New Hampshire Court Deems Girl 'Too Christian'; Must Attend Government School

[SF-TX]

Would the court order a child into church if they were 'too' agnostic?

Court orders Christian child
into government education
10-year-old's 'vigorous' defense
of her faith condemned by judge
Posted: August 28, 2009
12:35 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily

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.

(Story continues below)

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.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108084

[Richard]

Further proof that no single faith* has a monopoly on stupidity.

We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us.

- Mark Twain, Following the Equator


Richard's $.02

* Includes faiths not associated with any religious belief(s).

[nmap]

One cannot help but wonder if a devout Muslim...or Wiccan...or Hindu would receive similar treatment by the court.

And what might be the reaction if the court told a devout member of such a faith the same thing? (Purely rhetorical question, since the answer is painfully obvious.)

There is a statement..."Pain is gain." Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that pain motivates change, which can lead to gain. The fact that the courts and politicians are largely unchallenged in such areas suggests that change has not yet been motivated.

I am inclined to ask: "What would CAIR do?". Their tactics have worked. Perhaps other groups should reflect on that.

[ZonieDiver]

So much for the state's motto!

[Pete]

".......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......."

His lawyer??????

The story does not get into the father - mother relationship but could this all be based on money? She goes to public school and now what does the mother do? Get a job?

Could the dad's lawyer have just run a slick snow job to get him out of some monthly payments?

[Sten]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/...aspx?id=659638

This link appears to have a bit more of the inner workings of this, it looks to be a "custody" fight being made public.

[Kyobanim]

Originally Posted by Sten

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/...aspx?id=659638

This link appears to have a bit more of the inner workings of this, it looks to be a "custody" fight being made public.

This article looks to be more complete. First article is very biased.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

The court has no right to force her into public school unless some law is being broken. No matter what her faith or lack of hearing different options it is NOT the courts place to say. That is the parents job, not the states job. If the father wants her to hear different points of view that is HIS job, not the schools, to show them to her. If it is a matter of mom not getting a job, then address it in that manner, not like this. It opens a pandora box on taking the rights of parents to teach their kids morals instead of the state approved view.

New Hampshire state law offers guidelines for the homeschooling of children living in the state. Source is here.

Code Section: 193.1, et seq., 193-A, et seq.

Age at Which School Attendance is Required: Between 6 and 16

Exceptions to Attendance Requirements: If in the best welfare of the child; approved private school; physical/mental condition prevents or makes attendance undesirable; receiving home education

Home School Provisions: Planned and supervised instructional and related educational activities including curriculum and instruction in science, math, language, government, history, health, reading, writing and spelling, history of U.S. and New Hampshire constitution and exposure to and appreciation of art and music; notification and evaluation required; home schooled children shall have access to curricular courses and programs offered by school district where child resides

Penalties on Parents for Noncompliance: Misdemeanor and compel child to attend school

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by Kyobanim

This article looks to be more complete. First article is very biased.

Not surprising given the source. Their articles usually need to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Richard]

Not surprising given the source. Their articles usually need to be taken with a grain of salt.

You mean the non-MSM is as flawed as the MSM? I'm shocked!

Richard's $.02

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by Richard

You mean the non-MSM is as flawed as the MSM? I'm shocked!

Richard's $.02

It's a level playing field.

[Sigaba]

FWIW, the court ruling is here.

[Plutarch]

As often happens in a divorce, this is a case of one parent using their child as a weapon against the other parent. What a dirtbag.

[Sten]

Originally Posted by Plutarch

As often happens in a divorce, this is a case of one parent using their child as a weapon against the other parent. What a dirtbag.

Why is he a dirtbag for having a strong opinion of how he wants his kid raised?

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Plutarch

As often happens in a divorce, this is a case of one parent using their child as a weapon against the other parent. What a dirtbag.

And how do you figure he using his daughter as a weapon against his wife. She agreed to the same rules set forth in their parenting plan. That they come to agreements about how their daughter is raised, jointly.

After reading the all the links provided I have to say that I agree with the judgment made by the courts.