Uh-oh. A New Hampshire court is ordering a girl to be taken out of homeschooling and put into the public school system because she might be too religious.
As is typical with these kinds of cases it seems to have started with a divorce where the mother, who homeschooled the child, is religious and the father doesn’t want the same things for their child. So a court case ensued. That’s all sadly typical but the strange thing is the judge’s ruling which should shock and worry homeschoolers everywhere.
The Alliance Defense Fund reports:
An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney filed motions with a New Hampshire court Monday asking it to reconsider and stay its decision to order a 10-year-old home-schooled girl into a government-run school in Meredith.
Although the marital master making recommendations to the court agreed the child is “well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising, and intellectually at or superior to grade level” and that “it is clear that the home schooling…has more than kept up with the academic requirements of the…public school system,” he nonetheless proposed that the Christian girl be ordered into a government-run school after considering “the impact of [her religious] beliefs on her interaction with others.” The court approved the order.
“Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children. In this case specifically, the court is illegitimately altering a method of education that the court itself admits is working,” said ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons of Hampton. “The court is essentially saying that the evidence shows that, socially and academically, this girl is doing great, but her religious beliefs are a bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews. This is a step too far for any court to take.”
The ruling can be found in its entirety http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/08/judge-orders-homeschooler-into-public-school-for-being-too-religious/. But here’s some quotes for your perusal:
“The counselor found Amanda to lack some youthful characteristics. She appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith…
“The Guardian Ad Litem concluded that Amanda’s interests and particularly her intellectual and emotion development would be best served by exposure to a public school setting in which she would be challenged to solve problems presented by a group learning situation and by the social interactivity of children her age. She also concluded that Amanda would be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior and cooperation in order to select as a young adult which of those systems would best suit her needs…
The evidence support a finding that Amanda is generally likable and well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level….
Amanda’s vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to the counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other points of view…
The Court has not considered the merits of Amanda’s religious beliefs but considered only the impact of those beliefs on her interaction with others both past and future…
This is a worrisome ruling and, I fear, a sign of things to come.
August 28, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Everybody here thanking god for HSLDA obviously has no understanding of what HSLDA does. They avoid divorce cases like the plague. The parents can't or won't come to a reasonable solution on their own, so the state had to adjudicate. And the state decided that the state's schools were the best option. Wow, that's just a shocking outcome.
As stated by several others, this is a divorce issue, not a homeschooling issue.
August 28, 2009 at 9:19 pm
It's great that there's a court willing to stand up to religious isolationism.
I believe that there's much to be gained with home schooling but it shouldn't be used to isolate children from a wider world view. It can be quite damaging.
Home schooling should be about knowledge. Not about teaching religion.
(Especially since it's all just myth, conjecture, and made up nonsense, loosely related to a moral argument that we should all be nice to each other)
August 28, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Anonymous 4:19 If you read the article completely, you would know the child is NOT being issolated from the world, she attends community activities etc
and
we will pray for you as you have yet to find Truth.
August 29, 2009 at 4:15 am
Two words:
Civil disobedience.
Let me repeat that, emphatically:
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
You don't have to obey laws that are unjust. This ruling is. The First Amendment makes no exceptions whatsoever – this girl has a right to express her faith as a 10 year old and, if she disagrees with her mother later, as an adult.
Because the same people who say the girl can't really consent to making choices of faith will turn around and either a) say she can consent to having some school nurse or PP rep give her birth control; b) consent to sexual activity; c) consent to an abortion without her parents' knowledge or consent.
Don't listen. Just ignore them. Don't engage the anti-rights folks (like Anon 4:19). Ignore them. Do what is right and just and defy those who would take away your right to be a parent and your right to educate your child as you see fit.
August 29, 2009 at 5:02 pm
How does this ruling pass the "nor prohibit the free exercise" clause of the Constitution regarding religion?
It can if the father believes his daughter's religious beliefs to be "too rigid".
Do what is right and just and defy those who would take away your right to be a parent and your right to educate your child as you see fit.
The father has rights too and for the court there is no compelling reason to prefer the mother over the father. The fact that the mother is religious and the father is not, apparently, is not reason enough for the court to take her side in this matter. And this is not an attack on religious liberty – it is the consequence of religious liberty. If we had a confessional State there would be no question of which parent the court would favor. But we don't, so the court must view all religions, including atheism/agnosticism, as equal.
August 30, 2009 at 1:22 am
This is really sad. So much for Free State New Hampshire.
August 31, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I'm fairly certain the child will be able to survive the trauma of having to deal with the world that exists outside of her home.
August 31, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Sure, the child will survive, and the father's will should be recognized too, but is there any practical reason to take this child out of home schooling?
The court admitted openly that the child had made excellent progress for someone her age and did not seem to have any issues with socialization. So, if this child is a bright student and of respectable behavior, what is wrong with continuning her in the path she has been before?
The problem, according to the court, was that she was TOO RELIGIOUS. As someone previously said, this is a non-confessional State, therefore the State has no right to determine for a child what is too religious or not. The only concerns of the State should be the health and educational well being of this child, especially since the child seems, by the court's own admission, a well socialized child.
One would think that the court would uphold the Constitution and not stick its nose in someone's religious convictions…
September 1, 2009 at 1:30 am
I agree with Sarah. The way I see it, the problem doesn't come from the court making a decision in such a case, given that there are different desires by the two parents (although I would question, then, who has legal custody of the child, and therefore should be the primary person to make such decisions). Nor is the decision itself a problem.
No, the problem is the reasoning behind the decision. The court said that the child was too religious. Excuse me? If the basis of the decision was failure to perform, lack of additional activities that would be available in public schools, or any other rational basis involving EDUCATION, then that'd be one thing. But "too religious"? That is not something that should have been a factor in the court's decision, not by a long shot.
I know this is a stretch, but what if a child in a public school is instilled with a great love of country, is extremely proud of the US, supports the good works of this country, and can defend the country against defamation? What if that child has one parent (divorced from the other) from a country that is very much anti-US? Should the child then be sent to a school elsewhere where she can learn about how evil the US is, and how other countries are so much better than the US? Should Amanda be forced to go to a terrorist training camp so as to get a more diverse education?
September 4, 2009 at 7:25 pm
This is HORRIBLE!! I am going to write to the judges and complain. I suggest that everybody else do the same. I pray that God will make this child very, very, VERY strong in the faith to where she is grounded and settled in such a way that she will not be shaken no matter what other "points of view" are thrust upon her. This is the work of Satan. We can't be quiet about this.