"Taking Liberties," Indeed: Fox Presents Parental Dispute As Battle Over Religious Freedom
Fox News has debuted a new segment called "Taking Liberties" in which it purports to investigate "challenges to the individual's constitutional rights." In its first installment, Fox took the side of a right-wing activist group that is representing a mother in a divorce dispute, repeating its false claim that she was deemed "too religious" to home-school her daughter; Fox all but ignored the father's side of the case.
Fox Touts Case As "Test[ing] The Limits Of The U.S. Constitution"
America's Newsroom Portrays Case As A "Constitutional Conflict." From America's Newsroom:
ARTHEL NEVILLE (co-host): Today, we're going to kick off a new series, "Taking Liberties." It's our special coverage focusing on challenges to the individual's constitutional rights and civil liberties. And today, we debut with a New Hampshire mother who says she has been told she cannot home-school her daughter because her household is too religious. Now, this has become a very big story in New England. Douglas Kennedy spoke with her for the first time on TV. Doug, what's the story here?
KENNEDY: Hey, Arthel. Yeah, she says she was too Christian for her ex-husband and a New Hampshire judge. Now, the New Hampshire Supreme Court will determine whether her rights were violated.
[begin video clip]
KENNEDY: So, these are some of Amanda's study books.
BRENDA VOYDATCH (mother): Yes, they are.
KENNEDY: Like many parents who home-school, Brenda Voydatch believes in the importance of teaching the basics of reading and writing.
KENNEDY: But you also believe in the importance of a religious education.
VOYDATCH: I do.
KENNEDY: Explain that.
VOYDATCH: I believe it is a parent's fundamental right to teach their child the beliefs within their home.
KENNEDY: It was teaching those beliefs that she says led to her ex-husband's objections. She also says it led to a New Hampshire judge to order her daughter Amanda into attend public school. A clear constitutional violation, according to her attorney, John Anthony Simmons.
KENNEDY: What did the judge say that you object to?
SIMMONS: Well, the judge said that Amanda reflected her mother's rigidity on matters of faith, and that because of that rigidity, she needed to be ordered in government-run schools.
KENNEDY: John Anthony has already argued the case in front of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. He says he'll take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. But not everyone sees it as a federal case. Including the lawyer for Brenda's ex-husband.
JOSHUA GORDON (attorney for father): It's not really about religion. It's simply about two parents who differ on child-rearing philosophy.
KENNEDY: So, your opposing counsel says this is not about religious freedom, this is about two divorced parents having a dispute. What do you say to that?
SIMMONS: Well, it's -- this matter clearly is about religion. And if this case isn't about religion, I don't know what case is.
[end video clip]
KENNEDY: [inaudible] expect the New Hampshire Supreme Court to release its decision sometime in the next few weeks. That's it from here, Arthel, back to you.
NEVILLE: Douglas, it's weird. I mean, I went to 13 years of Catholic school. I don't get it. That's including one year of college, by the way. All right, Douglas, thank you.
KENNEDY: There are a lot of constitutional conflicts out there, Arthel. We'll have them for you.
NEVILLE: Yeah, we look forward to it. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 1/27/11]
Fox's Kennedy: This Is A "Case That May Very Well Test The Limits Of The U.S. Constitution." From Happening Now:
JON SCOTT (co-host): A new series to debut for you today, "Taking Liberties," highlighting people whose constitutional rights are challenged. Right now, one New Hampshire mother says she's been told she cannot home-school her own daughter. Why? Douglas Kennedy spoke with the mom for the first time on television. Douglas, what is the answer?
KENNEDY: Yeah, John, home schooling is already a controversial topic to begin with. But when you add in religion, you get a case that may very well test the limits of the U.S. Constitution.
[begin video clip]
KENNEDY: So, these are some of Amanda's study books.
VOYDATCH: Yes, they are.
KENNEDY: Like many parents who home-school, Brenda Voydatch believes in the importance of teaching the basics of reading and writing.
KENNEDY: But you also believe in the importance of a religious education.
VOYDATCH: I do.
KENNEDY: Explain that.
VOYDATCH: I believe it is a parent's fundamental right to teach their child the beliefs within their home.
KENNEDY: It was teaching those beliefs that she says led to her ex-husband's objections. She also says it led to a New Hampshire judge to order her daughter Amanda to attend public school. A clear constitutional violation, according to her attorney, John Anthony Simmons.
KENNEDY: What did the judge say that you object to?
SIMMONS: Well, the judge said that Amanda reflected her mother's rigidity on matters of faith, and that because of that rigidity, she needed to be ordered into government-run schools.
KENNEDY: John Anthony has already argued the case in front of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. He says he'll take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. But not everyone sees it as a federal case. Including the lawyer for Brenda's ex-husband.
GORDON: It's not really about religion. It's simply about two parents who differ on child-rearing philosophy.
KENNEDY: So, your opposing counsel says this is not about religious freedom, this is about two divorced parents having a dispute. What do you say to that?
SIMMONS: Well, it's -- this matter clearly is about religion. And if this case isn't about religion, I don't know what case is.
[end video clip]
KENNEDY: And he says if the judges agree with that, the Constitution compels them to let his client home-school her daughter. That's it from here, Jon. Back to you.
SCOTT: All right. Douglas Kennedy, thank you. [Fox News, Happening Now, 1/27/11]
MacCallum: NH Supreme Court's Decision "Could Impact All Home-Schooled Children." From America Live:
MARTHA MacCALLUM (guest host): How about this? Too religious to home-school her daughter, that's the charge. In a brand-new series that we call "Taking Liberties," there is this case. A New Hampshire court orders an 11-year-old to go back to the public school. There she is with her mom. Now, the state Supreme Court has heard arguments in this case, and its decision could impact all home-schooled children. Douglas Kennedy joins us now with this very interesting debate over home schooling. Hi, Douglas.
KENNEDY: Hey, Martha. Yeah, home schooling is already a controversial practice, but when you add in religion, you get a case that may very well test the limits of the U.S. Constitution.
[begin video clip]
KENNEDY: So, these are some of Amanda's study books.
VOYDATCH: Yes, they are.
KENNEDY: Like many parents who home-school, Brenda Voydatch believes in the importance of teaching the basics of reading and writing.
KENNEDY: But you also believe in the importance of a religious education.
VOYDATCH: I do.
KENNEDY: Explain that.
VOYDATCH: I believe it is a parent's fundamental right to teach their child the beliefs within their home.
KENNEDY: It was teaching those beliefs that she says led to her ex-husband's objections. She also says it led to a New Hampshire judge to order her daughter Amanda to attend public school. A clear constitutional violation, according to her attorney, John Anthony Simmons.
KENNEDY: What did the judge say that you object to?
SIMMONS: Well, the judge said that Amanda reflected her mother's rigidity on matters of faith, and that because of that rigidity, she needed to be ordered into government-run schools.
KENNEDY: John Anthony has already argued the case in front of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. He says he'll take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. But not everyone sees it as a federal case. Including the lawyer for Brenda's ex-husband.
GORDON: It's not really about religion. It's simply about two parents who differ on child-rearing philosophy.
KENNEDY: So, your opposing counsel says this is not about religious freedom, this is about two divorced parents having a dispute. What do you say to that?
SIMMONS: Well, it's -- this matter clearly is about religion. And if this case isn't about religion, I don't know what case is.
[end video clip]
KENNEDY: The lawyers expect the New Hampshire Supreme Court to release its decision sometime in the next few weeks. That's it from here, Martha. Back to you.
MacCALLUM: Fascinating case. Douglas, thank you very much for bringing that to us. [Fox News, America Live, 1/27/11]
Carlson Suggests "The State And The Government" Told Mrs. Voydatch She Is "Too Religious As A Parent" To Home-School Her Daughter. From Fox & Friends:
GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): Well, should the government decide what kind of education your child gets? Well, New Hampshire's state Supreme Court is deciding if 11-year-old Amanda Voydatch should be forced to go to public school instead of being home-schooled. In 2009, Amanda's dad sued her mother to stop home-schooling their daughter because he claims the schooling was, quote "too religious." We're joined now by Amanda's mother, Brenda Voydatch, and her attorney John Anthony Simmons. Good morning to both of you.
VOYDATCH: Good morning.
SIMMONS: Good morning, Gretchen.
CARLSON: Mrs. Voydatch, I'm trying to get this straight in my head. You decided to home-school your daughter, and now the state and the government is telling you you're too religious as a parent to do that?
VOYDATCH: That's exactly right. I home-schooled my daughter for four years. First, second, third, and fourth grade. And then they -- the court found that my home school was an absolute success both academically as well as socially. And they really just moved that criteria aside, and they came in and they said, "But we have also found that your religion is too rigid, so we're putting your daughter into public school."
CARLSON: Mr. Simmons, I don't quite understand this, because we actually have religious schools, private schools all across the country that teach religion. So what the heck would be the difference?
SIMMONS: Well, you're not the only person scratching your head. I've been involved in this case for two years, and I'm still trying to figure it out. So don't feel academically inept for asking yourself that same question.
The fact of the matter is, is that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions for their children with regard to education. Any parent does, as well as my client. And the fact is, is that the court punished my client for having religious beliefs, and the child as well, and we believe that that crosses a line that no court should cross.
And if a court can make these types of decisions, there's essentially no limit on the court's power over families, and that should be chilling to all of us.
CARLSON: Yeah, well, let's take a listen to the other side of this story. This is the attorney for the father in this case.
GORDON [video clip]: The case isn't really about religion, and it's not really about education, either. It's just about two parents who disagree about child-rearing philosophy. [video break] It is a marital case, a divorce case, where one parent is on one side and one parent is on the other. Both parents have equal rights. So, you know, whether or not Ms. Voydatch has a constitutional right -- well, Mr. Kurowski has the identical constitutional rights.
CARLSON: So, Mrs. Voydatch, what are you going to do now?
VOYDATCH: Well, now I'm going to wait for the Supreme Court decision and pray that they do the right thing by allowing me to continue in my faith and teach that to my child at home.
CARLSON: All right. What an amazing story. Brenda Voydatch and John Anthony Simmons. Thank you so much for bringing it to our attention.
SIMMONS: Thank you, Gretchen.
VOYDATCH: Thank you. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 1/28/11]
Ruling Imposes No Restrictions On Either Parent's Ability To Provide "Religious Training" To Daughter
Parents Agreed To "Joint Decision-Making Responsibility" For Their Daughter. From the Belknap County Family Division Court's decision:
In their parenting Plan, the parties agreed to join decision-making responsibility for Amanda, including a provision requiring them to engage a mediator or parenting coordinator if they disagree about major decisions for Amanda. [Belknap County Court, Kurowski v. Voydatch, 7/14/09, in-text citations deleted for clarity]
2009 Ruling Explicitly "Declined To Impose Any Restrictions On Either Party's Ability To Provide Amanda With Religious Training." From the court's decision:
In reaching this conclusion, the Court is mindful of its obligation not to consider the specific tenets of any religious system unless there is evidence that those tenets have been applied in such a way as to cause actual harm to the child. The evidence in this case does not rise to that level, and therefore the Court has not considered the merits of Amanda's religious beliefs, but considered only the impact of those beliefs on her interaction with others, both past and future. The Court declined to impose any restrictions on either party's ability to provide Amanda with religious training or to share with Amanda their own religious beliefs. [Belknap County Court, Kurowski v. Voydatch, 7/14/09]
Judge: "Debate Centers on Whether Enrollment In Public School Will Provide Amanda With An Increased Opportunity For Group Learning ... And Exposure To A Variety Of Points Of View." From the court's decision:
The parties do not debate the relative academic merits of home schooling and public school: it is clear that the home schooling Ms. Voydatch has provided has more than kept up with the academic requirement of the Meredith public school system. Instead, the debate centers on whether enrollment in public school will provide Amanda with an increased opportunity for group learning, group interaction, social problem solving, and exposure to a variety of points of view. Considering the testimony of both parties and the Guardian ad Litem, and by the standard of a preponderance of the evidence, the Court concludes that it would be in Amanda's best interests to attend public school. [Belknap County Court, Kurowski v. Voydatch, 7/14/09]
NH Supreme Court Justice: "This Is Not State Versus Parent"
NH Justice Lynn: "This Is Not State Versus Parent." The Associated Press reported:
Divorced parents who couldn't agree on how to educate their daughter have brought their fight to New Hampshire's highest court in a case that looks at whether families have a constitutional right to home school their kids.
[...]
The justices peppered both sides with questions about whether it rises to a constitutional case or is simply a family court dispute between the parents that the court was well within its jurisdiction to resolve.
"This is not state versus parent," Justice Robert Lynn said. "The state was forced into this because it's a dispute between the parents that someone had to resolve." [Associated Press via Boston.com, 1/6/11]
Family Practice Attorney: Not Fair "To Say Some Judge Went Out Of His Way To Raise Religion And Put It Down." From the Concord Monitor:
"When courts are called upon to make schooling decisions for divorced or unmarried parents, matters of religion must be considered with any other evidence parents present about the interests of their child," said Jonathan Ross, a family practice attorney in Manchester. He said it appears the Belknap County court acted appropriately in its treatment of a thorny topic. "None of that would have been in front of the court unless the parties raised and disputed those issues," Ross said. "I don't think it's fair to say some judge went out of his way to raise religion and put it down." [Concord Monitor, 9/27/09, via Nexis]
Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen: "This Case Is Much More About Divorce And Parenting Than It Is About Religion." From a PoliticsDaily.com column by Andrew Cohen:
The story of Martin Kurowski, his ex-wife, Brenda Voydatch, and their daughter, Amanda, is regrettably a common one. Yet the conflict between the parents over the future of their child has made it all the way to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, where oral argument in the case was heard Thursday. And, thanks to a conservative advocacy group that specializes in freedom-of-religion cases, it has made it onto the national stage as well, perfectly timed to coincide with the latest skirmishes over the role of religion in American public life. The intersection of religion with public eduction [sic] always draws a crowd and great fervor. But this case is much more about divorce and parenting than it is about religion -- and New Hampshire's highest court will likely agree. [PoliticsDaily.com, 1/9/11]
Fox Reports Did Not Mention Voydatch's Lawyer Is Affiliated With Right-Wing Activist Group Alliance Defense Fund
Simmons' Website: "John Anthony Is An Allied Attorney With The Alliance Defense Fund." From the website of Simmons' law firm:
John Anthony Simmons Sr., Esq.
John Anthony started his legal career as a prosecutor and has been in private practice since 1999, during which time he has served as Town Counsel as part of his practice. John Anthony is an Allied Attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund. He has been fortunate since attending their National Litigation Academy in 2007 to have been involved in various projects. Attorney Simmons is a staunch defender of parental rights. [ClearVictory.org, accessed 1/28/11]
Cohen: ADF Press Release On Case "Contained Not A Single Mention Of Martin Kurowski, Or The Fact That The Dispute Arises Out Of A Divorce." From Cohen's PoliticsDaily.com:
Perhaps the best way to illustrate the dichotomy in the case is through the press release issued by the ADF in advance of oral arguments. Approximately 449 words long, it contained not a single mention of Martin Kurowski, or the fact that the dispute arises out of a divorce, or the fact that the state court judge already has told the parents that if they agreed upon home schooling for Amanda there would be no legal dispute to ponder. The ADF's view instead pitched the story of this wracked family as the story of an overbearing "state judge" forcing a poor girl into a "government school" over the objections of her heroic mother in the apparent absence of a concerned father. This might be Brenda's truth. It might even be some truth. But as the judges and experts so far have concluded it's nowhere close to the "whole truth." [PoliticsDaily.com, 1/9/11]
In 2008, ADF Recruited Religious Leaders To Challenge IRS Rules Prohibiting Churches From Participating In Political Activity. From The Washington Post's On Faith blog:
Now comes the Alliance Defense Fund, an evangelical ACLU, to encourage gospel preachers to turn their sermons into partisan stump speeches three Sundays from now, and the tax laws be damned.
The ADF is recruiting preachers to challenge IRS rules that prohibit tax-exempt churches from engaging in partisan politics, step up to the pulpit Sept. 28 and endorse a candidate. [The Washington Post's On Faith blog, 9/9/08]
ADF Aims To Combat "The Homosexual Agenda," Which It Deems "One Of The Greatest Threats To Religious Freedom In America." From the ADF's website:
The homosexual legal agenda is one of the greatest threats to religious freedom in America today. For decades, radical activists, led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its allies, have tried to divorce America from its Christian heritage and values. Their strategy is twofold: dilute moral values so that homosexual behavior is thought to be normal, natural, and good, while suppressing the religious and free speech rights of those who disagree. If they successfully impose their radical legal agenda, then all people -- especially Christians -- who do not affirm homosexual behavior could be silenced, punished, and possibly even jailed for so-called discrimination and intolerance. [Alliance Defense Fund, accessed 1/28/11]
ADF Led Initiative To "Combat Attempts To Censor Christmas." From an ADF press release:
The Alliance Defense Fund announced today it has more than 930 allied attorneys available nationwide to combat any improper attempts to censor the celebration of Christmas in schools and on public property.
"Frankly, it's ridiculous that Americans have to think twice about whether it's okay to say Merry Christmas," said ADF President Alan Sears. "Thanks to the ACLU and its allies, Christmas isn't what it used to be. It's time to repair the damage that such organizations have done to America's favorite holiday. An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose censoring Christmas." [Alliance Defense Fund, accessed 1/28/11]
I have also never met a divorcee (of either sex) who told the whole truth about anything having to do with his or her ex.
And the vast majority of public and private schooled kids are ept?
Even a home-schooled kid would not be so bold as to say "never."
You must be a card carrying NEA (that group that gave Media Matters 100 grand for some dubious reason) and teacher union of your state and local member because that is the standard answer that is to be told.
Never?
How many home schooled kids have you ever met?
4, maybe 5?
Millions are schooled at home each year and with the advent of the internet more are home-schooled each year.
Home-schooling is one the biggest threats to public schools besides private institutions and the public schools know this. Remember when California went with the provision that home-schooling parents had to have the equivalent of a teaching certificate to keep their kids at home?
It's all about the $$$
C-I, you could not be further from the truth.....
I have NEVER MET A HOMESCHOOLED child WHO WASN'T SOCIALLY INEPT. I really don't care whether your mommy teaches you or you go to school for it, it isn't my business, except for the fact that I pay over 2 grand a year in school taxes.
And for the fact that I have personally had to help integrate kids who were put into a large social setting (school), for the first time, when they were teens.
Every one of them has had a more difficult time assimilating than any of their peers.
Every one of them has had plss-poor knowledge in dealing with other humans, mostly because they were used to mommy or daddy as their main contact with the rest of the world.
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has had difficulty completing classwork, mostly because they were allowed, at home, to do their assignments whenever they felt like it. Then they came into my classroom and expected that I wouldn't want their classwork at the end of 40 minutes.
I am guessing, by the: that you believe that any idiot should be able to teach children, regardless of their teaching abilities?
Then public school teachers can be held accountable when that child's parents decide that they don't want to home school anymore and enroll him. Did you know that that is what happens? A poorly home schooled student gets enrolled in public school, and the teachers, who had nothing to do with his schooling to that point, are then held accountable for his progress.
Keep telling yourself that a former teacher has no idea about home schooling.
I do not care for most blanket statements.
This story does not sound like this woman is doing that.
"NEVER NEVER NEVER.
I have NEVER MET A HOMESCHOOLED child WHO WASN'T SOCIALLY INEPT. I really don't care whether your mommy teaches you or you go to school for it, it isn't my business, except for the fact that I pay over 2 grand a year in school taxes."-curiousindependent
"I didn't say none, I just said none I have met. I am certain that there are exceptions, as there are to everything."-curiousindependent
curiousindependent, can you ever refudiate my claims without being so silly as to refudiate yourself?
Curiousindependent was talking about his and his experiences alone.
That's pretty clear, but you can't obviously accept that. He hasn't repudiated himself at all.
I am terribly sorry, I didn't realise that you were riding along in my head to witness all of my many interactions with formerly home-schooled children and all of the problems they had assimilating into a large social situation that they weren't prepared to be a part of. Since you were there, surely you can point to which of those students was actually socially competent.
So why wouldn't someone need an adjustment period when abruptly thrust into that artificial setting? I'd wonder about their psyche if they didn't.
My miniscule experience with classes of several hundred every year for 8 years, observing how kids from schools all over the county assimilated and interacted with each other, noting how differently the kids from no schools did, must be far outstripped by your experience with your three kids.
That's kind of like saying entering pro-ball after playing four years of college ball is the same as entering after never having played ball at all.
Oops, that's code for something regarding education.
I don't know for sure.
Ask curiousindependent, as therein lies all knowledge of public education.
The prof who didn't know my daughter or her history, said something along the lines of, "Well, sure, they can get all the academics, but what about socialization?" Now, mind you this is after she had been chatting with my daughter for a while that afternoon. One of the other profs laughed out loud, and said, "I don't know, why don't you ask her?" and pointed at my daughter whom he knew to be one of the most social people on campus.
You see, my daughter is one of those people who couldn't walk across campus without hearing, "Hi Rachel" about a hundred times. She was involved in several clubs, worked on campus, made friends with almost everyone she met, including her profs (several of whom she is still in contact with frequently on a social basis.) Now, she is happily married and living in another state. She is doing volunteer work in her field and using that to network to find a job (moving to another state and trying to find work in 2008 was REALLY bad timing.) In the meantime, she has worked with a theater company for while, she is involved in a couple of other organizations for fun and she has friends everywhere she goes.
My younger daughter is not quite as outgoing, but she too has friends all over the place and is perfectly capable of walking into a new situation with new people in a completely fearless manner. I know lots of people who went to regular schools who can't do that, myself included.
Now, my son, yeah, there is a socialization problem there. It's called Aspergers. But then again, my aspie is capable of talking to strangers and carrying on a conversation if need be. He finds it stressful, but he can do it. Some aspies never learn that skill. Oh, and he too, is making friends of a wide assortment of people. So, in the end, while I worry more about him, and have to do more to help him learn the skills, I'm comfortable with his ability to interact.
Now, add to my kids and Mary's kids, the Embry Riddle student and his sister who goes to a local state University, the married couple both in college and working toward their future, the two men who are working to help their family buy an apartment building while dating and doing all the things men in their early 20s do, the twins who are both starting on the masters degrees who delight their mother by bringing their parties home and keeping the house hopping with social activity, and the dozens of other homeschoolers I know who are aging out of the word homeschooling in an official capacity, but who learned along the way that you never stop homeschooling because for them, learning isn't something that starts and stops at the sound of a ball or the tick of the clock.
So, curiousindependent, I have to assume that if you think ALL of the homeschoolers you have met are socially inept, it is because you are either very sheltered and just don't meet many people, or you have met them and didn't realize they were homeschoolers - because there are now millions of them out there.
I did find plenty of fundamentalist folk who found us not their sort and home schooling for them was pretty cut and dried school at home.
We were more of the John Holt "un-schooling" variety. there are some progressive home schoolers out there!
Early on, I did notice that those five or six families tended to be the ones organizing the groups and that made the groups appear more religious than the bulk of the membership was in real life. But as time passed, I saw more and more secular groups forming. Right now, I can think of 2 homeschooling groups int he area that tend toward the stereotype and 5 that tend toward either the unschool variety or a kind of inclusiveness where any type of homeschoolers are welcome as long as they are tolerant of others.
It was a wonderful experience. My daughter is in grad school going for a PHD in physical chemistry, but she still loves all the country life stuff we did. She was baking bread in her apartment today when she called. My oldest son is a computer tech at our local community college and my youngest works there too, looking at how he'd like to use his BA in philosophy ;-)
Growing without Schooling
Anyway, I'm not speaking to your kids specifically, I think that is the problem. You are equating your kids to being the "norm" for homeschooled and from the sounds of it they are not.
You seem to be taking it personally and it is not that way. If your kids don't seem to have any issues than power to you. It doesn't mean others don't have issues.
Okay, I dealt with the social skills aspect in my other post. But this point needs a post all it's own.
You are quite obviously speaking of kids who were placed back into school after homeschooling. So, the group you are really seeing is the group for whom homeschooling was a failure. It isn't right for everyone, and none of us say it is.
HOWEVER, judging the homeschooling community based on those examples is the equivalent of me judging the school system based solely on the drop outs. Do you think that is a fair representation of public schools? I thought not, so why do your think it is fair to judge homeschooling that way?
I expect better of our educators. They should have better critical thinking skills than the ones you exhibit here - and most of the educators I know IRL are much better than this. So I hope this was just the NEA's position on homeschooling sneaking into your head and not representative of your ability to assess an issue.
I have seen posts from two people who assert that THEIR children turned out fine, and they may well have. Obviously I haven't met them, have I? But then, your two examples must be proof that my many are wrong.
I said, and I will repeat it here. In fact, I will cut and paste it so that there is no misunderstanding.
I am certain, by y'all's responses, that you can pick out a home schooled person THAT I HAVE MET who was socially competent? Please, feel free to do so.
But really, all I did was point out that you have a pool of 6, I have a pool of hundreds. I am sure that your pool is more representative, therefore more valid.
You've met what - 10? 20? former homeschoolers who went back into the system because homeschooling wasn't working - you won't convince me that in one district you have seen "hundreds" come back into the system, so stop exaggerating; even in big city districts, I doubt you would have more than 1 or 2 a year return to any given school.
Off the top of my head, I can think of 20 young adults who homeschooled that I know personally who are doing quite well and probably another three or four dozen homeschoolers under the age of 18 who are also doing well. Then add to that the hundred or so whose parents I know online or have met over the years, but haven't met the kids personally, but whom I have no reason to believe are not doing equally well.
And yes, if the sampling you see is comprised of only those homeschoolers who have not succeeded with homeschooling and mine is comprised of a random sampling of homeschoolers, a few who went back to school quite successfully actually, and many, many more who have continued on with homeschooling using various methods my sample is definitely more representative. As I have pointed out multiple times now, I don't judge the schools only by the drop-outs, you shouldn't judge the homeschooling community only by it's drop-outs.
Let me ask you this, do you even know what the various types of homeschooling entail? Do you have any clue what kinds of things homeschoolers do from day to day?
Seriously, if C-I met one thousand home schooled kids and came to the conclusion that all one thousand were socially inept, according to C-I's standard of eptness, you would certify said claim of ineptitude of all one thousand home schooled students?
What is truly sad is that, as of this posting, 7 thumbs up means that 8 people believe this to be true.
Can you, or any of the 7 thumbsuppers, dispute this?
Examples, please.
Your reading comprehension is a bit off.
Not saying the public system doesn't have it short comings, especially when it comes to different ethnic groups.
I have run in to many home-schooled people. Most were nice enough, but certainly stunted socially. Also, they held many false political and religious memes as core elements of their being.
When I taught at university we had many home-schooled kids, they were solid at reading and writing and math, but absolutely terrible at critical reasoning and simply refused to accept anything that questioned their false memes. They make great drones, but not free thinkers.
Again the public system is flawed aswell, but no more or less than than any other system.
Get back to me when you stop stereotyping and start looking around for the homeschoolers who don't fit your little mold.
I'm not sure if my kids have read it much nor do I care.
School might have eventually worked for my middle child, but in second grade she stopped turning in her homework even though it was done. You see, she had 5 minutes to get in the building take off her coat, hang everything up and get to class. She didn't have time to dig it out of her bag, so she decided avoiding detention for being late was better than not turning int he paper, after all, she already did it, so got the practice she was supposed to. Interesting thought process for a 7 year old, and I didn't know it was happening for quite a while because her teacher never bothered to tell me she wasn't turning it in. Anyway, in time, she may have learned to play the game, but I doubt she would have bothered - she has always been kind of rebellious that way, if something is pointless, she susses that fact out pretty fast.
My youngest, as I said elsewhere, is an aspie. It is my personal belief that very LAST place you should expect an aspie to learn anything is the one situation that is they absolute most stressful for him - in a roomful of other people making people noises all the time.
Add to those reasons, the fact that none of us are morning people by nature. And also add that our pediatrician recommended it both because we kept catching things and because my oldest started showing signs of stress related illness around assessment test time because the teachers were pushing so hard about it.
And then there was the time that my daughter DID get excited about something she was doing for school. It was a subject she loved so she did a really, really great job and the teacher gave her a C and claimed she plagiarized because it was better work than she usually did. Way to foster a love of education there - BIG eye roll.
Oh, and one last thing - the science education my kids were getting in school was abysmal. It was so watered down as to be useless. I wanted them to actually learn and understand concepts like the scientific method and evolution and why gravity is still "just" a theory and what that means exactly. In school they were learning that water was wet, and nothing is smaller than an atom.
First , you may not realize your sons are socially inept. Second, they may not be, but again this only proves they are not inept, not anyone else. Third, your proximity tends to bias your comment. I taught for many years at university, many of the homeschooled kids had socialization issues. Not saying public schoold kids didn't have their own issues.
It is not "my mold" it is a problem that occured in many home schooling curriculums. Just like many public school kids have issues based on their socio-economic status.
And Loki is not out of thin air...He is a Norse( Jotunn) g-d, often associated with mischief for both other g-ds and humans alike. A rather complex entity that is not fully understood.
Wow...quoting the bible is great, but proves nothing. And that is great and very true most monotheistic religious holidays were taken from pagan tradition, who inturn took them from earlier groups they conquered.
And yes many, if not the majority, of homeschooled kids are schooled for religious reasons. Your children may not have been, but that doesn't change the numbers.
I never said Loki was out of thin air, I said naming the church after him was. Try to keep up. You see they chose that precisely BECAUSE Loki is associated with mischief and when you are forming a church solely to get around the laws about marriage needing to be performed by an ordained minister or a magistrate - well, that's kind of mischievous don't ya think? And the only reason they were buying into the marriage thing at all was so she could get on his health insurance - otherwise they would have just lived together.And again, you completely missed the point, which was that my kids are not indoctrinated into any religious or political philosophy. They were exposed to many things and allowed to choose for themselves. That depends entirely on which survey you look at. Generally, in the ones considered the most accurate, religion usually ranks either second or third after to provide a better education and to avoid a poor school environment(read that as bullying, gang activity, drug activity, etc.) Mind you , I'm not saying no one homeschools to shelter their kids from the outside world - only that they are the minority these days.
My personal experience is biased aswell, but when interacting with many other educational staff, you get to see the trend.
Again, your kids may be different but they are not a "representative sample". I'm sure it varies from state to state, income level, etc...
I know racist white people, does that mean they are all racist? Now if I meet 1000 racist people and they are mostly white? It tends to build an image.
Anyway, I'm not here to discuss your kids and how you feel about them.
And my mistake with SONS was based on the mention of your son inlaw. My apologees, though you did claim the name fo the church was chosen out of thin air and the sentence leads one to believe it was the church of Loki.
And again, I can't stress this enough - you are seeing the kids for whom homeschooling didn't work.
Well, it obviously worked to some degree academically they got into a pretty good universities.
Also, you are drawing universals from the particulars of your kids. I am drawing on experience of many years in academia and working with many others. I am not saying ALL homeschooled kids are socially inept. Just like I am not saying all public school kids are socially well adjusted.
I'm not exactly sure what you define as "natural" or "artificial" as far as environemnts. One could easily argue our current society is "artificial" and not natural. Does that mean all socialized behaviour therein is artificial.
You are being very defensive and there is no reason to be.
You know I am pushing your buttons right?....
Its sad that some evangelicals have given you this impression, and some are pretty bad. But I think the brush is way too broad that you have painted with.
But I have wonder how much religion really has to do with the problem, and I imagine it is quite a bit. Certainly, there is probably more between the mom and dad, but this has to be about religion-- the freedom of a parent to raise his or her child in the faith and manner they see fit. Can you really tell me that that raising a child in a Christian environment is so horrific that the government has to intervene? I certainly hope not.
You may not like Christians or Christianity, but you cannot tell me that they are so objectionable that the government needs to intervene. If however, you do believe that the government should intervene, I wonder at what point you think the government would go too far.
Rational Conservative-"I think the parents in the suit are probably not very reasonable."
Why must the government decide?
Why not let the parents and the kid come to some conclusion without government inteference as this decision could effect other families in the same situation down the line?
Government is not always the final solution....
When one side takes their case to court that's what happens. Are you living in an alternate universe where that doesn't happen?
For the record, if anyone asked her, it isn't just Fox not talking about it. Nothing in the court documents indicate her preference either.
YOU are the one that is involved, I don't really care one way or the other, except that Fox and some right wing nutbags want to make this about religion and home schooling, when in actuality it is about a divorce and what the parents separately want for their child. At 10, her preference is mostly moot.
And, as I have said several times on this thread now, and you seem to be conveniently ignoring, my experience is NOT with just 3 kids. My experience is with many other kids and young adults I know personally, and hundreds more I know virtually.
Oh, and BTW - my mother is a retired special ed teacher who laughs out loud at your naive view of homeschoolers - you see, she knows even more of them than I do because she acts as an assessor (in our state we have to have a certified teacher examine a portfolio of work samples) and she has known thousands of kids over the years when she was teaching. She is often stunned by how poised and confident the kids she assesses are.
Please read the non-Fox news stories in the MMfA article above. The government did not "intervene". The father objected to the mother home-schooling their child, under a custody agreement as part of a divorce. When the 2 parents couldn't agree, their dispute ended up in the courts. The father wasn't even objecting to the mother's faith. According to he court ruling: "the debate centers on whether enrollment in public school will provide Amanda with an increased opportunity for group learning, group interaction, social problem solving, and exposure to a variety of points of view." BTW, the mother would be free to give faith education to her daughter after school and on weekends, just like every other parent of faith who has a child in public school. Nowhere in even the Fox "News" stories is there a claim that the government could take the mother's custody of her daughter, or prevent the mother from providing religious instruction. Please, read beyond the spin.
Climb down off the cross.
* This case is so clearly not about religion, and is not capturing the true or complete facts. This case is clearly about a “divorce matter”, a matter of parental alienation, a father just wanting his equal rights in decision making. Remember, they have “Joint” Custody, meaning decision making.
It’s so funny that in reading about this matter, I read again and again, it’s the “parents” constitutional right... parent(S)! Meaning more than one. Meaning Mom AND Dad! Hello... how is this being over looked???
The facts? The father has had no say in his daughter’s day to day life. This mother is clearly guilty of parental alienation. The father "never" agreed to homeschooling. He has tried from the beginning to have a say in how his daughter was raised, all the way being shut out by the mother who refused to allow him any say. Furthermore, the mother "taught" her daughter that the father would rot in the eternal hell fire for not believing in their religious ways. Up against a clearly out of control mother who is “teaching” their daughter horrible, untrue facts... he had absolutely no other recourse but to seek the Court's intervention. This is about a father wanting 50% say in how his daughter is raised. Period. NOTHING to do with religion, other than not wanting his daughter spoon fed horrible and damaging falsehoods about him rotting in hell. I think the father should be awarded sole custody due to the mother's damaging words against him. Hands down. The fact that Fox is even including this specific matter and thereby perpetuating this twisted attorney’s attempt to smear the facts for his own benefit is just disgusting!
If the mother wants to indoctrinate her into a fairy-tale, let her do that AFTER SCHOOL HOURS. I didn't read anything in there asserting that she could not do that. Did I miss something?
This case is not about home schooling. It is not about religion. It is about a divorce, in which the father wants his child educated in a public school (and it is none of our business why) and the mother wants the child educated at home.
a 5 year old called away I changed the entire structure of the post around, and got by while I was in the middle of it.
Something like that. You can highlight entire blocks of words and drag them to where you want them.
Notice the "to" in your quote of me? If you knew me, that would have clued you into it. Even as a typo, "t" doesn't use the same finger, or even the "dyslexic finger", as the "d" that would make that sentence make any kind of sense.
I would have thought that the Palin example would have given you pause as well, since it is an argument AGAINST making generalizations based upon small subsets.
But then, given some of the accusations that you have made concerning my initial post, which was ENTIRELY ABOUT MY OWN EXPERIENCES, you seem to be very defensive and actually on the lookout for anything to tie your knickers in a knot. It truly doesn't surprise me all that much that you missed something that might have caused your knot to loosen.
I presume that you always type what you want exactly as you want it, or that you don't worry about spelling, grammar, and flow. I do not. I have to painstakingly review what I write to ensure that it lives up to my standards. Rarely do I simply go off the cuff.
If you see a post from me and it has a typo, an entirely inappropriate word, or extremely poor continuity, it is because I was distracted by my wife, my child, or an explosion.
By the time I got back and noticed the mistake, your panties were twisted. If you hadn't gone so quickly on the attack, I would have corrected myself. Since you did, I simply let you stew.
Again I am called away by a 5 year old, so I am certain that I have missed an edit or three that you can use to attack. Enjoy.
Oh, and my 'typos' frequently include transposing similar words like 'to' and 'do' - it's a mild form of aphasia in my case. I'll take you word for it that you meant something entirely different when you answer the question of what you DID mean.
Oh, and nowhere did I ever say that your initial post specifically included a generalization (although, I could make the case linguistically that it was implied) about all homeschoolers. You did that yourself in the post you claim was in error. MY complaint, and if you were paying any attention at all you would know it, is that you are judging homeschoolers based solely on a subset of the subset of homeschoolers who left it behind because it wasn't working for them. And as I have said multiple times that you seem to have missed, that is like me judging the schools based only on the contact I have with people who have dropped out.
Oh, and I DO know some kids who went back to school in high school and did just fine. Specifically, I'm thinking of one who went back because she wanted to be in band who is now a junior and plays in youth symphony orchestra in the area that is very prestigious and hard to get into. I'm also thinking of the one who went back to have access to an exchange program - she spent a year in India. Neither of them had any of the trouble adjusting you speak of, but then they both had good reasons to want to play the game well.
And speaking of adjusting, when my daughter started college, she had no trouble adjusting to the college life - read my post above about her college experience. I'll add to that, that all but one of her profs loved her (the one who didn't, well, lets just say my daughter doesn't suffer fools gladly, so her attitude toward him probably showed a tad, even thought she aced his class anyway.) Contrast that with her friend who went to public school her whole life. The friend got a scholarship to a culinary school and washed out after one year because she couldn't hack the being responsible for herself part of college. The difference was driven home for me, that my daughter had been in charge of her education for several years already. She knew a lot about self-directed learning and responsibility because she had been doing it for years. Her friend had never had to do it before and when she hit the real world it took her too long to get up to speed. Of course, this is going off topic a bit, because I think the real cause of that particular dichotomy had more to do with parenting style than educational choices. But the point I was aiming for before I started roaming around - homeschoolers tend to do particularly well in college. Instead of rewriting the wheel (to mix a metaphore), I'll leave you with a journal article. - page 7 was particularly appropriate.
Aside from a prematurely posted comment, my comments have been about all the ones that I have met. Nowhere have I dismissed, at least not intentionally, your views. I have simply given mine, based upon my experience.
I believe that I even commented that the situation might have changed since I was involved. Either you missed that post, or you ignored it.
Should I take it that you believe that your experience differing from mine negates mine, then?
In my experience, some "Christians" don't seem to have a problem with beating a non-Christian in order to prove that they, and they alone, are right about God. Would you take that as evidence that I believe that all Christians are like that? Or merely some that I have been beaten and hospitalized by? Perhaps you might even understand how MY EXPERIENCE might color my views on the matter, and make me think that there are others out there who are just like that. Or would you simply dismiss my experience?
You are making a universal from a particular.
Again, you are taking it personally.
sigh..this is so funny...
Interestingly, they found that there was no reason to think the child was being harmed by what her mother was teaching her (though as an atheist I disagree but whatever). The court felt she would become a more capable human being who is able to interact socially with people and handle social problems better if she gained the experience by going to a public school.
I agree with this decision because those kids are part of the world and they need to learn the skills necessary for surviving in it. While you can learn about swimming from a book, you have to actually get in the water to really know how to do it.
No one is telling you the government is stepping in they are telling you the Father is stepping in, or can't you read?
So, 99%, to answer your question.
Druids don't believe in a vindictive god, or in killing in the name of god.
And thanks, you can add druids to my above list of exceptions.
Since I have some experience in this, repeating a sentence you used:
"Can you really tell me that that raising a child in a Christian environment is so horrific that the government has to intervene?"
I can't necessarily address the part about government intervention, but the part about the horrific nature of a child being raised in a Christian environment, well, I was in a Pentecostal orphanage which made sure that we had chapel and devotions every day with bible study in between. I had no choice in the matter and if they saw my reluctance to their indoctrination, there was hell to pay, from physical beatings to, hard slaps across the face, to other means to make me comform. For the most part, I complied with what they said, because I was tired of the beatings and the mistreatment from the very people who were supposed to care for me. I was not really a troublemaker, but I did ask a lot of questions that they did not want to, or could not answer. So as a kind of scapegoat, I was made into an example of what not to be, to earn their favor. I hardly remember much of the education I was given, but I do remember the forced Christian narrative while at this place, but fortunately it was only for a few years, but they were informative years, and all I had going for me was a high IQ and a willingness to learn and progress in my knowledge of the world and the good fortune of going to a more secular orphanage afterwards. I do not hold the entire Christian religion as responsible for a devastating time of my life, if anything, the experience made me pursue a life of study and understanding, which made the notion that science and evidence based rationality was the only way to gain an understanding of the world. While all religions to me are equally useless to me, I have gained tolerance in seeing their intolerance to other's views, by not wanting to be like them.
If the father in this story is at all like me, then I would do just what he has done if my wife was at all similar to the religious people in my childhood.
I read a story about a religious schooled individual who was not allowed to have a computer for any reason. And there were other restrictions, socially and spiritually. The one who wrote the story told of how when she enrolled in college, just how hard it was to adjust to college life after having been forced to endure the pitfalls of the school of her youth. She was computer illiterate, socially inept and out of place. I applaud her in that she overcame the nonsense of religion being such a stultifier for her.
I find most Christians I have known, as being closed minded evangelical right wing bigots who hate homosexuals, environmentalists, liberals, secularists, humanists, atheists, Muslims, immigrants, and so on. I'm not sure why they are against so many people. My mind is wide open and I am tolerant of Christians, I just do not agree with them at all.
I have first hand knowledge of these Christians and they are hardly unobjectionable, maybe not to the point of government intervening completely, but a good place to start for getting government out of religion is in the faithbased initiatives which allows for discrimination in hiring and has been reenacted by Obama. And taxpayer money is given to these to allow for them to prosyletize those who they are supposed to just help, not convert.
I wonder if Fox News would highlight this story if the mother were too Pagan.
Or Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu, or any other religion other than Christian.
It's a matter of priorities. But if you prefer non-stories falsley showing Christians as victims, you're more than welcome to watch. And remain ignorant.
This is a divorce case, they're arguing over how their child should be raised. It has nothing to do with the government saying, "Hey, lady, your kid's smart and socially capable--thanks to you--but you're too religious, so off to public school for indoctrination for her!"
You are nothing but a paranoid lunatic if you believe that.
Amanda will be better off, anyway.
How about the growing number of Muslim fathers that are doing honor killings of their daughters here in the United States because their daughters are, heaven forbid, becoming westernized?
Talk about indoctrination, or else.
Be decent, man.
Be decent.
Some people are nuts, man, like that Scott Roeder who murders in the name of his Christian religion.
So in other words, you can't give us more than one example that you heard of, but apparently, honor killing are all the rage in the United States.
Let's talk about Amanda Yates killing all 5 of her children because "God" told her to.
Let's talk about Susan Smith her 2 sons because God told her to.
Let's talk about Deanna Laney who killed her 2 sons because God told her to.
Christina Rigg, also killed her 2 children, because God told her to.
And the list goes on and on. Are honor killings just as horrible? Yes, indeed they are. Murder is murder. But let's not be all high and mighty talking about how those evil Mooslims do this to their kids, when we have good upstanding Christian men and women doing it to their own.
Yeah, some clear cut incidences of honor violence have been documented in America, but you know what characterizes those incidences? The man asserts the honor of his family as his motive. True honor killers don't hide behind the skirts of the legal system, they broadcast that they salvaged the honor of their families from the depredations of their victims behavior. That is a very, very rare incidence in America. Honor killings aren't something that happens very often here.
So, I'm right?
And yet you blather on to prove me wrong?
Keep digging the hole, dude.
Keep a diggin'
No, because you are assuming that its commonplace occurence. I wonder if you have ever even met a muslim.
Once is enough, n'est-ce pas?
So, you condone an honor killing when the time seems appropriate when, as you note, "they broadcast that they salvaged the honor of their families from the depridations of their victims behavior."?
And what are you opinions on third term abortions?
Dishonor killings?
Dude, go back to France.
Ont besoin de vous maintenant!
First, YOU didn't just say that there were honor killings in America. You said that honor killings are on the rise in America.
I said that there had been honor killings in America, but they certainly aren't on the rise. People like you, bigots, that is, have tried to classify any violence between Muslim men and women as honor crimes.
So you said, I condone honor killings. Of course anyone with reading comprehension on par with a moon-faced gibbon could see that I did no such thing.
But this leads us to the usual wingnut fallacy, the strawman. Why is it that you think you can get away with putting false arguments under my name? My original post is just a few inches up, and the language is straightforward and cogent. The only way you could read my statements in the manner you did, is if you didn't read them at all. If you, instead, just wanted to say something stupid, well mission accomplished, Mr. Bush.
Oh, and when are you going to apologize for lying about being a public school employee? Not that your credibility will rebound from that embarrassment, but it's the right thing to do.
♪ Projection Junction, what's your fuuuunction?
Hookin' up words to pin my behavior on you... ♫
They make manipulative political choices. PERIOD.
I recommend reading John Dean's book Conservatives Without Conscience. You'd like it. It's all about you.
I dare you.
Clearly you do, or you wouldn't be so offended by it. Dude. Chief, also, too.
Does Faux Noise ever get out of commentary mode?
Just asking.
LMAO
Also, look at the tone of each show. They are all pro/conservative and anti/progressive. The narrative is never deviated from, the talking points are repeated constantly. It is propaganda. One really needs to look at how each question and comment is formulated e.g.
-Neutral question" Do you think healthcare reform has effected the employment rate?"
-Fox question" How many jobs do you think Obamacare has killed"
Any opportunity is taken to question the patriotism, the motives and the values of progressives and President Obama. This is becasue those that watch Fox can not question the narrative, It is a core element of their being. If it proved false they would lose a large part of their identity.
Again, Fox is propaganda. Watch Jim Leher, Christian Amanpour, Morley Schaffer, Ezra Klein, those are journalsits that let the story lead, not their political slant. At Fox the political slant is the narrative.
Fox takes a story and tells it through their own prejudices, disregarding the rights of a parent. This isn't about religious freedom but parental rights.
And it was all a lie. Because that's what Fox does.
Funniest right-wing comment I've read in weeks.
So, tell us, whose point of view do YOU goosestep to?
The fact that Fox is even including this very one sided (with many missing "true' facts) 'story' and thereby perpetuating this twisted attorney’s attempt to smear the facts for his own benefit is just disgusting!
"Did", compose yourself and try writing that again. And perhaps next time, you should recall the post where curiousindependent wrote, "'m just going to bookmark this, as future evidence that you are not only a liar, but you are a stupid liar."
I mean, I guess you're right: Bookmarking a comment by one person using a pseudonym on a public discussion forum for future use is just like stalking, except for the part about being anything remotely like stalking. It's kind of like first identifying yourself as one of those who marched with MLK, but then calling someone a liar for saying that you marched with MLK, because you did march with MLK except for the part about actually marching with MLK.
It usually the one with the "fantasy" world that does the stalking, which means you are stalking the other person. Just trying to clarify...Chief.
I am really surprised with all your claims of being a christian and/or a person of conscience that you prefer insults, and derogatory comments. I guess the Golden Rule is part of the left wing hate crimes conspiracy.
Can you imagine how far on the father's side Fox would be if the woman was Muslim or Pagan?
religion, as noted by every court and judge involved in this case so far, has nothing to do with the issue at hand. it is strictly a parenting issue, between divorced parties. so far, only ms. voydatch, her attorney and FOX "News" have unilaterally asserted that religion is the issue.
poster "rational conservative" is apparently a mind reader, because he just knows that religion is the heart of the case, all legal evidence to the contrary be damned. while you're at it, can you tell me what berkshire-hathaway is going to invest in next week?
I'm not surprised given that background. There must be lots of stuff Neville doesn't get!
Doesn't the Bible say the father is the head of the house? That would mean what the father says goes. End of story.
2) 18% of Americans think the sun revolves around the Earth. That level of ignorance in 2011 is shocking. I'm prepared to take away home schooling on the grounds that it is retarding innocent children who don't deserve to be born into a cult.
3) Hate is not a virtue, the 932 hate groups in the US didn't get the memo from Jesus. Neither did the cults. I'm prepared to teach loving kindness, the treatment for hate.
4) Prevention of cults and hate groups costs less money than the treatment for its "lost" members. I'm prepared to prevent any further enrollment to hate groups and cults as a cost effective means to solve the problem.
Why do cults and hate groups feel threatened by education? Because it provokes thought in the otherwise mindless droves they currently control for PROFIT.
First, neither party briefed state action that well, which is required for strict scrutiny. In particular, neither party cited Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 18, which states that state action is found in a judge making a judicial decision. This is very different than the Respondent's argument that there is no state action and that the action is between the parties. I really hope the Supreme Court doesn't miss this one...
Second, neither party discussed the techniques used in determining choice of law, which are analogous to, or at least helpful in understanding a Least Intrusive Means test. It seems that Appellant is arguing that the court was required to balance the competing policies in her favor, and the Respondent is arguing a sort of "penalties decline" point where all the Substantive Due Process protections dispensed with, since both parties share equal rights. Neither is correct. As parents are similar to equal sovereigns, it would be instructive for the Supreme Court to look at the well developed "choice of law" cases, where we have two (or more) states having equal rights and intrests in a matter. Those cases are conceptually like "least intrusive means" cases, where the decisionmaker with look at competing requests in light of which state policies will be vindicated. Here, the court might have looked at which concerns each parent had (e.g., religion, socializing, education, etc.) and determine which outcome would vindicate the all or the majority of the both parents' concerns. Regardless of the outcome (i.e., home school or gov't school), this would be far more appropriate and coherent than creating a Substantive Due Process "carve out" based on the parties being parents of the same child. This is just lazy thinking that shouldn't pass muster.
Third, there is entirely too much credit given to the overused talismanic phrase "child's best interest", and neither party sought to challenge it's breadth or application. To illustrate it's breadth, it is in a child's best interest to have clean clother, and it is in a child's best interest to not be molested or abused. Although "best interest" is broad and vague enough to encompass both, no reasonable jurist could justify interfereing with either parent's right to parent based on the first illustration. If "best interest" is to be used as a bright line rule that carries the weight of "compelling state interest", it should be narrowed to mean "to do otherwise would be detrimental to the child". Otherwise, such a wide interpretation would necessarily open the door and authorize unfettered discretion in interfering with fundamental rights. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will address this as well.
Finally, outside of this particular case, I pose the question: If the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts' "carve out" of Substantive Due Process for matters where the parties are parents, wouldn't this open the door for any future litigant (i.e., give standing) to go into district court against the Supreme Court Justice and basically argue that (1) the Constitutional safeguards still exist for parents, and (2) there is no state remedy as the Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue and closed their door?