a parent's judgment with his own

regarding homeschooling was argued recently when a court panel in California

ruled that a family would no longer be allowed to homeschool their own

children.

WND reported extensively when the ruling was released in February 2008,

alarming homeschool advocates nationwide because of its potential

ramifications.

Ultimately, the 2nd Appellate District Court in Los Angeles reversed its own

order, affirming the rights of California parents to homeschool their

children if they choose.

The court, which earlier had opined that only credentialed teachers could

properly educate children, was faced with a flood of friend-of-the-court

briefs representing individuals and groups, including Congress members.

The conclusion ultimately was that parents, not the state, would decide

where children are educated.

The California opinion said state law permits homeschooling "as a species of

private school education" but that statutory permission for parents to teach

their own children could be "overridden in order to protect the safety of a

child who has been declared dependent."

In the North Carolina case, Adam Cothes, a spokesman for the mother, said

the children routinely had been testing at up to two years above their grade

level, were involved in swim team and other activities and events outside

their home and had taken leadership roles in history club events.

On her website, family friend Robyn Williams said Mangum stated his decision

was not ideologically or religiously motivated but that ordering the

children into public schools would "challenge the ideas you've taught them."

 

Williams, a homeschool mother of four herself, said, "I have never seen such

injustice and such a direct attack against homeschool."

"This judge clearly took personal issue with Venessa's stance on education

and faith, even though her children are doing great. If her right to

homeschool can be taken away so easily, what will this mean for

homeschoolers state wide, or even nationally?" Williams asked.

Williams said she's trying to rally homeschoolers across the nation to

defend their rights as Americans and parents to educate their own children.

Williams told WND the public school order was the worst possible outcome for

Ms. Mills, who had made it clear she felt it was important to her children

that she continue homeschooling.

According to Williams' website, the judge also ordered a mental health

evaluation for the mother - but not the father - as part of the divorce

proceedings, in what Williams described as an attack on the "mother's

conservative Christian beliefs."

According to a proposed but as-yet unsigned order submitted by the father's

lawyer to Mangum, "The children have thrived in homeschool for the past four

years, but need the broader focus and socialization available to them in

public school. The Court finds that it is in the children's best interest to

continue their homeschooling through the end of the current school year, but

to begin attending public school at the beginning of the 2009-2010

instructional year."

The order proposed by the father's lawyer also conceded the reason for the

divorce was the father's "adultery," but it specifically said the father

would not pay for homeschooling expenses for his children.

The order also stated, "Defendant believes that plaintiff is a nurturing

mother who loves the children. Defendant believes that plaintiff has done a

good job with the homeschooling of the children, although he does not

believe that continued homeschooling is in the best interest of the

children."

The website said the judge also said public school would "prepare these kids

for the real world and college" and allow them "socialization."

Williams said the mother originally moved into a homeschool schedule because

the children were not doing as well as she hoped at the local public

schools.

 

My prayers are with these kids, what a challenge.....

 

Here's some contact info for you: Judge Ned Mangum

(919) 792-4800

Nancy in NC

 

 

[Tarheel Heather]

I'm not the person who first mentioned what you're questioning ("The state group has rolled over to appease the state on several occasions."); but I do live in NC, and I know that the state group does advise homeschoolers to cooperate with "requests" from the state for information that we are NOT required, by law, to provide. The state is very sneaky and sends out postcards that have very misleading language, implying that supplying the information (test scores, etc) is mandatory; when, in fact, it is *against* the law for them to ask for such information.

 

If I'm mis-interpreting or misunderstanding Melissa's comment, I apologize for butting in. I just know that this stand by our state organization has frustrated me. I think they should be busy educating NC homeschoolers on the actual law, not helping the state gather information. (I would have absolutely no problem providing the information -- IF it was part of our law to do so. I object on principal. Principle? I object, anyway.)

 

I was always paranoid when I got my notice in the mail every year. Then someone finally said I didn't have to send it in. I also knew of several first year homeschoolers who got request to meet at the library to go over curriculum choices. Sneaky is right!

[LizzyBee]

North Carolina does not have strong homeschooling laws nor a strong state advocate group. The state group has rolled over to appease the state on several occasions. I will be watching them with great interest. We may be paying the price for not stopping the state from overreaching into our homeschooling lives before now.

 

When the legislature tried to move homeschoolers from the jurisdiction of the DNPE to the public schools, NCHE put out the word, homeschoolers made phone calls and emails, and the proposed change was dead within 2 days. I was pretty impressed with NCHE's fast and effective response to the proposed bill.

 

(On the other issue, I've posted my opinion in other threads, and I don't want to rehash it here.)

Edited March 15, 2009 by LizzyBee

[pixeldog]

OK, so there's a contact number for the judge in a previous post. What else can we do? I don't think this sort of thing is an isolated incident or just going to go away.

 

Nancy in NC

[Trivium Academy]

I hope North Carolina has decent homeschooling legislation AND strong statewide homeschool advocates- that might go a long way toward making sure this remains just what it should be...a judge's decision in a divorce/custody case - and not a precedent setting ruling.

 

I do too. The problem is that both parents have rights to determine what right for the kids, when the parents cannot reach an agreement- it's settled in court as the case here. The judge was not determining if hsling was good or bad, just trying to decide the case husband vs. wife.

 

What is sad is that it comes across as the father trying to protect the kids from the alleged extreme antics of the mother when all that was needed was a compromise on the material used to homeschool, possibly getting the kids involved in extracurricular activities outside of their current scope- to get the 'real world' experience, not throwing the kids against their will (and the mother's) into school which is not like the 'real world' at all.

[Trivium Academy]

Yep. But after reading the article, my thoughts are more along the lines of your second paragraph. IMO, if you are divorcing, expect to have to work. It's a rare thing to be able to get enough $$ support from an ex to stay home full-time.

 

$$ for the kids is one thing. A dad is responsible for them too, but once she's kicked him to the curb, I don't think a woman is necessarily entitled to have him support her stay-at-home desires. She doesn't get to divorce and STILL get to have all the rest of her life the same way as before.

 

I agree with Audrey. You can't have your cake and eat it too, a spouse shouldn't be responsible for your personal decisions esp. if they have no say. If you want a divorce then you have to be able to support yourself (and kids), child support is supposed to help with that, get alimony too if you can but ultimately- the other spouse is no longer responsible for the choices of the other.

 

Very few have been able to divorce and continue staying at home, they have started work at home jobs or have some source of income other than child support/alimony.

[LizzyBee]

You can't have your cake and eat it too, a spouse shouldn't be responsible for your personal decisions esp. if they have no say. If you want a divorce then you have to be able to support yourself (and kids), child support is supposed to help with that, get alimony too if you can but ultimately- the other spouse is no longer responsible for the choices of the other.

 

It used to be that if a husband was guilty of adultery, the law considered him responsible to continue supporting his family after the divorce. No, it didn't always happen, but that was the legal and societal view. I know we've moved away from that and both spouses must expect to work after a divorce. But refusing to continue living with an adulterous spouse in a sham of a marriage is a whole lot different than wanting a divorce!!!!!!

[G5052]

I've chatted with several friends who have been through divorce in our area, and alimony is awarded only in cases where a spouse who was not working for pay is seriously disabled. Judges will usually divide savings/investments and even retirement accounts of the working spouse where one spouse was not working, but it's expected that a spouse who can work will work in the future. This is also an expensive area with a high percentage of working mothers, so I don't know if it's a regional thing. A lot of homeschooling moms here also work part-time, and I don't think that's common in every part of the country either.

 

I do know several single homeschooling moms, and their drive always amazes me. It's not an easy road under any circumstances, but those who are "it" and work and homeschool are among my heroes.

[Peek a Boo]

It used to be that if a husband was guilty of adultery, the law considered him responsible to continue supporting his family after the divorce. No, it didn't always happen, but that was the legal and societal view.

 

even in TX [NOT an alimony state], temporary spousal support is available for long term marriages [over ten years] and certain other cases [admitted adultery could be one].

 

whether he was going to support her or not, it is certainly do-able to homeschool as a single mom.

[Alison in KY]

Okay, I'm tired and sick, so I'm not quite all together at the moment. I might have missed something big, but the conversation on this divorce is really surprising me on this case. Why should a homeschooling mom not be able to continue homeschooling using the husbands money? If he makes enough money of course. If the homeschooling and stay at home status was good enough for their last four years of marriage, then why shoulden't it continue. I could have read it wrong, but I thought some of you were saying that it would only be fair for her to go back to work. Maybe I misunderstood.

 

Alison in KY

[Joanne]

Okay, I'm tired and sick, so I'm not quite all together at the moment. I might have missed something big, but the conversation on this divorce is really surprising me on this case. Why should a homeschooling mom not be able to continue homeschooling using the husbands money? If he makes enough money of course. If the homeschooling and stay at home status was good enough for their last four years of marriage, then why shoulden't it continue. I could have read it wrong, but I thought some of you were saying that it would only be fair for her to go back to work. Maybe I misunderstood.

 

Alison in KY

 

As a divorced and still homeschooling mom.......the answer is that he gets as much/equal say in the children's educational setting. If the mom choses an educational setting that requires additional funds/provision, he has the right to say "No". Even if that setting was seemingly fine with him up until the divorce proceedings. He should not be expected to provide for a setting he no longer believes in. If the setting requires additional funds and she can't provide them on the state dictated support, he should not be required to pay for it if he doesn't agree with the choice.

 

even in TX [NOT an alimony state], temporary spousal support is available for long term marriages [over ten years] and certain other cases [admitted adultery could be one].

 

I could have easily asked for and likely gotten temporary spousal support in addition to the child support.

[swellmomma]

whether he was going to support her or not, it is certainly do-able to homeschool as a single mom.

 

Yes it sure is! Where there is a will there is a way, and a single parent who wishes to homeschool will find a way to do so and still support his/her family with or without the ex-partner's assistance. A judge should not be able to step in and send the kids back to school before the mother even has a chance to get her feet under her and start working in addition to schooling.

[Joanne]

Yes it sure is! Where there is a will there is a way, and a single parent who wishes to homeschool will find a way to do so and still support his/her family with or without the ex-partner's assistance. A judge should not be able to step in and send the kids back to school before the mother even has a chance to get her feet under her and start working in addition to schooling.

__________________

 

IS the issue in this case that the mom expected stbxh's provision to provide for her to homeschool?

 

Let's say money isn't an issue, but Dad wanted the kids in public school anyway? Mom doesn't. Who wins.

 

While I do believe it's best for the kids to keep as much the same as possible, why should mom's idea/homeschooling win?

[Peek a Boo]

IS the issue in this case that the mom expected stbxh's provision to provide for her to homeschool?

 

Let's say money isn't an issue, but Dad wanted the kids in public school anyway? Mom doesn't. Who wins.

 

While I do believe it's best for the kids to keep as much the same as possible, why should mom's idea/homeschooling win?

 

I believe [and my own papers ~albeit an uncontested case ;)~ read this way] that the custodial parent should ultimately get the exclusive say-so in the children's education. If you disagree w/ the custodial parent's decisions, then petition to BECOME the custodial parent OR build a case that proves why that decision is damaging to the children [and how you intend to help resolve that] and petition the courts. In this case, homeschooling apparently [supposedly? proof?] has NOT been damaging to them.

[Melissa in NC]

As a resident of NC, thiese are my issues.

 

All homeschools in NC are private school. We do not register the kids, we open a school. We are not required to even tell the state how many children are homeschooled but we must keep the records on hand of one year.

 

This judge has decided even though the father said the mother is a good mother, and he said that the kids were thriving, the kids would benefit from attending public school so they can experience the "real world". What is to stop a judge for telling me my kids would be better in public school? This issue is his wording will set a legal precedences.

 

The father is objecting to creationist science being taught. I looked up the local private Southern Baptist school and they use ABEKA, also creationist. The way the judge worded it, he made a judgement that evolution is superior to creationist science and the kids need to be taught evolution. Can this be used to force a private (remember homeschools are private schools) to teach evolution?

 

The judge is thinking about one family but he has stepped into the whole religion/science/politics debate. His ruling, if worded badly, can effect homeschoolers. If he were to issue a ruling based on other facts, I would see it as a custody issue rather than a homeschooling issue.

 

For the record, I do not believe in creationist science but I would not tell someone else what to believe.

[Melissa in NC]

When the legislature tried to move homeschoolers from the jurisdiction of the DNPE to the public schools, NCHE put out the word, homeschoolers made phone calls and emails, and the proposed change was dead within 2 days. I was pretty impressed with NCHE's fast and effective response to the proposed bill.

 

(On the other issue, I've posted my opinion in other threads, and I don't want to rehash it here.)

 

That action was not done by NCHE alone. It was all groups in NC contacting the governer.

 

I was really offended when I heard one of their officers speak. I had just moved to NC and it was about a year after the CBS "Dark Side of Homeschooling" show. She had the gall to stand up there and say that people outside the state may have helped SOME, but it is truly NC homeschoolers who made an impact on CBS. That was not true. And by creating a us vs them mentality, we weaken homschooling. Homeschooling is an amazing grassroots movement and we need to be there for each other.

 

I was also given the "we have the best homeschooling laws in the country" mantra. It was creepy. It was like they were all brainwashed. And we will see how well the homeschooling laws protect us in the near future.

[NCMom]

I was also given the "we have the best homeschooling laws in the country" mantra. It was creepy. It was like they were all brainwashed. And we will see how well the homeschooling laws protect us in the near future.

 

Totally off topic but...

Exactly! That is exactly, exactly what I heard when we moved here. And then in the next breath - oh and by the way, do MORE than the law requires because it is scary and bad if you don't and it HELPS other homeschoolers if you do. And in our region anyway, the info given out to newbies is frequently flat, dead wrong. :glare:

 

 

Georgia

[Alison in KY]

As a divorced and still homeschooling mom.......the answer is that he gets as much/equal say in the children's educational setting. If the mom choses an educational setting that requires additional funds/provision, he has the right to say "No". Even if that setting was seemingly fine with him up until the divorce proceedings. He should not be expected to provide for a setting he no longer believes in. If the setting requires additional funds and she can't provide them on the state dictated support, he should not be required to pay for it if he doesn't agree with the choice.

 

 

 

I could have easily asked for and likely gotten temporary spousal support in addition to the child support.

 

 

That ain't even right!! Wow, I just don't get it, how could anyone rule like this. For instance in my case, I quit my well paying job to stay home with the kids, with husbands blessings of course. So in my case I don't even have enough credits to receive social security benefits because I haven't worked long enough, but I have stayed home, tended, and schooled my children for 10 years now (four years of homeschooling). So it's typical of judges to not consider what you've done and to just say your own your own ? That's just way disappointing. I've often stopped and wondered how I would handle things should me and mine get a divorce, and I assumed I would be okay since my quitting work was a mutual decision...I thought I'd be adequately taken care of so I could keep going on with life as usual, with less money of course. That's not the norm then?

 

Thanks,

Alison in KY

[Peek a Boo]

T.... but I have stayed home, tended, and schooled my children for 10 years now (four years of homeschooling). So it's typical of judges to not consider what you've done and to just say your own your own ? That's just way disappointing. I've often stopped and wondered how I would handle things should me and mine get a divorce, and I assumed I would be okay since my quitting work was a mutual decision...I thought I'd be adequately taken care of so I could keep going on with life as usual, with less money of course. That's not the norm then?

 

Alison, it's been my experience that many states DO consider what the wife has contributed to the marriage. Especially long-term marriages [10+ years]. They will also tell you that "equitable division of property" is not the same as EQUAL. It may be more equitable to give the wife more up front since she's been out of the loop for so long. You could call a local divorce attorney and ask how your state handles it, or look it up online.

 

There's more to THIS story than we're hearing. Either there's more problems w/ the kids/ wife than is being admitted, or the judge is totally corrupt.

[Joanne]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alison in KY

T.... but I have stayed home, tended, and schooled my children for 10 years now (four years of homeschooling). So it's typical of judges to not consider what you've done and to just say your own your own ? That's just way disappointing. I've often stopped and wondered how I would handle things should me and mine get a divorce, and I assumed I would be okay since my quitting work was a mutual decision...I thought I'd be adequately taken care of so I could keep going on with life as usual, with less money of course. That's not the norm then?

 

In my experience, no, it's not the norm.

 

Alison, it's been my experience that many states DO consider what the wife has contributed to the marriage. Especially long-term marriages [10+ years]. They will also tell you that "equitable division of property" is not the same as EQUAL. It may be more equitable to give the wife more up front since she's been out of the loop for so long. You could call a local divorce attorney and ask how your state handles it, or look it up online.

 

 

 

There's more to THIS story than we're hearing. Either there's more problems w/ the kids/ wife than is being admitted, or the judge is totally corrupt.

__________________

 

I disagree on both counts.

[cathmom]

My mom, who lives in NJ, asked me yesterday if I had heard about this case, so it has made the news up there.

[TraceyS/FL]

Alison, it's been my experience that many states DO consider what the wife has contributed to the marriage. Especially long-term marriages [10+ years]. They will also tell you that "equitable division of property" is not the same as EQUAL. It may be more equitable to give the wife more up front since she's been out of the loop for so long. You could call a local divorce attorney and ask how your state handles it, or look it up online.

 

This is how FL laws are, it is NOT a community property state so they take the whole picture into consideration. That doesn't happen at all in a community property state - that has always been 50/50 cut and dry.

 

I'm feeling confident on what numbers i have to show what i gave up and invested into the other half, and after 17 years i am entitled to support on my own in addition to child support should i be awarded that. But i have some hard core "big" numbers to throw around too.

 

Then again, i'm extremely stressed over the whole thing.....

[Peek a Boo]

This is how FL laws are, it is NOT a community property state so they take the whole picture into consideration. That doesn't happen at all in a community property state - that has always been 50/50 cut and dry.

 

 

Texas is a community property state, and does take the whole picture into consideration in certain circumstances.

 

I understand that Joanne disagrees, but I know that NY and TX law offer stipulations for long term marriages [and other circumstances like proved adultery], and it's my understanding from word of mouth experiences from other moms that other states have similar legislation. However, law may be applied [or NOT applied, as the case may be] depending on the attorneys/ parties involved. There's a reason that people are usually advised to get a shark of an attorney, especially in divorce cases, to make sure the specific law is sought out and applied. Judges are rarely capable of doing a specific case justice w/o lots of input from both sides [they are not omniscient], and that input many times relies on top-notch attorney knowledge and application. Lots of people --including wives-- don't get due justice because they either can't or won't get a good attorney: can't due usually to financial circumstances [neither spouse makes enough to cover it, so it's not even worth it to ask for attorney fees in the settlement], or won't because they still have some sort of trust in their spouse [...or other justification].

 

Alison-- KY does take into account certain provisions:

http://kylawyer.net/Publications/AOPNewsletter.aspx?AoPid=55&NewsItemid=3

 

And I *know* there has to be more to THIS case: the extremes i posted were simply describing the extent of the extremes, not necessarily an either/or.

[Jenny in Florida]

Basically, as long as a family is "intact" (and, yes, I hate the term, too) and both parents agree on how they wish to raise their child(ren), the most states more or less leave you alone. However, once your family comes into the court system for some reason (a claim of abuse, a divorce, etc.), the courts have much wider latitude to get involved. And, when parents don't agree, the court gets to be the tie breaker.

 

It sounds like that's what happene here.

 

And, as infuriated and devastated as I would be if I were that mom, I can't say I think it's fair if the father is not supportive of homeschooling to insist that he not only has no say in his children's education but also must be forced to pay for it.

 

It's awful, and we'll have to wait until the written decision is made public to see whether the judge actually over-stepped a reasonable limit. But, based on the information I've seen reported, I'm not sure it's wrong.

[pixeldog]

Raleigh News/Observer has this update/new wrinkle:

 

Judge: 'Cult' factored in ruling

 

 

By Thomas Goldsmith, Staff writer Comment on this story

Venessa Mills, the Wake County mother whose home-schooled children were ordered to attend public schools, grew alienated from her husband and parents after joining a religious group that some former members call a cult, the judge in the case said Tuesday in a written order.

Wake District Court Judge Ned Mangum ruled March 6 that it would be in the best interests of Venessa Mills' three children to go to public school this fall.

That ruling, in an ongoing divorce case between Venessa and husband Thomas Mills, sparked national attention from conservatives who maintain that Mangum overstepped his bounds.

"Based on all of the evidence, the court finds that Ms. Mills engaged in behavior that alienates the minor children from their maternal grandparents, their aunt, and most importantly their father," Mangum wrote.

Venessa Mills was not available for comment Tuesday. She said after the March 6 ruling that Mangum had overlooked the facts and legislated from the bench.

Among other provisions, the written order said the parents will have joint custody of the children -- who are 12, 11 and 10 -- and that both parents can "practice their own religion and expose children to same."

The ruling amplified Mangum's reasons for ordering the change in schooling, noting that he recognizes the benefits of home schooling. It goes into significant detail about the Washington state-based Sound Doctrine Church to which Venessa Mills belongs. "It is in the best interest of these minor children based on all of the evidence presented that Mr. Mills, a father with equal rights, should be allowed to expose the children to more than just the experiences that Venessa Mills desires," Mangum wrote.

Attempts to reach Jaye Meyer, Thomas Mills' lawyer, and to the Sound Doctrine Church for comment were unsuccessful.

Magnum's ruling quotes people named as former members of Sound Doctrine who describe the institution as abusive. They say Sound Doctrine practiced brainwashing and was run by fear and manipulation.

"In numerous sworn affidavits submitted to the court, witnesses describe this group as a cult," Mangum wrote.

According to the ruling, Venessa and Thomas Mills had a loving relationship for many years after their 1994 marriage. In 2005, Venessa became involved with the Sound Doctrine Church of Enumclaw, Wash. In Mangum's findings, Thomas Mills is quoted:

"Venessa stopped communicating with me in any meaningful manner; instead, her responses to me began to consist almost exclusively of quoting Scripture or parroting Sound Doctrine religious rhetoric.

"It became clear to me that our marriage relationship did not matter to her anymore, and she even told her own family members that she did not consider herself married to me."

Thomas Mills warned his wife that the marriage would end if she valued her religious group more than the marriage, Mangum wrote. "He began to spend less time in the marital home and had an inappropriate sexual relationship" with another woman, the ruling said.

 

 

 

thomas.goldsmith@newsobserver.com or919-829-8929

 

Wow, I don't know what to think....

[Melissa in NC]

The way that this ruling is written, it specifically address concerns of this particular divorce rather than an ambiguous "public schools are a better environment for the kids".

 

I do not see the final ruling as a threat to homeschooling.

[mamaof2andtwins]

Here is a link to the other thread with the actual court ruling in it.

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88409

[Twinmom]

The way that this ruling is written, it specifically address concerns of this particular divorce rather than an ambiguous "public schools are a better environment for the kids".

 

I do not see the final ruling as a threat to homeschooling.

 

I read the order and I agree. Got basically the same comment from HSLDA when I asked. I'm not concerned at all anymore.