Judge orders homeschoolers into public district classrooms

I could say I'm speechless, but if you know me, you know that's not possible ;) I think the statement near the end of the second article sums it up well by saying the judge conceded his guiding principle required him to put his judgement in place of the mother's.

I think I'll just intersperse my comments...

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91397

Judge orders homeschoolers into public district classrooms
Decides children need more 'focus' despite testing above grade levels

Posted: March 11, 200911:25 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A North Carolina judge has ordered three children to attend public schools this fall because the homeschooling their mother has provided over the last four years needs to be "challenged." Who is he to say what these dc have been taught needs to be "challenged"? Does he know everything they've learned? Does he order public school parents to "challenge" the state schools' teachings at home in the evenings?

The children, however, have tested above their grade levels – by as much as two years.

The decision is raising eyebrows among homeschooling families, and one friend of the mother has launched a website to publicize the issue.

The ruling was made by Judge Ned Mangum of Wake County, who was handling a divorce proceeding for Thomas and Venessa Mills.

A statement released by a publicist working for the mother, whose children now are 10, 11 and 12, said Mangum stripped her of her right to decide what is best for her children's education. One example of the "nanny" state. The governement will tell you what is best for you and your family.

The judge, when contacted by WND, 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." Again, does he know everything they've learned over the last years? Is he an education expert? Who is he to determine what "well-rounded" is?

"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." A complement would be public school in conjuction with homeschool. He has ordered it in exclusion to homeschool. Why didn't he order online public school courses be taken in addition to the mother's homeschooling? Should I answer that...

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." "Appropriate" is his opinion.

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. Yes, it was.

And he said that while he expressed his opinion from the bench in the court hearing, the final written order had not yet been signed.

However, the practice of a judge replacing a parent's judgment with his own regarding homeschooling was argued recently when a court panel in California ruled that a family would no longer be allowed to homeschool their own children.

WND reported extensively when the ruling was released in February 2008, alarming homeschool advocates nationwide because of its potential ramifications.

Ultimately, the 2nd Appellate District Court in Los Angeles reversed its own order, affirming the rights of California parents to homeschool their children if they choose.

The court, which earlier had opined that only credentialed teachers could properly educate children, Good grief, how were children educated in the past? How in the world did this country's founders manage to get anything done without "credentialed teachers", was faced with a flood of friend-of-the-court briefs representing individuals and groups, including Congress members. Who better qualified to teach a child than his parent that is actually taking the time and effort to do so; and to meet his individual needs. Who is more invested?

The conclusion ultimately was that parents, not the state, would decide where children are educated. Thank you.

The California opinion said state law permits homeschooling "as a species of private school education" but that statutory permission for parents to teach their own children could be "overridden in order to protect the safety of a child who has been declared dependent." Ah, "permission"... back to the nanny state.

In the North Carolina case, Adam Cothes, a spokesman for the mother, said the children routinely had been testing at up to two years above their grade level, were involved in swim team and other activities and events outside their home and had taken leadership roles in history club events.

On her website, family friend Robyn Williams said Mangum stated his decision was not ideologically or religiously motivated but that ordering the children into public schools would "challenge the ideas you've taught them." Already addresses this.

Williams, a homeschool mother of four herself, said, "I have never seen such injustice and such a direct attack against homeschool."

"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.

Williams said she's trying to rally homeschoolers across the nation to defend their rights as Americans and parents to educate their own children.

Williams told WND the public school order was the worst possible outcome for Ms. Mills, who had made it clear she felt it was important to her children that she continue homeschooling.

According to Williams' website, the judge also ordered a mental health evaluation for the mother – but not the father – as part of the divorce proceedings, in what Williams described as an attack on the "mother's conservative Christian beliefs." We can't know, of course, if the judge would've handed down the same decision if the mother was a secular homeschooler. By some of his comments about "challenging" what the children had been taught it would seem that teaching Christian world views is his hang up.

According to a proposed but as-yet unsigned order submitted by the father's lawyer to Mangum, "The children have thrived in homeschool for the past four years, but need the broader focus and socialization available to them in public school. The Court finds that it is in the children's best interest to continue their homeschooling through the end of the current school year, but to begin attending public school at the beginning of the 2009-2010 instructional year." Why did the judge order attendance in public school? Why didn't he simply order the children into a brick and mortar school; private, Christian, or public? Someday I'll have to post about the myths of socialization.

The order proposed by the father's lawyer also conceded the reason for the divorce was the father's "adultery," but it specifically said the father would not pay for homeschooling expenses for his children.

The order also stated, "Defendant believes that plaintiff is a nurturing mother who loves the children. Defendant believes that plaintiff has done a good job with the homeschooling of the children, although he does not believe that continued homeschooling is in the best interest of the children."

The website said the judge also said public school would "prepare these kids for the real world and college" and allow them "socialization." I'm screaming...

Williams said the mother originally moved into a homeschool schedule because the children were not doing as well as she hoped at the local public schools. SO LET'S PUT THEM BACK THERE! NOW THAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN!!! Way to go, judge.

...continues on WND site.

Four days later:
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91843

Mom will fight judge's order against homeschooling
'I couldn't believe how he overlooked all the facts to legislate from the bench'

Posted: March 15, 20091:45 am Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A North Carolina homeschooling mother, ordered to stop teaching her children at home and send them to public school, said she will appeal the judge's ruling.

"I couldn't believe how he overlooked all the facts to legislate from the bench," said Venessa Mills of Wake County District Court Judge Ned Mangum's ruling that it would be in the "best interests" of her three children, ages 12, 11 and 10, to be placed in public school, even though two are learning at two grades above grade level while the third is at grade level. Yes, he overlooked facts. The children are doing BETTER than they were doing in public school, but they would be better off back in public school.

As WND reported, the judge's action came in the divorce proceeding between Mills and her husband, Thomas.

At a court hearing last week, Mangum conceded the children are "thriving" under Mills' instruction but said they need to be exposed to the "real world." Still screaming!

"It will do them a great benefit to be in the public schools, and they will challenge some of the ideas that you've taught them, and they could learn from that and make them stronger," the judge said. You know, not all Christian parents or Christian homeschoolers keep their children from hearing about any conflicting beliefs. Some of us actively teach our children what other people believe and how to determine truth for themselves! THAT makes them stronger!

Mangum, when contacted by WND, 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."

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.

In her court filing, Mills said her children already interact with other children at organized homeschool activities.

"These kids are doing well," she told the Raleigh News & Observer. "That's why it's such an injustice. It was an injustice for the kids." Yes, it's an injustice for the children!

Mangum's ruling and reasoning sparked public outrage after WND's story, reported the News & Observer – including an organized campaign to have the judge removed from the case. District court officials received more than 25 calls Thursday complaining about the decision while other court offices also reported being contacted.

Even Alan Keyes attacked Mangum's ruling in a column on his website: "If his idea of socialization includes the need to challenge the Christian ideas their mother has taught them, then he not only interferes with her natural right to raise up her children, he tramples on one of the most important elements of the free exercise of religion."

Mangum said that while he expressed his opinion from the bench in the court hearing, the final written order had not yet been signed.