Last Monday (March 16, 2011), the New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld a previous ruling that ordered a homeschooled girl to attend public school. This decision, which was made against the wishes of the mother, was sparked by a debate between the child’s divorced parents.
Although the decision closely inspects the impact of religion and homeschooling in this girl’s life, the Supreme Court statement included this disclaimer:
“The particular circumstances of this case bear emphasizing… While this case has religious overtones, it is not about religion. While it involves home schooling, it is not about the merits of home versus public schooling. This case is only about resolving a dispute between two parents, with equal constitutional parenting rights and joint decision-making responsibility, who have been unable to agree how to best educate daughter.”
The parents, who divorced in 1999 when the little girl was just an infant, have continually disagreed about whether she should be home schooled or public schooled. The daughter attended private school for kindergarten, but the mother began homeschooling in first grade.
Since that time, the father repeatedly fought this decision. His arguments were primarily about the influence of his former wife’s religion on their daughter and that homeschooling amplified that impact. He blamed the religion for his daughter’s failure to accept his new wife and child. He asserted that the religion “had the effect of isolating daughter from her peers” and that she could “experience diversity and improve her ability to accept differences in his home” if she were homeschooled.
THE RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE
In January 2007, the father filed a motion that stated,
“At her mother’s insistence, and against [his] wishes, [daughter] is homeschooled through a program that is affiliated with a church that both [mother] and [daughter] attend on a regular basis.” He continued to claim that his daughter was withdrawn and could not accept his new wife and child. His daughter’s therapist agreed that their relationship was suffering because she “strongly identified” with her mother’s religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court admits,
“There is no doubt that mother’s and child’s religious convictions have been a pervasive part of the parties’ school placement dispute… The trial court referred to the evidence presented that involved mother’s and daughter’s religious beliefs, including: the (guardian ad litem)’s account of daughter’s interaction with her counselor in which daughter “appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith”; the GAL’s concerns about the impact of daughter’s religious beliefs on her relationship with her father; the father’s desire to expose daughter to different viewpoints to decrease his daughter’s “rigid adherence” to her mother’s religious beliefs; and mother’s acknowledgement of the strength of her and daughter’s religious beliefs. The trial court also remarked that daughter’s strong adherence to religious convictions that align with her mother’s beliefs likely was the effect of “spending her time school time with her mother and the vast majority of all of her other time with her mother.””
The blatantly religious overtones of this trial complicated the position of the court, which asserted that the decision had “not considered the merits of [daughter’s] religious beliefs, but considered only the impact of those beliefs on her interaction with others, both past and future.”
The court also states, “The evidence about faith is only relevant because [daughter] was unhappy that her father does not love her enough to want to spend eternity with her by adopting her faith.””
According to the father,
“If somebody doesn’t believe in [daughter’s] religion, she has a real, real hard time with it. If there’s ever anything that goes against what she believes in, she doesn’t really know how to respond and she automatically thinks that somebody’s attacking her or somebody is going up against her… When you have a serious discussion with [daughter], when you question her beliefs, or you present another idea to her about a religious belief, she doesn’t know what to do. She clams up. She turns away. You know, she just really can’t go any further.”
The court states that it:
“considered the importance of daughter having the ability to openly communicate with others who have a different viewpoint on a subject matter, whether or not the topic is religious in nature. It also considered the benefits of group learning, group interaction, social problem solving and exposure to a variety of points of view.”
However, the court asserts that it:
“did not express disfavor regarding the religious nature of daughter’s beliefs or disapproval regarding her vigorous defense of her religious beliefs. Neither did the court criticize the merits of mother’s and daughter’s religious convictions. Indeed, as the trial court emphasized, its order did not impose any restrictions on either parent’s ability to provide daughter with religious training or to share with daughter his or her own religious beliefs.”
THE HOME SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT
The court also states:
“The dispute between the parties in this case did not revolve around the relative academic merits of public and home schooling. Their dispute centered upon which academic experience would be in daughter’s best interests.”
In fact, it is interesting to read the court’s evaluation of the academic merits of the homeschooling experience in question. Although the mother was in complete compliance with homeschool laws, the daughter excelled academically and socialization needs were met, the court took issue with the fact that the daughter watched recorded lessons on a computer at home. The mother checked her work, answered questions, engaged in discussions with her daughter, and replayed lessons as necessary. The court cited evidence that the daughter was “bored” and “lonely” in this environment.
The guardian ad litem determined that “daughter’s best interests, and particularly her intellectual and emotional development, would be best served by exposure to a public school setting in which she would be challenged to solve problems presented by a group learning situation and by the social interactivity of children of her age.”
“The trial court’s acknowledgement that daughter successfully participated in several activities outside of her home, performed well academically with home education and is “generally likeable and well liked, social and interactive with her peers” does not render its decision that attending public school was in daughter’s best interests an unsustainable exercise of discretion.”
---
Despite the court’s assertion that this decision is isolated to this case and that it has nothing to do with homeschooling or religion, the decision seems monumental. Statements such as ”(the court) also considered the benefits of group learning, group interaction, social problem solving and exposure to a variety of points of view” seem to have a much greater scope.
What impact do you think this decision will have on homeschooling? Do you believe this decision is fair? What should the mother have done differently?
I look forward to reading your comments.
