Forwarded Message: Re: [NHBAR-FAM] NH homeschooling case
From:
"Elizabeth Donovan"
To:
NHBAR-FAM@LISTS.NHBAR.ORG
tried to attach it but was kicked back. Any instruction?
Be mindful that there are layers and layers of facts and procedural history
not known or investigated by the press. These parents have equally shared
decision-making; the mother agreed to put this very issue before the court
and let the court decide; the mother never offered alternate schooling
options to the court; the mother chose the child's counselor and then didn't
like what the counselor concluded. The decision is not based on the GAL's
discomfort with any religious beliefs; the record reflects that no such
"discomfort" was ever evidenced by the GAL.
The decision was based on promoting independent thinking, tolerance of
others, intellectual and emotional development, problem solving, group
learning and interactivity. This child's home schooling was done with her
sitting alone in the corner of her mother's bedroom watching the computer.
Religion had nothing to do with it.
Libby Donovan
Dwyer, Donovan & Pendleton, P.A.
461 Middle Street
Portsmouth, NH 03801
603-433-7040
-----Original Message-----
From: NHBAR Family Law Email Discussion List
[mailto:NHBAR-FAM@LISTS.NHBAR.ORG] On Behalf Of Patrick J. Sheehan
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 10:22 AM
To: NHBAR-FAM@LISTS.NHBAR.ORG
Subject: Re: [NHBAR-FAM] NH homeschooling case
I agree. It simply begs the question to argue that the child should be
home schooled because mom gets to make school decisions and that is what
she has decided.
-----Original Message-----
From: NHBAR Family Law Email Discussion List
[mailto:NHBAR-FAM@LISTS.NHBAR.ORG] On Behalf Of Chris Keenan
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 10:13 AM
To: NHBAR-FAM@LISTS.NHBAR.ORG
Subject: Re: [NHBAR-FAM] NH homeschooling case
Lets all remember this is a case where the parents disagree, mom wants
her
home schooled, dad wants public school. The Court sided with dad's
(Libby's)
argument. Just because John Simmons frames the issue as the court
interfering with the girls home schooling, does not mean that is what
the
case is about.
How many out there have had their client disagree with their ex on an
issue
involving children and had to resort to the court to decide for the
parents. The 2 articles below seem very unfair to the Master and the
Judge and
therefore the justice system.
Home schooling is a major decision on which the parents must agree, just
as
private vs. public school is a decision on which parents must agree. If
they
don't and one brings it to court, the court makes the decision. Chris
Christopher W. Keenan, Esq. 125 Brewery Lane, Suite 7 Portsmouth, NH
03801 603 433-1884 603 433-1885 Fax 603 828-5158 Cell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sheila J. Burnham" <sb@JAFFREYLAW.COM>
To: <NHBAR-FAM@LISTS.NHBAR.ORG>
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: [NHBAR-FAM] NH homeschooling case
My thoughts:
If the parent with the right to make schooling decisions is actually
making
them, and, If the child is being "properly" educated and socialized, and
the
child is exhibiting higher degrees of competency than her counterparts
in
public school, then it appears this decision is based on the GAL's
discomfort with the child's religious belief system.
Why is the ONLY alternative public school? Does this decision preclude
private school (which of course homeschooling is). What type of action
will
mom be able to bring in the future if, once the child is in public
school
her grades drop, or she exhibits signs of depression, or begins acting
out,
or gets involved with drugs or all of the above.
Finally, what is the difference between this case and the same case
where a
family not divorced decides to homeschool and inculcate their children
with
strong religious beliefs? Yes, the parents agree and therefore the
state
doesn't get involved. But in the divorce case, doesn't the fact (if it
is
indeed so) that the mom has the legal authority to make the schooling
decisions make this case identical to the case of married parents who
also
choose homeschooling?
Sheila J. Burnham, Esq.
Tower & Crocker, P.A.
47 Main Street
Jaffrey, NH 03452
sb@jaffreylaw.com
office: 603-532-7731
fax: 603-532-8650
-----Original Message-----
From: NHBAR Family Law Email Discussion List
[mailto:NHBAR-FAM@LISTS.NHBAR.ORG] On Behalf Of Honey Hastings
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 9:34 AM
To: NHBAR-FAM@LISTS.NHBAR.ORG
Subject: Re: [NHBAR-FAM] NH homeschooling case
> Here are a couple of the new report on it. Lots more if you google
> "homeschooling case nh."
>
> NH mother wants to continue home-schooling
> Associated Press - August 27, 2009 9:35 AM ET
> LACONIA, N.H. (AP) - A religious freedom group has taken up the cause
> of a New Hampshire mother who wants to keep home-schooling her
> daughter.
>
> The Alliance Defense Fund has asked a family court judge to reconsider
> a decision last month that sends the 10-year-old daughter of Brenda
> Voydatch to a public school in Meredith.
>
> The Citizen reports Voydatch and the girl's father, Martin Kurowski,
> divorced shortly after she was born. Court documents say the girl's
> father wants his daughter to attend public schools so she will have
> more opportunities to socialize with children her age. A guardian ad
> litem agreed.
>
> John Anthony Simmons, a lawyer associated with the fund who represents
> Voydatch, said the court has usurped his client's right as the parent
> with custody to make decisions about what she considers best for her
> daughter.
>
> Education
> NH Court Orders Homeschooler into Public School to Expose Her to
> Different Faith Views August 28th, 2009 by LifeSite News Print This
> Article * ShareThis
>
> An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney asked a New Hampshire court
> Monday to reconsider its decision after it ordered a 10-year-old
> homeschooled girl
> to attend public school in order to remedy the girl's lack of exposure
to
> "a
> variety of points of view" in matters of faith.
>
> Although the marital master making recommendations to the court agreed
> the child is "well liked, social and interactive with her peers,
> academically promising, and intellectually at or superior to grade
> level" and that "it is clear that the home schooling...has more than
> kept up with the academic requirements of the...public school system,"
> he nonetheless proposed that the
> Christian girl be ordered into a government-run school after
considering
> "the impact of [her religious] beliefs on her interaction with
others."
> The
> court approved the order.
>
> "Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for
> their children. In this case specifically, the court is
> illegitimately altering a method of education that the court itself
> admits is working," said ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons of
> Hampton.
>
> "The court is essentially saying that the evidence shows that,
> socially and academically, this girl is doing great, but her religious
> beliefs are a bit
> too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among
other
> worldviews. This is a step too far for any court to take."
>
> The parents of the child divorced in 1999. The mother has
> home-schooled their daughter since first grade with curriculum that
> meets all state review standards. In addition to home schooling, the
> girl attends supplemental public school classes and has also been
> involved in a variety of extra-curricular sports activities.
>
> In the process of renegotiating the terms of a parenting plan for the
> girl, the guardian ad litem involved in the case concluded, according
> to the court
> order, that the girl "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on
> questions
> of faith" and that the girl's interests "would be best served by
exposure
> to
> a public school setting."
>
> It was also concluded that "different points of view at a time when
> she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief...in
> order to select,
> as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own
needs."
>
> Marital Master Michael Garner reasoned that the girl's "vigorous
> defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly
> that she has not
> had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view,"
and
> then
> recommended that the girl be ordered to enroll in a government school
> instead of being home-schooled.
>
> Judge Lucinda V. Sadler approved the recommendation and issued the
> order on July 14.
>
> "The New Hampshire Supreme Court itself has specifically declared,
> 'Home education is an enduring American tradition and right,'" said
> ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson. "There is clearly and without
> question no legitimate legal basis for the court's decision, and we
> trust it will reconsider its conclusions."
>
> This article is courtesy of LifeSiteNews.com.
>
> Honey Hastings
> honeyhastings@earthlink.net
> office/Wilton NH 603.654.5000
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "kathy needleman" <tudorlake@YAHOO.COM>
> To: <NHBAR-FAM@LISTS.NHBAR.ORG>
> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 7:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [NHBAR-FAM] NH homeschooling case
>
>
> Yes. I have a question posed by a friend (another attorney) from
> another state who is extremely interested in this decision and its
> impact. We had an hour long discussion on this issue last night. She
> wasn't arguing that it wasn't ultimately in the child's best interest
> to be sent to public school, but that it was unconstitutional for him
> to make his decision based upon the child's religious beliefs. We
> just didn't have enough facts to understand his reasoning.
>
> She asks that I ask, "what were his (Master Garner's) legal arguments
> as to why the child should not be home schooled."
>
> My take is that she reads the opinion as being an affront to the
> parent's constitutional right to decide how they raise their child and
> their child's religious beliefs. She thinks from her reading of the
> order that he ordered
> the child to public school because the child believes too strongly in
her
> faith, and he wants the child to get a broader, more balanced view of
> religion. (My friend is deeply religious and home schooled her own
> children
> before going to law school, so she is coming from that perspective.)
>
> I figured there were just too many unknowns to draw any conclusions to
> that effect, but it does seem that his reasoning was strongly
> motivated by the issue of religion.
>
> What is the real story.
>
> --- On Thu, 8/27/09, Elizabeth Donovan
> <edonovan@GRANITESTATELAWYERS.COM>
> wrote:
>
>> From: Elizabeth Donovan <edonovan@GRANITESTATELAWYERS.COM>
>> Subject: Re: [NHBAR-FAM] NH homeschooling case
>> To: NHBAR-FAM@LISTS.NHBAR.ORG
> Date: Thursday, August 27, 2009, 9:05 PM
>> I'm the
>> attorney for the dad: what
>> would you like to know?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Libby
>> Donovan
>>
>> Dwyer, Donovan &
>> Pendleton, P.A.
>>
>> 461
>> Middle Street
>>
>> Portsmouth, NH
>> 03801
>>
>> 603-433-7040
>>
>> From: NHBAR Family
>> Law
>> Email Discussion List [mailto:NHBAR-FAM@LISTS.NHBAR.ORG]
>> On Behalf Of Kathy
>> O'Donnell
>>
>> Sent:
>> Thursday, August 27, 2009
>> 9:32 PM
>>
>> To:
>> NHBAR-FAM@LISTS.NHBAR.ORG
>>
>> Subject:
>> [NHBAR-FAM] NH
>> homeschooling case
>>
>> Hi- I read this
>> article referencing a recent NH court decision in a marital case, on
>> sending a homeschooling girl to public school. I was wondering
>> if anyone here knows
>> about it, and would be able to supply more facts or
>> background- thanks
>>
>> http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=659638
>>
>> Kathy
>>
>> Kathleen O'Donnell
>>
>> Attorney at Law
>>
>> 800 Park Avenue
>>
>> Suite 113
>>
>> Keene NH
>> 03431
>>
>> 603.355.9900
>>
SULLOWAY & HOLLIS, P.L.L.C.: This message is a PRIVATE communication which
may contain
attorney / client privileged material. If you are not the intended
recipient, please do not read,
copy, use, or disclose to others. If you have received this message in
error, please reply to sender
and delete this message from your system. Thank you.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by
the IRS, we
inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication is not
intended or written to
be used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding U.S.
tax penalties.
No comments:
Post a Comment