Judge orders home schoolers into public classrooms

[-Cp]

WTH???
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4727161/

RALEIGH, N.C. — A judge in Wake County said three Raleigh children need to switch from home school to public school. Judge Ned Mangum is presiding over divorce proceeding of the children's parents, Thomas and Venessa Mills.
Venessa Mills was in the fourth year of home schooling her children who are 10, 11 and 12 years old. They have tested two years above their grade levels, she said.

"We have math, reading; we have grammar, science, music,” Venessa Mills said.

Her lessons also have a religious slant, which the judge said was the root of the problem.

"My teaching is strictly out of the Bible, and it's very clear. It is very evident so I just choose to follow the Bible,” Venessa Mills said.

In an affidavit filed Friday in the divorce case, Thomas Mills stated that he "objected to the children being removed from public school." He said Venessa Mills decided to home school after getting involved with Sound Doctrine church "where all children are home schooled."

Thomas Mills also said he was "concerned about the children's religious-based science curriculum" and that he wants "the children to be exposed to mainstream science, even if they eventually choose to believe creationism over evolution."

In a verbal ruling, Mangum said the children should go to public school.
"He was upfront and said that, 'It's not about religion.' But yet when it came down to his ruling and reasons why, 'He said this would be a good opportunity for the children to be tested in the beliefs that I have taught them,'" Venessa Mills said.

[DannyR]

Not certain what the big deal is. Its a divorce case. One parents wants their kids public schooled, the other doesn't. Generally in divorce cases you split things half way. The kids have been home schooled, ergo now they will be public schooled.

Blame the parents for getting divorced in the first place and not agreeing on how to raise their kids and forcing a judge to make the decision for them. Its a poor way to decide things, but par for the course when it comes to divorces.

[DragonStryk72]

Not certain what the big deal is. Its a divorce case. One parents wants their kids public schooled, the other doesn't. Generally in divorce cases you split things half way. The kids have been home schooled, ergo now they will be public schooled.

Blame the parents for getting divorced in the first place and not agreeing on how to raise their kids and forcing a judge to make the decision for them. Its a poor way to decide things, but par for the course when it comes to divorces.


All sides agree the children have thrived with home school, and Vanessa Mills thinks that should be reason enough to continue teaching at home.

This has nothing to do with the parents, merely that they have taken a religious focus that would also be available at any private institution. There is no reasoning to this argument, and going by your own argument, they were public schooled and now they will be home schooled, since they've only been home-schooled for a few years now, it does not encompass the whole of their education.

[DannyR]

Actually, if you read the article, neither parent wanted their put into public school, this was entirely the judge making this judgeThe link doesn't seem to work, so I'm only going by what I see on the page. And I see the following:

In an affidavit filed Friday in the divorce case, Thomas Mills stated that he "objected to the children being removed from public school." He said Venessa Mills decided to home school after getting involved with Sound Doctrine church "where all children are home schooled."

Thomas Mills also said he was "concerned about the children's religious-based science curriculum" and that he wants "the children to be exposed to mainstream science, even if they eventually choose to believe creationism over evolution."The father did say his kids did well being home schooled, but it seems pretty clear he is the one who wanted them put in public school. The judge ruled in his favor. No anti-religion conspiracy here, just a typical divorce case.

[DannyR]

going by your own argument, they were public schooled and now they will be home schooled, since they've only been home-schooled for a few years now, it does not encompass the whole of their education.

A bit longer than you state:

Venessa Mills was in the fourth year of home schooling her children who are 10, 11 and 12 years old.Seems they have been home schooled longer than they were in public school. The youngest may not have ever gone to public school.

[Kathianne]

The mom may get some legal help:



[Eugene Volokh, March 13, 2009 at 12:33pm] Trackbacks
Home Schooling and Child Custody: The News & Observer (North Carolina) reports:

...

Of course -- if the judge's oral statements are being accurately reported by Venessa Mills -- the same logic would apply to children who are taught at private schools that teach creationism: If one divorced parent objects to such teaching, the judge could order that the children be sent to noncreationist schools instead of creationist schools, or give custody to that parent who promises to send the children to such schools.

I should note that I would firmly oppose any judicial order interfering with the father's ability to expose the children to evolution when the children are visiting with him (assuming the mother is given custody and the father is given visitation). And I personally do think that it's more in a child's best interests to be taught evolution than to be taught creationism. I just don't think that the First Amendment allows judges to make decisions based on such matters, for reasons I mention in my Parent-Child Speech and Child Custody Speech Restrictions article.

For an earlier case suggesting -- in my view, wrongly -- that disfavoring the creationism-teaching parent is more legitimate in child custody cases, see Waites v. Waites, 567 S.W.2d 326, 333 (Mo. 1978) (suggesting that under “best interests” test court may consider whether parent “would refuse to permit the child to attend a school class where evolution is taught”). For lots of cases in which judges considered parents' religiosity, atheism, racism, Communism, pacifism, support for Nazism, advocacy of the propriety of homosexuality, condemnation of homosexuality, and more, see the article I cited above.

For more on child custody decisions and home schooling -- setting aside the creationism issue, which as I note could arise even when the child is taught in a religious school outside the home -- see these older posts.

Thanks to Patrick Martin and Robert Bell for the pointers.

Related Posts (on one page):

Home Schooling and Child Custody:
Home Schooling as Factor in Child Custody Decisions:
No Child Custody Preference for Public Schooling over Home Schooling:

Links to court cases and related articles at site.

[sgtdmski]

I am sorry, but shouldn't this decision wait until such time as the judge awards custody??? If the mother is award custody of the children, she is ultimately responsible for the raising of the children with financial support from the father. If the father is awarded custody then it is he who will be responsible.

Considering the fact that the children are doing well and are testing above their grade level by as much as two years, it would seem that home-schooling is having no adverse affects on the children. So now they are to attend public school, will they will be ahead of children in their own grades? This is a prescription for trouble. Either the children will be moved ahead in which now they will be the youngest in their classes or they will be held back, causing them to repeat the same schooling they have already received.

The judge would have done well to delay the decision until he made a final ruling on the custody of the children. For if he rules that custody belongs to the mother, he has just violated her right to raise her children as she sees fit.

dmk

[DannyR]

I am sorry, but shouldn't this decision wait until such time as the judge awards custody???I am guessing joint custody was probably awarded at the same time, or as you said, this wouldn't be an issue. In sole custody cases, the parent having it makes the decisions. Joint custody however gives both parents the right to determine how the child is raised.

This decision came out of the oral ruling from the case, with the official written one being issued in a week or two. The case is probably finished, with the school issue being one of the topics of arbitration resolved in the divorce proceedings.

This isn't exactly something new. Judges have been ruling on how children should be raised for ages under the "best interests" test in divorce cases where parents disagree.

The problem here isn't the judge, but the parents for getting the divorce in the first place and being unable to settle their dispute on their own.


it would seem that home-schooling is having no adverse affects on the children.With the exception that they are not being taught something the father believes is important.
Either the children will be moved ahead in which now they will be the youngest in their classes or they will be held back, causing them to repeat the same schooling they have already received.Its a problem they will have to face sooner or later. Do you keep them from going to college for 2 years?