Supreme Court upholds ruling ordering girl to attend public school

[exboyfil]

CONCORD – The state Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a judge’s decision to order a girl to attend public school as her father requested, rather than be home-schooled as her mother wanted.

Writing for the majority, Justice Robert Lynn began by expressing the court’s reluctance to get involved in such decisions, but said that when a divorced couple can’t sort out their differences, the courts are obliged to step into the fray.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/newsstatenewengland/912701-227/supreme-court-upholds-ruling-ordering-girl-to.html#



**************************
I am not sure forcing the girl to go to the public school is going to do anything to improve her relationship with the father. The child is old enough to make that decision for herself (she breaks the tie between the two parents). I don't think the mother's trial attorney did a very good job (the court even hints at how the decision could have been different given a better presentation at trial).

She is just a little bit younger than my daughter who I Homeschooled in two subjects this year. I got her buy in to do it (and she wants to continue next year).

As the case states, the child is performing above grade level and is dual enrolled in some classes. The guardian ad litem did not like how the child's mind was closed to conflicting views, and the court that it was in the child's best interest to be in public school???

I frankly think the trial decision was invasive. Other remedies existed besides forcing the child into public school. I would have thought additional custodial time with the father may have been a better solution. Given that she is not required to attend school, more flexibility exists in her schedule for such an approach.

Thoughts?

[hlthe2b]

1. I think that there is an independent guardian ad litem weighing in...

and the decision by the court was unanimous. That says a lot, given the concern that the child was not being allowed to be exposed socially to others outside her mother's religious circle was cited by all.

With those few facts available, I would agree with the decision.


I'll provide this qualifier. I think there are some children who do wonderfully being home schooled. I don't know that they would not have done wonderfully in any setting. I've also seen some kids who it seemed were very much short changed by the arrangement.

[exboyfil]

2. The father has his time with the child

The NH Supreme Court was deciding on the law not on the merits of the case. Read the decision to get more information. You always have an issue with divorced parents especially when they have conflicting views bringing up their kids. Being closed minded about their faith is a right whether you like it or not. Like I said the tie goes to the child in this case. From the father's perspective I think he is doing a great deal of damage to this relationship - he should be spending more time with his daughter. The GAL seems to have a bias against the mother - it is clear she thinks the public school is superior to her homeschooling efforts, but that decision is not based on the most important criteria - academic performance.

Now if the child was not performing academically, then it would be a tougher call. It is decisions like this that inflame the Religious Right and needlessly so. The father has his time with his daughter, and she appears to be smart enough to figure out things for herself going forward.

[hlthe2b]

3. As I said, the fact that there was an independant voice in the matter

makes it pretty clear for me, as I think it would for most looking at this case. I also find your comment that "the father has his time with the daughter"-- as evidence that there is no validity to the concern over her home schooling socialization as opposed to public school-- to be totally beside the point.

'Sorry, I know you feel very strongly about home schooling, but it isn't the answer for every child and I believe the objective guardian ad litem in their assessment that it was not the best choice for this child.

[tortoise1956]

4. I have some problems with this decision...

If you will bear with me, I have some excerpts from the decision. First, in reference to how she is currently being taught:

The trial court related some of the history between the parties with respect to daughter’s schooling, and the general nature of the testimony and evidence before it, including the GAL’s report and testimony, and the testimony of father and mother. It found that daughter’s home school experience consisted of performing school work at home, taking private music lessons, and attending a monthly theater class and weekly classes in art, Spanish and physical education at a public school in Meredith. With respect to the school work daughter performed at home, the trial court found that the curriculum included “math, reading, English, social studies, science, handwriting and spelling, Spanish and bible class.” It found that this curriculum, approved by the school district, was “comparable to the public school curriculum at the same age, except for the bible class.” Regarding daughter’s home school
process, the trial court found that daughter completes “her work on a computer at her mother’s residence, and her mother assists her by preparing the classes and being familiar with the content and being available while she does the work.”

The trial court found that “daughter is generally likeable and well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising, and intellectually at or superior to grade level.” It also determined that daughter “is doing very well academically and scores above-average in most classes when compared with the national average for children of her class and age group,” that she
fulfills the public school requirements for theatre and music, and that she engages in many social activities that are not related to her church or faith.

Noting that the relative academic merits of daughter’s home schooling as compared to public schooling were not disputed by the parties, the trial court stated that “the debate centers on whether enrollment in public school will provide with an increased opportunity for group learning, group interaction, social problem solving, and exposure to a variety of points of view.”

It identified the guideposts it utilized to resolve the parents’ dispute: the Court is guided by the premise that education is by its nature an exploration and examination of new things, and by the premise that a child requires academic, social, cultural, and physical interaction with a variety of experiences, people, concepts, and surroundings in order to grow to an adult who can make intelligent decisions about how to achieve a productive and satisfying life.

From these paragraphs, it seems clear that the daughter is not being cut off from the world as I had feared, but rather is undergong a socialization process that includes interactions with her peers in many ways.

In spite of this, and the fact that she is currently performing at or above her age level, the court then decided to send her to public school, in part by using the following rationale:

The trial court remarked that it considered the impact that daughter’s religious
convictions had on her “interaction with others, both past and future.”
Ultimately, by a standard of preponderance of the evidence, the trial court
concluded that “it would be in best interests to attend public
school.”

The really sad thing is that while the trial court admitted that the home schooling was not deficient in any way, including socialiation, it ruled that public school would be better in the long run. That is pure and unadulterated crap. If the child is learning and achieving at a level above the national average now, a decision finding that a change is necessary is not based on sold constitutional grounds.

And before you jump on me for this, remember that while this court may use unconstitutional grounds to reach decisions you personally like, the next court ten years from now might decide to do things you hate, like forcing schools to teach religion in public school.

I DEMAND that courts follow the law of the land in all instances, even if this results in decisions I may not like.

[hlthe2b]

5. There is no evidence that the law was not followed...

There is a subjectivity to these kind of cases, which is why the courts try to get the parents to agree. Where that is not possible, courts frequently rely on the objective opinion of an independent guardian ad litem. Disagreeing with a decision does not make it an unlawful decision. Your irritation may be with the opinion of the Guardian AL, which it sounds as though you may believe to be biased against either home schooling or the mother's religion. That is quite a different matter than suggesting the legal court opinion was not in keeping with current law.

I welcome you as a newcomer to DU. I do hope that you will keep in mind that disagreement can be expressed without making personal presumptions or assertions as to motivation. I asserted no value judgments on home schooling nor religion, yet it seems as though you concluded I had. :shrug:

[tortoise1956]

6. Point taken

I shouldn't have assigned a view to you. My bad. Please accept my apologies, and my promise to try not to do it again. (I might run into the old dog and new tricks issue with that one, though):dunce:

However, I still say that the original court decision is fatally flawed on several levels:

1. The court admitted that one of the factors in this case was the impact that the religious training had on the child's socialization. Why? By all accounts, the child was having no problems with socialization, other than she didn't get along with the stepmother and her new baby sibling.

2. The GAL pushed to have the child spend more time with daddy and the new family even though they weren't getting along. Who is forcing her to go somewhere she dislikes going to build a better relationship?

3. The court, after agreeing that she is doing better than average under her present education plan, then states that changing that plan is the best way to go.
:wtf: There are no facts to base that decision on, merely the belief that public schooling will be even better.

Believe me, I read this expecting to find a controlling mother who was indoctrinating her daughter and isolating her from the evils of the outside. That is not what I found. Yes, she is including religion in her education. So what? My family was brought up that way also, as were my cousins (all 10 of them), most of my nephews and nieces, and a good share of my friends growing up. So far, we have no mass murderers or rapists in my family. BTW, many of us, me included, no longer attend church for one reason or another. However, my decision was based on an informed understanding of the subject, not an instinctive hatred.

Also, you're right in assuming I don't have an innate trust in GALs. This is based in part on three cases that included close friends or coworkers, as well as general findings published in recent years about DFS in the Las Vegas area. True objectivity is not achievable - the best one can hope for is that the GAL will recognize personal bias and try to overcome it. I don't believe that happened in this case, based on my reading of the supreme court decision.

OK, I'm off my soapbox. I look forward to any replies. In spite of appearances, I welcome spirited debate. That's the best way I know of to learn both sides of an argument. Besides, if you don't have an adequate understanding of pros and cons, how can you make a truly informed decision?

Edited to add my contention that the decision of the original court appeared to assign a negative bias to the presence of religion in the daughter's education and act to remove that influence, at least as much as possible, from her schooling. That is unconstitutional under the first amendment, and may result in this case going to the Supremes for further consideration.


Clarification - I am not a constitutional scholar - although I once rode a Greyhound bus through D.C.