No religious homeschooling allowed!!

[Merlin99]

thats the way it works a lot of the time, altough its really not supposed to. What should happen (both morally and legally) is that both parents should have a say in ANY major decision and each have reign over the day to day minor stuff when they have the kid. When one parent decides they have more rights because the child sleeps at their house more, people end up in court and a judge has to decide.

If you're going to make up laws you should at least make them amusing ones.

 

[thatguy]

If you're going to make up laws you should at least make them amusing ones.

obviously you dont understand the concept of "joint custody"

I am sure a judge will be happy to explain it to you one day, just like he explained to my ex before ultimately giving me custody.

 

[Merlin99]

obviously you dont understand the concept of "joint custody"

I am sure a judge will be happy to explain it to you one day, just like he explained to my ex before ultimately giving me custody.

They don't have joint custody, she has full custody.

 

[thatguy]

They don't have joint custody, she has full custody.

physical custody does not equal full legal custody, and i haven't read where she has full legal custody. Besides i was seaking in generalities. Most people these days are in joint legal custody situations.

 

[Merlin99]

physical custody does not equal full legal custody, and i haven't read where she has full legal custody. Besides i was seaking in generalities. Most people these days are in joint legal custody situations.

Why would you speak in generalities when we are talking specifics. A two minute google search will give you all the facts, skewed appropriately depending on the author, to come to a conclusion.

What's going to end up happening now? My guesses are
1. The judge is going to get his pee pee smacked by a judicial review board. We may not get to hear the details but it will be there.

2. Dad will be told to pack up his #### and get out of the house.

3. Her dad will be told (by her) to keep his dumb ass opinions to himself.

4. Finally, the kids will be back in homeschooling.

 

[Vince]

Why would you speak in generalities when we are talking specifics. A two minute google search will give you all the facts, skewed appropriately depending on the author, to come to a conclusion.

What's going to end up happening now? My guesses are
1. The judge is going to get his pee pee smacked by a judicial review board. We may not get to hear the details but it will be there.

2. Dad will be told to pack up his #### and get out of the house.

3. Her dad will be told (by her) to keep his dumb ass opinions to himself.

4. Finally, the kids will be back in homeschooling.

Hope you guessed right because that judge is a real idiot.

 

[This_person]

Her fathers opinion doesnt matter when it comes to how the children were taught, from the beginning i posted the Childrens father has as much to say about the kids raising as the childrens mother. Normally this is a stance most would agree with, its only because religion was interjected (by the mother) This_Person now has a problem with the childrens father having a say about how they are raised.

Can you back that up? Here is a bunch to refute that totally inaccurate and uncalled for statement:

Both mother and father have equal say,...

Dad certainly has as much to say as mom, just like mom has as much to say as dad....

What religious teachings the children learn is 100% up to the parents, and the parents don't agree. IMO, the only way to resolve it is to have both parents give their version of what they believe to be correct, and let the kids decide on their own. Telling mom to stop her view is kind of against the first amendment, and common moral sense. It is just as wrong as telling dad he is not allowed to disagree, and teach the kids he disagrees. I would be as upset if either thing were ordered by a judge.

You should try reading what I post, not assuming assinine things and then stating them as truth!

The Mothers Father, and the HomeSchooling organization came out later (in this thread) showing cause that it wasnt about religion but about parental rights. The Mothers Father was also brought up because of the Mental stability of the childrens mother.

But once again, the Childrens Father has just as much right to determine the childrens education as the Childrens Mother. All along posters have been saying this wasnt about religion, This_Person interjected that in his failed attempt of a point.

If it's not about the religious aspects, what IS the reason to take kids out of an environment where they're exceeding the public school's abilities and place them in the public schools, effectively lowering their opportunities at education?

 

[Vince]

Of course. I just find some of the replies in this thread very comical.

The liberal mind hard at work.

 

[This_person]

If it was just the mom teaching the religion that was the problem, I don't see why the father couldn't just teach evolution (or whatever he wants to teach) when the kids are with him. It sounds like it goes deeper than just learning about religion. It sounds like the father is worried the mother will brainwash the kids, and the dad isn't cool with that. It sounds like the mother is too extreme. The church doesn't celebrate birthdays? Sounds like the father doesn't want the kids to be around that environment.

If the mother isn't a quack, there should be no problem with the kids deciding for themselves. If the kids are being brainwashed, then they might not get to decide for themselves. It doesn't sound like the mother is telling them "this is what I believe, you can decide for yourselves."

Mothers and fathers clearly have equal roles in this, only an idiot would suggest otherwise. So, we agree 100% on this.

If the worry is that mom is "brainwashing", then she must be an unfit primary custodial parent. If she is so, the dad should/would be asking for primary physical placement - not eliminating home schooling.

 

[This_person]

how is it the judge interjecting his prejudice to have a mental evaluation? the judge didn't make any determinination, he only responded to requests from the husband AND the wifes father to check into her mental stability.

Which makes that last bullet, subtracting 5, completely prejudicial. There's no reason to believe there's a problem unless one is found.

 

[This_person]

Wouldn't they, looking at what they beleive in, meet the criteria for someone needing a psych eval?

If you hear voices, listen to voices, and do what the voices tell you, Psych Eval.. Unless it's god..

You believe you are 600 years old, psych eval, but believe Noah and Moses lived 600 years old.. ok..

Basically, if you believe everything in the bible, if there was true seperation of church and state, you should be asked to take a psych eval..

...nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.....

 

[This_person]

We either want to raise our own children or we want some judge to do it. I vote for judges to stay out of our business unless a crime has been committed. If the Dad doesn't like the way Mom is raising the kids, he can try for custody. Otherwise he should shut up about it.

This is between the parents. If THEY can't figure it out, too damned bad. Let 'em go back and try again.

 

[This_person]

Can you back that up? Here is a bunch to refute that totally inaccurate and uncalled for statement:You should try reading what I post, not assuming assinine things and then stating them as truth!If it's not about the religious aspects, what IS the reason to take kids out of an environment where they're exceeding the public school's abilities and place them in the public schools, effectively lowering their opportunities at education?

:bump for Nuck to respond.....:

 

[itsbob]

They don't have joint custody, she has full custody.

I've never seen a divorce decree where one parent has had FULL custody.

MAYBE full phsyical custody, but they've all stipulated joint legal custody..

For example.. Kid lives with Mom, she has full physical custody. No visitation, no weekends, he lives 100% of the time with Mom.

Kid lives with Mom and turns 17 and wants to join the Army..

You need to find Dad, because they have joint legal custody, and you need both Mom AND Dads signature so little Johny can man up..

Basically unless Dad was in a boating accident and has been missing for six months, or abandoned the family and fled to Mexico.. they will have joint legal custody, EVEN if dad is incarcerated.

 

[Merlin99]

I've never seen a divorce decree where one parent has had FULL custody.

MAYBE full phsyical custody, but they've all stipulated joint legal custody..

For example.. Kid lives with Mom, she has full physical custody. No visitation, no weekends, he lives 100% of the time with Mom.

Kid lives with Mom and turns 17 and wants to join the Army..

You need to find Dad, because they have joint legal custody, and you need both Mom AND Dads signature so little Johny can man up..

Basically unless Dad was in a boating accident and has been missing for six months, or abandoned the family and fled to Mexico.. they will have joint legal custody, EVEN if dad is incarcerated.

If there is serious acrimony in the seperation, the judge will seldom give joint legal custody.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Raleigh, N.C. — A judge in Wake County said three Raleigh children need switch from home school to public school.

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.

This was covered on Fox. The father insisted and the judge agreed. Since it is a preliminary ruling, it cannot be appealed.

I think the judge is stupid.

 

[itsbob]

If there is serious acrimony in the seperation, the judge will seldom give joint legal custody.

Just giving you my experience, I've never seen a divorce without joint legal custody.. and I've seen one or two over the years.

 

[itsbob]

This was covered on Fox. The father insisted and the judge agreed. Since it is a preliminary ruling, it cannot be appealed.

I think the judge is stupid.

Why is the judge stupid?

What harm comes if the kids aren't taught the bible for six months while they figure this out. I'm thinking the father has a reason to be concerned.. just as I would if BG joined the Westboro church and they commanded her to leave me, and teach bubba their doctrine.

There's a lot more to this story than just the headlines, you're only getting the part they want you to get. There has to be more than the normal religious indoctrination for the judge to make this ruling..

 

[This_person]

Why is the judge stupid?

What harm comes if the kids aren't taught the bible for six months while they figure this out. I'm thinking the father has a reason to be concerned.. just as I would if BG joined the Westboro church and they commanded her to leave me, and teach bubba their doctrine.

There's a lot more to this story than just the headlines, you're only getting the part they want you to get. There has to be more than the normal religious indoctrination for the judge to make this ruling..

I'm glad at least you can recognize the judge's ruling is founded in the belief that the state has the right to restrict a parent from establishing her own religion with her children.

Nuck couldn't admit that.

If it weren't for that pesky first amendment thing, I'd agree with you.

 

[itsbob]

I'm glad at least you can recognize the judge's ruling is founded in the belief that the state has the right to restrict a parent from establishing her own religion with her children.

Nuck couldn't admit that.

If it weren't for that pesky first amendment thing, I'd agree with you.

I differ in that it's not the PARENT that should establish their child's relligious indoctrination but the PARENTS. plural.

You're saying the judge should automatically side with her, because of the first amendment, I say parental righs for BOTH parents trump that.

What if the argument was Mom was Mormon Dad was Baptist? Who should the judge side with? take secularism out of the argument for a moment, and what should the judge do?

The Dad doesn't agree with what the mom is doing.. doesn't matter if it's religion, education, sex ed.. or medical or dental needs.. If the father disagrees, that's HIS right, and the court should rule not based on religion, but on parental rights.