Melissa in NC Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Here is a link to the court order of kids order back to school. http://www.newsobserver.com/content/media/2009/3/17/courtorder.pdf The order does not affect homeschooling in the state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harriet Vane Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Thank you for linking this. It provides a MUCH different perspective than the account linked in the other thread. I feel terribly sad for those children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teamturner Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I read the whole thing and I'm just so sad for those kids. My perspective of the situation is completely different. I was discussing this case with a friend and she even suggested that perhaps it was a cult thing. I'm still worried about them having to attend that "church" with her. Boot camp style program to instill good manners?? Some scary things going on there, not to mention the highly inappropriate things said by the church leader! Wow! However, in the USA we do have the freedom to worship as we chose. It will be interesting to see if after having the mother and the children have their talks with the phyciatrist if the custody changes. Those poor kids! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asta Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 That was a very well written court opinion. Did anyone else note the last line where the woman's attorney asked to be removed from her case? Those poor kids. asta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reya Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Poor kids! I agree--my opinion's entirely different now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teamturner Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 That was a very well written court opinion. Did anyone else note the last line where the woman's attorney asked to be removed from her case? Those poor kids. asta Yes, I saw that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danestress Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 It's such a shame. And poor judge. He's been innundated with emails form people who hadn't actually read the order, and now he will have to read all their updated viewpoints, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liza Q Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Thanks so much for posting this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamaof2andtwins Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Thank you for posting this. It just shows that we never can be sure of what it really going on when we read news articles. Jennie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinmom Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Wow. Much different perspective than has previously been reported. How sad for the children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danestress Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 And other places that published on this case without disclosing the full facts will publish something else explaining it more fully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teamturner Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 And other places that published on this case without disclosing the full facts will publish something else explaining it more fully. Here's a more current article from WND but after reading the court ruling myself from top to bottom I think it's a very biased article. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92102 I also noticed that the HSLDA is not taking up this case and it's not even mentioned on their website. They were all over the CA case but they don't seem to working to uphold the mother's rights in this one. Hmmmmmm.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FO4UR Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 After reading the link in op, I'm sad that the mom even has joint custody! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teamturner Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 After reading the link in op, I'm sad that the mom even has joint custody! :iagree: That was what I thought too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asta Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Here's a more current article from WND but after reading the court ruling myself from top to bottom I think it's a very biased article. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92102 I also noticed that the HSLDA is not taking up this case and it's not even mentioned on their website. They were all over the CA case but they don't seem to working to uphold the mother's rights in this one. Hmmmmmm.... I'm a bit confused... what rights are being taken away from the mother? The right to put her children in a potentially damaging situation was left alone. She is completely able to continue bringing them to her church. There is no indication that anyone will be in the home with her insuring she isn't scaring the living crap out of her own kids due to her delusions about what "faith" and "obedience" are. The only thing I can possibly see being taken away from this woman is the right to mentally abuse these children. I don't see that this case honestly has anything to do with homeschooling - I see it as an attempt by the state to protect those children within the constraints of the Constitution. JMO asta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teamturner Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I'm a bit confused... what rights are being taken away from the mother? The right to put her children in a potentially damaging situation was left alone. She is completely able to continue bringing them to her church. There is no indication that anyone will be in the home with her insuring she isn't scaring the living crap out of her own kids due to her delusions about what "faith" and "obedience" are. The only thing I can possibly see being taken away from this woman is the right to mentally abuse these children. I don't see that this case honestly has anything to do with homeschooling - I see it as an attempt by the state to protect those children within the constraints of the Constitution. JMO asta I guess you haven't read my other posts to see that I am NOT on the side of this mother. The rights of which I speak is in reference to those in other media outlets bashing the judge for violating this mother's right to homeschool her kids. And in a previous thread about this case here on this board, many saw this judge as trying to take away this woman's right to homeschool based on his own bias. Now that these other facts have to come to light (the cult situation), it doesn't appear the judge is against homeschooling but rather looking at the whole picture of these children's lives and taking into account the true nature of the father's motives to discontinue homeschooling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bess Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Thank you for posting this. It just shows that we never can be sure of what it really going on when we read news articles. Jennie Exactly. Wow, how incredibly sad. I wish now that the dad had full custody with that wacko of a mother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty ethel rackham Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 HSLDA does NOT take up domestic cases. They state very clearly that they will not get involved in custody cases and custody issues are the most common reason for legal challenge to the right to homeschool. This was so clearly not about the right to homeschool but to provide an alternative to the mom's cult lifestyle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bess Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) It's so interesting, I went to her church's website (Sound Doctrine Church in WA) and from all appearances it appears relatively normal, very non-cult like. One would not know, looking at the website, that there is anything fishy there (okay, except for their definition of what a christian is). But then they go and state in their "beliefs" that they are not the one and only church/christians. I'm not saying that I don't believe it's a cult...clearly there are major issues and the wife's behavior reflect those...but rather, how scary to think how easily one can get sucked into something like that when all seems normal on the surface. http://www.sdoctrine.org/ Edited March 19, 2009 by Bess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy22alyns Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) Here's a more current article from WND but after reading the court ruling myself from top to bottom I think it's a very biased article. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92102 I also noticed that the HSLDA is not taking up this case and it's not even mentioned on their website. They were all over the CA case but they don't seem to working to uphold the mother's rights in this one. Hmmmmmm.... Could this be why HSLDA isn't taking up this case? HSLDA does not provide legal representation for members in matters involving divorce, child custody, or related domestic disputes. ETA: Sorry, Dirty Ethel - I mean Ellen - I didn't see your post before I posted my post! :D Edited March 19, 2009 by Mommy22alyns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizzyBee Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I still don't feel like we have sufficient information to make a judgement one way or the other. Based on the order, the mom certainly sounds like a whack job whose kids need to be protected from her, and she very well may be. But I found it interesting that the judge quoted extensively from affidavits against the mom, but none that were in her favor, even though he alluded to their existence. He knew before he wrote the order that his ruling was being questioned, so he had every reason to spin the order to make the mom sound as weird and potentially dangerous as possible. IRT her family testifying against her, well, my dh is a seminary student - Baptist, which is pretty mainstream in the American south. But we've known students whose families turned against them and turned them in to social services, because, in their eyes, it is weird and abusive to leave a good job to attend seminary. There have been social workers who were bound and determined to take these people's kids, but in the end they couldn't because it is not illegal to voluntarily lower your standard of living in order to change careers or follow a new calling. IRT the husband saying that his wife emotionally withdrew from him - well, that may be true. But the cheating spouses I've known always found a way to justify their behavior by blaming it on the other spouse's behavior. I'm not saying the mom is fine or the judge is wrong... I'm just saying I remain skeptical of everything I've read about this case because everybody involved has a reason to put a certain spin on the circumstances. In the end, we can only hope the judge is a straight-up guy who is trying to do the right thing for the kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bess Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I still don't feel like we have sufficient information to make a judgement one way or the other. Based on the order, the mom certainly sounds like a whack job whose kids need to be protected from her, and she very well may be. But I found it interesting that the judge quoted extensively from affidavits against the mom, but none that were in her favor, even though he alluded to their existence. He knew before he wrote the order that his ruling was being questioned, so he had every reason to spin the order to make the mom sound as weird and potentially dangerous as possible. IRT her family testifying against her, well, my dh is a seminary student - Baptist, which is pretty mainstream in the American south. But we've known students whose families turned against them and turned them in to social services, because, in their eyes, it is weird and abusive to leave a good job to attend seminary. There have been social workers who were bound and determined to take these people's kids, but in the end they couldn't because it is not illegal to voluntarily lower your standard of living in order to change careers or follow a new calling. IRT the husband saying that his wife emotionally withdrew from him - well, that may be true. But the cheating spouses I've known always found a way to justify their behavior by blaming it on the other spouse's behavior. I'm not saying the mom is fine or the judge is wrong... I'm just saying I remain skeptical of everything I've read about this case because everybody involved has a reason to put a certain spin on the circumstances. In the end, we can only hope the judge is a straight-up guy who is trying to do the right thing for the kids. I understand your points, but at the same time, this family was "christian" before she went to this other weird church. So, I have a hard time believing that everyone was upset at over her becoming religious. Seems like they were a happy, church-going family before. Know what I mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizzyBee Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 (edited) I understand your points, but at the same time, this family was "christian" before she went to this other weird church. So, I have a hard time believing that everyone was upset at over her becoming religious. Seems like they were a happy, church-going family before. Know what I mean? I do, and I think the judge probably made the right decision. But I am finding the media spin (along with the judge's spin and the husband's spin and the wife's spin and the wife's friend's spin) kind of fascinating. And I don't 100% buy into any of it. ETA: The families I mentioned in my earlier post were also Christian before they came to seminary. Their families still didn't take well to the change. It could be the same thing here, although if the affidavits quoted were completely truthful, I'd have to agree that the SD church is a cult. Edited March 20, 2009 by LizzyBee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Neverland Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 I went to the website of the church and it DOES look normal but if you go to the blog about motherhood there is some WEIRD stuff going on. One of the entries talks about "training" their grandchildren not to say "no" and it mentions that it "only" took a few days to "train" them and now they don't do it any more. But it doesn't mention "how" they trained them. hmmmm.... The whole thing has a cultish feel to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.