• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Court orders to public school because she is Christian

MsSage

Well-known member
They said this would never happen.....How can the left keep defending these actions?

Court orders Christian child into government education
10-year-old's 'vigorous' defense of her faith condemned by judge

A 10-year-old homeschool girl described as "well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level" has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too "vigorous" in defense of her Christian faith.

The decision from Marital Master Michael Garner reasoned that the girl's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view."

The recommendation was approved by Judge Lucinda V. Sadler, but it is being challenged by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, who said it was "a step too far" for any court.

The ADF confirmed today it has filed motions with the court seeking reconsideration of the order and a stay of the decision sending the 10-year-old student in government-run schools in Meredith, N.H.
The dispute arose as part of a modification of a parenting plan for the girl. The parents divorced in 1999 when she was a newborn, and the mother has homeschooled her daughter since first grade with texts that meet all state standards.

In addition to homeschooling, the girl attends supplemental public school classes and has also been involved in a variety of extra-curricular sports activities, the ADF reported.

But during the process of negotiating the terms of the plan, a guardian ad litem appointed to participate concluded the girl "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that the girl's interests "would be best served by exposure to a public school setting" and "different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief ... in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs."

According to court documents, the guardian ad litem earlier had told the mother, "If I want her in public school, she'll be in public school."

The marital master hearing the case proposed the Christian girl be ordered into public school after considering "the impact of [her religious] beliefs on her interaction with others."

"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 New Hampshire Supreme Court itself has specifically declared, 'Home education is an enduring American tradition and right,'" said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson. "There is clearly and without question no legitimate legal basis for the court's decision, and we trust it will reconsider its conclusions."

The case, handled in the Family Division of the Judicial Court for Belknap County in Laconia, involves Martin Kurowski and Brenda Kurowski (Voydatch), and their daughter.

The ADF also argued that the issue already was raised in 2006 and rejected by the court.

"Most urgent … is the issue of Amanda's schooling as the school year has begun and Amanda is being impacted by the court's decision daily," the court filing requesting a stay said. "Serious state statutory and federal constitutional concerns are implicated by the court's ruling and which need to be remedied without delay.

"It is not the proper role of the court to insist that Amanda be 'exposed to different points of view' if the primary residential parent has determined that it is in Amanda's best interest not to be exposed to secular influences that would undermine Amanda's faith, schooling, social development, etc. The court is not permitted to demonstrate hostility toward religion, and particularly the faith of Amanda and Mother, by removing Amanda from the home and thrusting her into an environment that the custodial parent deems detrimental to Amanda."

"The order assumes that because Amanda has sincerely held Christian beliefs, there must be a problem that needs solving. It is a parent's constitutionally protected right to train up their children in the religious beliefs that they hold. It is not up to the court to suggest that a 10-year-old should be 'exposed' to other religious views contrary to the faith traditions of her parents. Could it not be that this sharp 10-year-old 'vigorously' believes what she does because she knows it to be true? The court's narrative suggests that 10-year-olds are too young to form opinions and that they are not yet allowed to have sincerely held Christian beliefs," the ADF said.

"Absent any other clear and convincing evidence justifying the court's decision, it would appear that the court has indeed taken sides with regard to the issue of religion and has preferred one religious view over another (or the absence of religion). This is impermissible," the documents said.

The guardian ad litem had an anti-Christian bias, the documents said, telling the mother at one point she wouldn't even look at homeschool curriculum.

"I don't want to hear it. It's all Christian based," she said.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
MsSage said:
They said this would never happen.....How can the left keep defending these actions?

Court orders Christian child into government education
10-year-old's 'vigorous' defense of her faith condemned by judge

A 10-year-old homeschool girl described as "well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level" has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too "vigorous" in defense of her Christian faith.

The decision from Marital Master Michael Garner reasoned that the girl's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view."

The recommendation was approved by Judge Lucinda V. Sadler, but it is being challenged by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, who said it was "a step too far" for any court.

The ADF confirmed today it has filed motions with the court seeking reconsideration of the order and a stay of the decision sending the 10-year-old student in government-run schools in Meredith, N.H.
The dispute arose as part of a modification of a parenting plan for the girl. The parents divorced in 1999 when she was a newborn, and the mother has homeschooled her daughter since first grade with texts that meet all state standards.

In addition to homeschooling, the girl attends supplemental public school classes and has also been involved in a variety of extra-curricular sports activities, the ADF reported.

But during the process of negotiating the terms of the plan, a guardian ad litem appointed to participate concluded the girl "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that the girl's interests "would be best served by exposure to a public school setting" and "different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief ... in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs."

According to court documents, the guardian ad litem earlier had told the mother, "If I want her in public school, she'll be in public school."

The marital master hearing the case proposed the Christian girl be ordered into public school after considering "the impact of [her religious] beliefs on her interaction with others."

"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 New Hampshire Supreme Court itself has specifically declared, 'Home education is an enduring American tradition and right,'" said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson. "There is clearly and without question no legitimate legal basis for the court's decision, and we trust it will reconsider its conclusions."

The case, handled in the Family Division of the Judicial Court for Belknap County in Laconia, involves Martin Kurowski and Brenda Kurowski (Voydatch), and their daughter.

The ADF also argued that the issue already was raised in 2006 and rejected by the court.

"Most urgent … is the issue of Amanda's schooling as the school year has begun and Amanda is being impacted by the court's decision daily," the court filing requesting a stay said. "Serious state statutory and federal constitutional concerns are implicated by the court's ruling and which need to be remedied without delay.

"It is not the proper role of the court to insist that Amanda be 'exposed to different points of view' if the primary residential parent has determined that it is in Amanda's best interest not to be exposed to secular influences that would undermine Amanda's faith, schooling, social development, etc. The court is not permitted to demonstrate hostility toward religion, and particularly the faith of Amanda and Mother, by removing Amanda from the home and thrusting her into an environment that the custodial parent deems detrimental to Amanda."

"The order assumes that because Amanda has sincerely held Christian beliefs, there must be a problem that needs solving. It is a parent's constitutionally protected right to train up their children in the religious beliefs that they hold. It is not up to the court to suggest that a 10-year-old should be 'exposed' to other religious views contrary to the faith traditions of her parents. Could it not be that this sharp 10-year-old 'vigorously' believes what she does because she knows it to be true? The court's narrative suggests that 10-year-olds are too young to form opinions and that they are not yet allowed to have sincerely held Christian beliefs," the ADF said.

"Absent any other clear and convincing evidence justifying the court's decision, it would appear that the court has indeed taken sides with regard to the issue of religion and has preferred one religious view over another (or the absence of religion). This is impermissible," the documents said.

The guardian ad litem had an anti-Christian bias, the documents said, telling the mother at one point she wouldn't even look at homeschool curriculum.

"I don't want to hear it. It's all Christian based," she said.

This isn't a left-right issue.

Something doesn't add up here.

Does the girl's father have partial or joint custody and wants her to go to public school?

Why has a guardian been appointed? There has to be a reason for that.

On it's face value, as written in the article, I would agree that forcing her to public school would clearly be wrong.

But I get the feeling we're not getting the whole story here.
 

per

Well-known member
Wonder how the ad litem feels about Christian schools. Surely there are a few of them in NH. She also must avoid the use of your In God we trust currency. Would limit her to plastic I suppose. Sad sad state of affairs.
 

MsSage

Well-known member
This isn't a left-right issue.

Something doesn't add up here.

Does the girl's father have partial or joint custody and wants her to go to public school?

Why has a guardian been appointed? There has to be a reason for that.

On it's face value, as written in the article, I would agree that forcing her to public school would clearly be wrong.

But I get the feeling we're not getting the whole story here.

Anytime a child is involved a guardian ad litem is appointed. The reason is a the child can not speak for themselves in court. The ad litem is "suppose" to be the spokesmen for the chld. Far too often they have their own ideas as to how visitation should be worked out. Some times it doesnt matter what both parents want for the child the ad litem has another agenda.
In most states a parenting plan is another name for visitation.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
MsSage said:
This isn't a left-right issue.

Something doesn't add up here.

Does the girl's father have partial or joint custody and wants her to go to public school?

Why has a guardian been appointed? There has to be a reason for that.

On it's face value, as written in the article, I would agree that forcing her to public school would clearly be wrong.

But I get the feeling we're not getting the whole story here.

Anytime a child is involved a guardian ad litem is appointed. The reason is a the child can not speak for themselves in court. The ad litem is "suppose" to be the spokesmen for the chld. Far too often they have their own ideas as to how visitation should be worked out. Some times it doesnt matter what both parents want for the child the ad litem has another agenda.
In most states a parenting plan is another name for visitation.

All I am saying is that whether right or wrong, something triggered the court's action.

The state just doesn't swoop in and pull kid's out of homeschool situations on a whim.

Edit:

Here is a more balance article:

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090827/GJNEWS02/708279645/-1/CITNEWS

The father has issues with the homeschooling.

It does say the mother has custody, but doesn't specify how much contact she has with her father.

I guess the court will have to decide how much say the father has in the child's life.

I wouldn't want to be a family court judge!
 

Bullhauler

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
MsSage said:
This isn't a left-right issue.

Something doesn't add up here.

Does the girl's father have partial or joint custody and wants her to go to public school?

Why has a guardian been appointed? There has to be a reason for that.

On it's face value, as written in the article, I would agree that forcing her to public school would clearly be wrong.

But I get the feeling we're not getting the whole story here.

Anytime a child is involved a guardian ad litem is appointed. The reason is a the child can not speak for themselves in court. The ad litem is "suppose" to be the spokesmen for the chld. Far too often they have their own ideas as to how visitation should be worked out. Some times it doesnt matter what both parents want for the child the ad litem has another agenda.
In most states a parenting plan is another name for visitation.

All I am saying is that whether right or wrong, something triggered the court's action.

The state just doesn't swoop in and pull kid's out of homeschool situations on a whim.

Edit:

Here is a more balance article:

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090827/GJNEWS02/708279645/-1/CITNEWS

The father has issues with the homeschooling.

It does say the mother has custody, but doesn't specify how much contact she has with her father.

I guess the court will have to decide how much say the father has in the child's life.

I wouldn't want to be a family court judge!


I wonder what kind of hack wrote the story mssage posted. Thanks for giving the rest of the story badaxe.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
" guardian ad litem in the case concluded, according to the court ruling issued July 14, that the girl "would best be served by exposure to public school setting in which she would be challenged to solve problems presented by a group learning situation and by social interactivity with children her age. She also would be best served by exposure to different points of view ..."

What you have here is a broad condemnation of home schooling. This arguement could apply to any home schooled kid. I'm not buying it, I think this is just an excuse. As the first article pointed out, she's already taking some classes in public school and is involved in sports.

I wonder what the opinion of the ad litem would be if the child showed up with an Obama shirt and talked about global warming and health care instead of God?
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
" guardian ad litem in the case concluded, according to the court ruling issued July 14, that the girl "would best be served by exposure to public school setting in which she would be challenged to solve problems presented by a group learning situation and by social interactivity with children her age. She also would be best served by exposure to different points of view ..."

What you have here is a broad condemnation of home schooling. This arguement could apply to any home schooled kid.

I wonder what the opinion of the ad litem would be if the child showed up with an Obama shirt and talked about global warming and health care instead of God?

Your silly last sentence aside, I agree with you. Homeschooling doesn't necessarily mean isolation.

My kids go to public school and we are happy with it so far.

But there is a really neat homeschool cooperative in our area. The kids are at home with their parents for three days of instruction and then usually spend a couple of days together as a group doing activities.

In some public school climates, I think it is very possible for a child to be more isolated if they don't fit in, then they would be if they were schooled at home.

Maybe the judge knows something more about this child's life than we can tell by reading blurbs.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bullhauler said:
badaxemoo said:
MsSage said:
Anytime a child is involved a guardian ad litem is appointed. The reason is a the child can not speak for themselves in court. The ad litem is "suppose" to be the spokesmen for the chld. Far too often they have their own ideas as to how visitation should be worked out. Some times it doesnt matter what both parents want for the child the ad litem has another agenda.
In most states a parenting plan is another name for visitation.

All I am saying is that whether right or wrong, something triggered the court's action.

The state just doesn't swoop in and pull kid's out of homeschool situations on a whim.

Edit:

Here is a more balance article:

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090827/GJNEWS02/708279645/-1/CITNEWS

The father has issues with the homeschooling.

It does say the mother has custody, but doesn't specify how much contact she has with her father.

I guess the court will have to decide how much say the father has in the child's life.

I wouldn't want to be a family court judge!


I wonder what kind of hack wrote the story mssage posted. Thanks for giving the rest of the story badaxe.

And the rest of the story was.......?
 

alice

Well-known member
MsSage said:
This isn't a left-right issue.

Something doesn't add up here.

Does the girl's father have partial or joint custody and wants her to go to public school?

Why has a guardian been appointed? There has to be a reason for that.

On it's face value, as written in the article, I would agree that forcing her to public school would clearly be wrong.

But I get the feeling we're not getting the whole story here.

Anytime a child is involved a guardian ad litem is appointed. The reason is a the child can not speak for themselves in court. The ad litem is "suppose" to be the spokesmen for the chld. Far too often they have their own ideas as to how visitation should be worked out. Some times it doesnt matter what both parents want for the child the ad litem has another agenda.
In most states a parenting plan is another name for visitation.

Sage, in this state, Texas, guardian ad litems are appointed when children are removed by CPS from their parent's care. The children are also appointed attorney ad litems. Within 60 days, a family group conference is held with all concerned family members, CPS, and the guardian ad litem to come up with a family plan that the parents must adhere to before the children are allowed to return home, which is usually a year from the time they were removed.

GALs are not appointed in divorce cases. I have known of attorney ad litems being appointed in especially nasty divorce cases, and they function as GALs as well.

BHB and Badaxe are right on...there had to be more to the story than just the educational aspect. Thanks, Badaxe, for finding the extra info here. On the surface, the article Sage posted did seem to be out of bounds constitutionally.

Sage, why do you do that? Is it simply for shock value? Do you really think someone is not going to cry foul and go looking for the real WHOLE STORY?

Alice
 

alice

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
alice said:
Sandhusker said:
And exactly what was the "whole story"?

Click on the link Badaxe provided and find out.

Alice

I quoted it, so obviously I read it.

I'm asking you, what is the "whole story" that compelled you to chastise MS?

That this is not simply a case of courts flexing their muscles when it comes to religious home schooling. The child's father is involved, and the court has to hear the case. There was most likely enough evidence presented to the court by the child's father that his rights as a parent were being ignored. This isn't about religious homeschooling. This is about two divorced parents playing tug of war with their daughter.

I know the mother stated that the GAL said she wanted the child in public school, and therefore the child would go to public school. In these situations, many parents claim things are said by GALs, CPS, and ALs with extra spin on it to be beneficial to the parent making the claim. Judges have to sort thru this whole mess, and then do what they believe to be in the best interest of the child. GALs do not call the shots...after much investigation, they offer their input.

Are their rogue GALs out there...probably. Just like there are rogue judges and ALs and CPS workers. Yet from reading this story, this is a family court issue that has been jumped on by the Alliance Defense Fund and WND to futher their agendas.

That poor little girl...she's the one my heart goes out to.

Alice
 

MsSage

Well-known member
alice said:
MsSage said:
This isn't a left-right issue.

Something doesn't add up here.

Does the girl's father have partial or joint custody and wants her to go to public school?

Why has a guardian been appointed? There has to be a reason for that.

On it's face value, as written in the article, I would agree that forcing her to public school would clearly be wrong.

But I get the feeling we're not getting the whole story here.

Anytime a child is involved a guardian ad litem is appointed. The reason is a the child can not speak for themselves in court. The ad litem is "suppose" to be the spokesmen for the chld. Far too often they have their own ideas as to how visitation should be worked out. Some times it doesnt matter what both parents want for the child the ad litem has another agenda.
In most states a parenting plan is another name for visitation.

Sage, in this state, Texas, guardian ad litems are appointed when children are removed by CPS from their parent's care. The children are also appointed attorney ad litems. Within 60 days, a family group conference is held with all concerned family members, CPS, and the guardian ad litem to come up with a family plan that the parents must adhere to before the children are allowed to return home, which is usually a year from the time they were removed.

GALs are not appointed in divorce cases. I have known of attorney ad litems being appointed in especially nasty divorce cases, and they function as GALs as well.

BHB and Badaxe are right on...there had to be more to the story than just the educational aspect. Thanks, Badaxe, for finding the extra info here. On the surface, the article Sage posted did seem to be out of bounds constitutionally.

Sage, why do you do that? Is it simply for shock value? Do you really think someone is not going to cry foul and go looking for the real WHOLE STORY?

Alice

In NC, Va, NY, Ct, De, Me ~GAL are appointed for children under the age of 12 in the case of Divorce. Those states I know for a fact.
It still is out of bounds constitutionaly it is based on religion and the court is overstepping their bounds.
Why didnt the "other" article state how well the child was doing in school? What about the classes she is taking in public school? Where is the mention of the sports and other activities she is involved in?
You call that a more balanced report of the case?



Homeschooling in NC and up here in the panhandle they have classes in public schools to use the online classes. They have groups which include other religions that study a broad range of subjects including religion and debate with each other. most have many incounters with a wide varity of other view points and they have a balanced outlook.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Why did the "whole story" omit the Michael Garner quote that the girl's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view." Do you libs feel that a goverment official should be making decisions regarding religious teachings?

Why did the "whole story" fail to mention the girl's activities in public school?

Seems to me the first article was much more informative than the second.
 

alice

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Why did the "whole story" omit the Michael Garner quote that the girl's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view." Do you libs feel that a goverment official should be making decisions regarding religious teachings?

Why did the "whole story" fail to mention the girl's activities in public school?

Seems to me the first article was much more informative than the second.

Of course it would seem that way to you, Sandhusker. BUT, this is not about religion...it is about a father's rights...and WND and the Alliance Defense Fund is using this case to try to make it about religion to further their far right wing agenda.

The father brought this case to court... because he wants a different educational background for his daughter. Is he right to do this? I dunno...but it's about the father's rights here...that is obvious. There is definitely more to this sad story than the snippets of info that have been released.

Alice
 

alice

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
How many Muslim children have had a court force them to be exposed to Christianity?

Depends on if the non custodial parent brought a court action to have their parental rights considered.

Alice
 
Top