I've written often enough about threats to the fundamental right of parents to educate their own children: the dreadful situation for homeschoolers in Germany, my concerns for Switzerland, and the unwarranted judicial intrusion in family life and education touched closer to home, in California. California ultimately upheld the legitimacy of home education, but it appears North Carolina is the next battleground.
As with the Terri Schiavo case, it is family problems that allowed the court's nose into this tent. It illustrates a serious problem with our "no fault" attitude towards divorce: despite the husband's admitted, ongoing, adulterous affair, his desire to send his children to public school has been allowed to trump his wife's desire to continue homeschooling. What is truly worrisome, as it touches homeschooling is the judge's power and attitude, as well as whatever precedent his decision may set.(Quotations are from two separate articles, here and here.)
[Venessa] Mills was forced to defend her right to homeschool during divorce proceedings brought on by her husband's unfaithfulness.....Even with abundant evidence showing the Mills children are well adjusted and well educated, Judge [Ned] Mangum ruled overwhelmingly against Mrs. Mills on every point. He stated the children would do better in public school despite the fact that they are currently at or beyond their grade level. Evidence showed two children tested several grades ahead.
When issuing his verdict Judge Mangum stated his decision was not ideologically or religiously motivated. However, he told Mrs. Mills public school will "challenge the ideas you've taught them."
The judge...explained his goal in ordering the children to register and attend a public school was to make sure they have a "more well-rounded education."
"I thought Ms. Mills had done a good job [in homeschooling]," he said. "It was great for them to have that access, and [I had] no problems with homeschooling. I said public schooling would be a good complement."
The judge said the husband has not been supportive of his wife's homeschooling, and "it accomplished its purposes. It now was appropriate to have them back in public school."
I can't help wondering what qualifies the judge to determine that the family's homeschooling had "accomplished its purposes." What purposes? Purposes for whom?
Mangum said he made the determination on his guiding principle, "What's in the best interest of the minor children," and conceded it was putting his judgment in place of the mother's.
What, indeed? Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.[T]he judge also ordered a mental health evaluation for the mother – but not the father – as part of the divorce proceedings, in what [family friend and fellow homeschooler Robyn Williams] described as an attack on the "mother's conservative Christian beliefs."
"This judge clearly took personal issue with Venessa's stance on education and faith, even though her children are doing great. If her right to homeschool can be taken away so easily, what will this mean for homeschoolers state wide, or even nationally?" Williams asked.
