|
||||||
|
|
|
Judge Orders Homeschooled Girl to School
By Shannon Mullen on Wednesday, September 9, 2009.
A ten-year–old girl who’s been home-schooled since first grade, has started attending public school in Meredith. There’s nothing odd in that, particularly. Except in this case, a judge ordered her enrollment. And the case has sparked a controversy over the First Amendment right to religious freedom. New Hampshire Public Radio correspondent Shannon Mullen has the story. On a chilly morning outside Interlakes Elementary School in Meredith, students file into the building, back to their routine after summer vacation. Over the intercom, an Assistant Principal leads the school in saying the pledge of allegiance. For one child enrolled here, though, this routine is anything but. Ten-year-old Amanda Kurowski is used to being taught at home by her mother, Brenda Voydatch. Bible study was part of her curriculum until this year, when a judge ordered Voydatch to enroll Amanda in public school. “The court has stepped in and said that this child and the mother are too religious and the child needs to be taken out of that environment and exposed to other worldviews, and that is a constitutional problem for all of us,” says John Anthony Simmons, Voydatch’s attorney. He took the case pro bono, after the ruling, when he got a call from the Home School Legal Defense Association. “The idea here that home schooling is this cloistered environment in which the mother only breathes her own worldview into this young girl’s head is simply wrong,” says Mike Donnelly, a staff attorney for the Christian group. Donnelly says the court’s order reinforces negative stereotypes. “I really do think in custody disputes homeschooling can be used by one party to attack the other party on another underlying issue.” Amanda Kurowski’s parents divorced just after she was born. They agreed to share decision-making, and if they came to an impasse, to resolve it through a mediator. He also wants his preference to matter as much as his ex-wife’s. Kurowski’s attorney, Elizabeth Donovan, says he’s concerned about his daughter’s overall development. “The issue is not just how she tests, but the other things that come with a public education – the benefits of group learning, group problem solving,” Donovan explains. Brenda Voydatch tried to assuage her ex-husband’s concerns about adequate socialization; she enrolled Amanda in Spanish, Phys-ed and other classes at Interlakes, in addition to her church and other activities outside school. Still, Mr. Kurowski objects, and his lawyer, Ms. Donovan, says it’s not about religion. “He respects his child’s faith – he’s been to the church, he supports her in that,” Donovan explains. “We’re interested in pursuing the best interests of this child, and my client believes her best interests are served overall by attending public school.” Amanda’s mother thinks that could undermine her daughter’s faith. When the case went to court, the judge sided with Mr. Kurowski. The court order says the child is likeable, social, and intellectually at or superior to her grade level. The judge’s order goes on to say, “Amanda’s vigorous defense of her religious beliefs… suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.” Mr. Simmons, Voydatch’s attorney, says the ruling steps on his client’s first amendment right to religious freedom. “Does anyone really believe that this child is going to be exposed to a diversity of religious thought in secular government schools? Really, the court has stated a preference for changing the education to a secular environment.” Harvard Family Law Professor Jeanie Suk says Simmons is wrong. “In a case that involves religion it can often be perceived that some kind of constitutional issue is lurking in court’s reasoning,” Suk explains. But in this case, she adds, the court is not denying parents rights to raise a child as they see fit. “They’re resolving a conflict between two individuals who themselves can’t come to a resolution. So in that case a court has broad discretion to decide what is in the best interests of the child,” says Suk. Just before school started this month, the judge denied an emergency motion to postpone Amanda’s enrollment while her mother appeals the order. If the judge denies that appeal, Mrs. Voydatch says she’ll try to take her case to the state supreme court. comments
All comments are moderated before appearing on the site. Comments must adhere to the NHPR.org comment guidelines and terms of use. |
Support FromHighlights |
I find it so very refreshing that someone finally told both sides of this story, including and another opinion of a professor instead of the very one-sided story of the mother and her attorney who seem to be painting a story that isnt even accurate. Thank you for finally getting the father's view out there! It is past due. I agree with the father and his attorney and with the Court's decision.
I've been both homeschooled, and public schooled, and I am a Christian. I think it's too bad that the judge ruled this way. So what if the mother wants to teach her daughter religion? She can teach 'other worldviews' without having her daughter in public school. One can be both sheltered from all the innapropriate things and still be a well educated person from home. There's no such thing as 'too religious'. Mr. Donnelly is correct in stating that homeschooling is not a cloistered environment.
This is unfortunately, UNCONSTITUTIONAL in all extents. Who is a judge and a court to decide whether my child needs to be plucked out of homeschool when she receives adequate education. I'm sure this woman has homeschool support groups where her daughter can interact with other homeschool children as well as those additional classes she is already taking in public schools.
Distasteful and unconstitutional ruling.
It is NOT illegal or unconstitutional for a court to decide that the father of a child can decide how to educate his child.
That's all the court did here. Mom and Dad disagreed and took it to court and the court sided with Dad. Now mom is complaining because she lost.
If it were only that simple - shame on them for getting to this point in the first place.
This is the best coverage of this ongoing issue thus far. It's about time a reporter and news agency gave Mr. Kurwoski the benefit of the doubt insofar as his motives are concerned. One thing seems to be missing in all the coverage I've seen thus far: Mr. Kurwoski's religious beliefs. Living as I do in a small, but largely populated Polish community in Massachusetts, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's Catholic. Although Catholic teaching urges its followers to abide by God's teachings as found in both Scripture and Tradition, a call for each individual Christian to live a "Biblical lifestyle" isn't so strongly encouraged or expected as much as one would find in many evangelical Protestant denominations or non-denominational congregations. Could it be that Ms. Voydatch's apprehensions about her ex's non-strict and non-evangelical, or perhaps ... "Catholic lifestyle" per se, be her real (ulterior) driving motive in refusing to come to any terms with Mr. Kurowski? What role has the step-father and local minister played in this drama? Perhaps they've been very cooperative. It just helps to know this so everybody gets the fuller picture. This is the kind of story that can lead to solutions and a softening of attitudes; or the opposite. My children are all grown and we raised them in public schools and all of them are Christians. Odd that this woman who seeks to inculcate a "Biblical lifestyle" in her daughter has forgotten what Scripture tells us about The World. While we mustn't surrender to the World (thus putting the creation as a whole before the Creator, God) we still have to live within it. Now how is this girl going to function in the world later if she's going to be so sheltered from it now?
I happen to know several adults that were and they happen to be some of the most well adjusted, open minded, critical thinkers and well educated individuals I know. I realise that the judge was put in a position to make the call, but it was a call that was clearly made without any clear evidence that the child was at risk at home.
Mr. Barrett,
You miss the bigger point of the debate. A judicial body told a parent how to raise a child on religious grounds. That is unconstitutional.
The argument about "lack of socialization" is a facetious argument that does not possess foundational evidence. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Children who are homeschooled have test scores that are 30 percentile points better than their public school peers; have the lowest drop-out rate in college than their peers; and are more gainfully employed than their peers.
Homeschooled children learn to interact with all age groups from small children, to adults, to senior citizens. They are not pigeon-holed with children of their same age, but who may not possess the same maturation level.
The judges decision, based in large part on the guardian ad litem's recommendation, referenced a religious regidity. Please tell me when a court can and should determine that a parent's (or child's) religious regidity should dictate how they are educated.
regards,