United Liberty
Judge Overrides Parental Rights
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 7:49am | posted by Shana Kluck
World Net Daily is reporting that a North Carolina judge has ordered that three homeschooled children must start attending public school in the fall, despite the fact that the children test well above grade level and appear to be well-adjusted socially.
The parents are going through a divorce, and though the children have been homeschooled for the past four years and, according to the judge, “thrived” in that setting, the judge has ruled in accordance with the wishes of the father, who believes that it’s time for the children to return to the public school system.
The children are well cared for. Their education, thus far, has been superior to the typical public school. There are no complaints of abuse or neglect. The judge admits that he’s allowing his personal belief- that the children must attend public school in order to receive a well-rounded education- to override the rights of the mom.
Custody and the wishes of the father certainly cloud the issue. In many cases like this, a judge is called upon to choose between the differing ideas of the parents, but it’s assumed that the judge makes his decision based upon the facts (thriving, well-cared for, well-educated children in their current situtation), rather than on his personal opinion regarding homeschooling (ordering the children to register and attend a public school to make sure they have a “more well-rounded education” and because the homeschooling their mother has provided over the last four years needs to be “challenged.” [WND] and because the children “need the broader focus and socialization available to them in public schools.” [hsinjustice.com]).
The judge simply believes he knows better. Talk about judicial activism.
I’d be careful with World Nut Daily as a source. They’re known for their sensational, activist stories that are short on facts. Not long ago, they had a series of stories about how ingesting soy can make you gay.
It doesn’t necessarily mean they made this into something it’s not, but the fact that the phrase “raised eyebrows” in the middle of the story links to a web ad for eyelash extensions isn’t promising.
This may be one of the few sites you’ll find that has content referring reads to World Net Daily and the Huffington Post. =P
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
I’m not sure I see this as a judicial activism story. These parents have a broken relationship and they brought something to the court that they should have been able to resolve themselves, so there’s no good resolution to this.
Seen from a traditional Biblical perspective, the father, as spiritual head of the family, should be respected in his wishes, so maybe it’s not such a bad ruling after all.
Lesson here, if you want to home school your kids and teach them good values, don’t get divorced.
It’s hard to view the father as the spiritual head when the divorce is a result of his adultery.
Absolutely correct.
Divorce is a part of life the same as anything else. It’s okay for them to learn sex education before they know half the words in our vocabulary, but they can’t learn that sometimes, no matter what, parents cannot stay together?
I’ve done a study on home schooling and as per usual, there is nothing wrong with it. It’s organised by the parents who had the sense and discipline to teach their own children; the social aspect is a fallacy. I will not tell you what goes on in the schools in Britain because the degree of oppression on our children (that about eighty percent of us would not accept as adults) is a huge talking point, but never with our government.
If this man is tending the children permanently then he decides; if the woman is tending the children permanently then she decides; it’s not rocket science folks. Who the Hell is he to say what she should have to do when he will not be there?
Trust the bible to have sexism in it as well! After all, women were only a gift from God, right? I do believe they also tell you to follow government, no matter what. We do not want to follow Roman lies in the modern age.
My wife and I home school our two children and would have it no other way. In fact, our children have never stepped foot in a public school, yet, they score higher than public school children on state mandated test.
I concur with Shana in regards to the husbands infidelity and with you on Romans 13.
-“How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don’t police the world. That’s conservative, it’s Republican, it’s pro-American - it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Co
I don’t know Caleb, but I really am beginning to think they just give people the same old rubbish to gain power then pretty much carry on in the same light as the other, although I might add that no matter what Bush did, he was not the only one to blame and he did have to deal with 9/11 (though I find it quite mystifying to see his reaction when told the biggest terrorist disaster on the planet had struck; he looked shaken, but he still managed to continue reading).
I am not religious Caleb, although I have been confirmed, but I have always believed, by the times the Jewish people were suffering, the Bible was a good book that brought calm to an otherwise desperate time. I do not deny other people their faith and do not conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt, his existence.
However, the Roman version of the Bible was undoubtedly used as a tool of control. The original was written in a very old language that simply had to be more basic than today by the additional items alone. A quick example is the language we speak; it is called English, but there are several thousand words that are abbreviations or translations that take accentuating speech out of sound from several different countries (I am British by the way, Caleb. The reason I speak here is because I feel everything America has done bad, Britain has been right by your side, and yet the prejudice in my country towards you shames me to tears, but you will know all about prejudice).
Anyway, my point is that one sentence then could have as many as ten different meanings in this day and age. Don’t you find it the least bit odd that the faith of Jehovah went from an eye for an eye to forgive everything a man does to you, especially as, coincidentally, the Romans were doing everything from sleeping with their women and drawing them into slavery, to throwing their men in the gladiator’s arena to be torn limb from limb.
They may have improved the standards, but what a disgusting people. To me, Caleb, it means authorities have been playing games with civilian lives for thousands of years, using the Roman Catholic version, including members of high authority. I don’t blame anybody for any of it - they only follow what the previous generation teaches, but isn’t it time we actually stood up and found the truth from the original scriptures.
I don’t believe for a second that if he exists, he will care how we interpreted singular sentences in a language now passed and gone, but he will care that no one bothered to force the truth in an age where we are all desperate for something to believe in.
I hope I haven’t offended you in any way or gone on about religion when you come here for a break, but none of those words deny his existence, just the way people should be on his behalf. Why doesn’t anybody come out and just say: “Religion is breaking up too much, perhaps it’s time to do what’s commonly best for everyone. I bet (no, I don’t bet either really) an hour of non-religious political interviews from down to Earth priests, who mutually show the damage this does to people’s beliefs, regardless of their religious nature or even go out on the streets and preach common ground. I am not religious, but I would have to cover the back of someone trying to cover mine.
Post new comment