Musings on "judicial interference in parenting"

[herveus]

thornintherose recently shared a story from New Hampshire about a judge ordering that a young girl be enrolled in the public school instead of being home schooled. The primary piece cited was http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/08/judge-orders-homeschooler-into-public-school-for-being-too-religious/. That opinion piece jumps the shark pretty quickly and demonstrates that the author is not nearly as smart as he seems to think he is.

The actual order signed by the judge is helpfully provided at http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/KurowskiOrder.pdf for our edification.

The parents are divorced. The mother appears to have primary custody of the child. When the child came of school age, the mother home schooled her. The father favored the public schools.

In the fullness of time, the question came before the court, as the parents were unable to reach agreement on amending the custody arrangement. Mediation having failed, the question was dropped into the court's hands for resolution. That pretty much ensures that the outcome is going to create something to get all worked up about.

The opinion screed on Dakota Voice carps about judicial interference in parenting decisions, as if the mother's position is the only one that matters. I guess in their world view, having the mother be a good Christian and shielding her eleven year old daughter from the moral cesspit that are the public schools is the only thing that can possibly matter. That the daughter's affection for her father is tainted because he does not profess the particular brand of religious belief that she has been inculcated with seems to be overlooked as of no great import. I guess ideological purity trumps having two parents.

The court order does make it quite clear that there is no finding that the child is in any meaningful danger of emotional trauma or abuse or any of that stuff. The child is bright, articulate, and academically at or above grade level. The order does specifically note that one of the benefits of being in the public schools is that she will be exposed to people who do not share her mother's specific faith and practice, giving her the opportunity to consider alternatives. The objectors latch onto that as a Clear Sign that the judge is anti-religious (or at least anti-the-mother's-religion). Handy for keeping the rabble roused, but otherwise non sequitur.

The court order conveys a sense that the judge did not lightly decide the matter, but it is clear that a decision had to be made and imposed on the parents as they were unable to come to agreement on the matter. Ignore that fact and you have serious rant material. You also create a serious credibility problem if anyone examines the rant carefully.

The decision was not, fundamentally, on religion or on homeschooling. It was not an activist court inserting itself into matters normally reserved to the parents. It was resolving a dispute between divorced parents in the only way that was left.

Comments

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

Read the judge's order. Rather interesting. I agree with your conclusion.

[ladypyrate.livejournal.com]

I found the insertion of stills from the film "They Live" scattered through the rant amusing. Nothing like making your publication look like a bunch of crazy, paranoid fools... Or is that truth in advertising??

[herveus.livejournal.com]

...or an expression of their desired outcome?

[heatermcca.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, One New Snow is the mouthpiece of the good Americans for Family Values folks - you know the ones, Herveus, you (and I for a while) got on their mailing list over that ridiculous same-sex marriage poll thing they did a few years back? I know I'm borking the name of the org right now, it's just that I think they deserve to be forgotten and I'm not going to happily expend the brain power beyond the vague ignominy they deserve.

[beatrixherald.livejournal.com]

Thank you for posting this. What a load of crap. In my mind, the decision makes good sense.

That girl is going to have to learn how to interact with people who do not share her religious views. And the judge decided that Public school provides the opportunity for that.

What happens when she meets a jewish person, or a muslim. will she tell them that they are going to hell? Does the mother not want to have to tell the daughter that her new muslim friend is going to hell? Is that why she doesnt want her to have diverse friends?

[herveus.livejournal.com]

...or, God forbid, a *gasp* pagan.

I'm not sure I'd assert that the mother doesn't want the daughter to have diverse friends. There is not enough information in the data I've see so far to support that claim. Not enough to rebut it, either.

I tried to avoid drawing conclusions that were not supported by the facts in evidence, even if they seemed to be reasonable extrapolations (at least according to my biases).

I was particularly taken by this paragraph:

"In her Further Report and testimony, the Guardian ad Litem echoed her previous concerns that Amanda's relationship with her father suffers to some degree by her belief that his refusal to adopt her religious beliefs and his choice instead to spend eternity away from her proves that he does not love her as much as he says he does. Amanda expressed these feelings to the counselor."

The version of Christianity that the mother has inculcated her daughter with seems to be particularly intolerant of those who do not subscribe to that version. Alienating the child's affection by application of that tenet is particularly reprehensible in my mind. Ordering that the child be placed in a setting where she will have to work in groups that cannot be expected to be theologically homogenous is a way to try to moderate that rigidity. Of course, the ranters cry that this is a Clear Sign Of Anti-Religious Bias. *sigh*