Parental Rights

[K-Mac]

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4727161/

A judge in Wake County said three Raleigh children need switch from home school to public school. Judge Ned Mangum is presiding over divorce proceeding of the children's parents, Thomas and Venessa Mills.

"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.

In an affidavit filed Friday in the divorce case, Thomas Mills stated that he "objected to the children being removed from public school." He said Venessa Mills decided to home school after getting involved with Sound Doctrine church "where all children are home schooled."

Thomas Mills also said he was "concerned about the children's religious-based science curriculum" and that he wants "the children to be exposed to mainstream science, even if they eventually choose to believe creationism over evolution."

In a verbal ruling, Mangum said the children should go to public school.

So which parent should be allowed to decide how to educate the children in this situation? I am thinking that whomever has full custody of them should be able to decide, but perhaps the father wanted them and didn't "win" them in court or perhaps there's shared custody? Then what?

[intellectualammo]

So which parent should be allowed to decide how to educate the children in this situation? I am thinking that whomever has full custody of them should be able to decide, but perhaps the father wanted them and didn't "win" them in court or perhaps there's shared custody? Then what?

Well, the court also has say in it with the "best interest of the child" Wiki and that's what it looks like the judge is going with in this case, according to this. Right now the judge hasn't signed an official written ruling on this yet, just verbal (whatever that means legally)

Judge Ned Mangum said last Friday that it would be in the "best interests" of Venessa Mills' three children to go to public school this fall.

Edited March 13, 2009 by intellectualammo

[Jake_Ellison]

Boy meets girl. They talk about marriage, children, about how to raise those children etc. Girl never mentions anything about a cult and raising the children at home, in accordance with the teachings of the Bible. So the boy asks her to marry him, and they go ahead with the plan. Everything's going great, until...

Ten years later: Girl joins cult and decides to take the children out of school, and raise them in accordance with whatever rules the cult made up. I'd say the father has a clear cut case here: not only should the kids stay in school, but the father should get full custody.

The mother is behaving erratically and irrationally, therefor has no business raising children. Even if we were to find no difference between the quality of education the kids get at home, and what they get at school (and there is a difference, the Bible is rubbish), it's clearly in the children's best interest to stay with the parent who is sticking to the original plan.

And, finally, in the case of a shared custody (which is what usually happens), both parents have to sign off on any major changes in their children's life. Unless the father agrees too, the children cannot be taken out of school by anyone.

[intellectualammo]

And, finally, in the case of a shared custody (which is what usually happens), both parents have to sign off on any major changes in their children's life. Unless the father agrees too, the children cannot be taken out of school by anyone.

And types of shared/joint custody can be:

joint legal custody

joint physical custody

joint legal and physical custody

[K-Mac]

The mother is behaving erratically and irrationally, therefor has no business raising children. Even if we were to find no difference between the quality of education the kids get at home, and what they get at school (and there is a difference, the Bible is rubbish), it's clearly in the children's best interest to stay with the parent who is sticking to the original plan.

Well, frankly, I agree with you about the mother being irrational and such, but can a person not change? What if one parent goes from being religious to atheist...does the religious parent suddenly not have any say in the kid's education just because they changed? (And for the better, I might add.)

What if the situation were like mine. I got my divorce after discovering Objectivism. Let's say there were children involved and my ex doesn't want me sending them to a Montessori school because he thinks it has to do with my Objectivist "cult" status. (lol! I'm not kidding...he thinks I'm crazy.) Anyway, perhaps the mother is giving them a good education less the science/Bible stuff...if it's not illegal or some form of abuse, why does she lose her rights? What if they were in a Catholic school? Hmmm...

[Jill]

The children should decide.

[DavidOdden]

The children should decide.

Why? They don't have the basis for making a rational decision. So why should children decide their fate?

[Jill]

Because it's theirs.

[Greebo]

Why? They don't have the basis for making a rational decision.

You don't know that for certain, but I agree it is probably true.

So why should children decide their fate?

I think their input should be considered. Whether or not they should be allowed to decide depends on the parent's evaluation of the child's ability to make a rational decision.

Jill: Following your line of thinking, if a child wants to eat nothing but candy, it should be allowed, because the child's body is theirs.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Greebo

[Jill]

I don't even think anyone can decide if someone else is rational or not and take their freedom away on that basis.

If there's a good reason not to eat candy the whole day, the parents can explain that, in terms the child can understand. They should also ask why does the child want so much candy. Maybe the meals they offer are not very pleasant and they need to improve that.

The children in this court case know the parents better than anyone else. They lived with them. How can anyone else dictate what life they should have?

Edited March 23, 2009 by Jill

[K-Mac]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's ridiculous to let the children decide. If the child is well into their teenage years...perhaps 15 or older, maybe, but you can't ask a 7 year old what's best for them with regards to their education and expect a reasonable answer. How would they know?? (Much less have the emotional maturity to decide between mommy and daddy?)

So back to my original question...how can the courts decide this in a reasonable way when the parents won't (and children can't)?

[Jake_Ellison]

I don't even think anyone can decide if someone else is rational or not and take their freedom away on that basis.

Why not?

These definitive, unexplained rulings don't work for me. You might as well just say what the mother said: God wants the children home-schooled.

The reason why children aren't free is precisely because they don't have the ability to make rational decisions. You can explain to them anything you want, using any terms you want, and most children will still decide to go to school at Disney World from now on.

[Greebo]

I don't even think anyone can decide if someone else is rational or not and take their freedom away on that basis.

Are you suggesting that a child is born with their ability to implement reason fully intact?

If there's a good reason not to eat candy the whole day, the parents can explain that, in terms the child can understand. They should also ask why does the child want so much candy. Maybe the meals they offer are not very pleasant and they need to improve that.

Okay --- you try that...let me know how that works out for you.

[DavidOdden]

I don't even think anyone can decide if someone else is rational or not and take their freedom away on that basis.

But obviously you can. There is no serious question by that 2 year old children lack the cognitive faculty to survive on their own. Freedom is not an axiomatic good, it is good only when a being has the capacity to exist qua man, living by reason. That is impossible for children at a certain age. And it is cruel to force children to live with the consequences of their unfettered disability.

[intellectualammo]

If the child is well into their teenage years...perhaps 15 or older, maybe, but you can't ask a 7 year old what's best for them with regards to their education and expect a reasonable answer. How would they know?? (Much less have the emotional maturity to decide between mommy and daddy?)

From what I understand, depending on what state the child/parent(s) reside in, I think around the age of 12-16, a child can decide which parent that they want to reside with. I think any earlier than what the age that that particular state imposes, the judge or authority can at least listen to the child in court, which might, or could, have some influence in the decision making and ruling.

[intellectualammo]

I think their input should be considered. Whether or not they should be allowed to decide depends on the parent's evaluation of the child's ability to make a rational decision.

I agree with this. Though pretty soon I will not have any legal/financial responsibility for my daughter, if she were to approach me after having read, say, The Teenage Liberation Handbook by Grace Llewellyn, and wants me to consider her desire to be an unschooler (as that book will help her in trying to bring this up to a parent to consider) then I would conider it, but then tell her how important the heirarchy of knowledge is in education, guided learning (depending upon of course WHO is the guide and HOW and they guide), methods, etc. and that unschooling would not offer any such structure, unless we were to suppliment our own into it. But I would consider it, because Daddy has learned so much on his own with all the self-directed learning that he did, and is continually doing, which was way more of an education than he had gotten from the public school system (read: government education installations as per C. Bradley Thompson from ARI calls them aptly) that he was forced to attend by compulsory attendance laws. Or if she were to get a hold of one of Daddy's Truancy novels by Isamu Fukui, and doesn't want to go to school and be a truant, if she can't be an unschooler...

But regardless, if I am still in her life by then, which I very well could be, depending on how this whole step-parent adoption thing goes, I don't think I would ever stop listening and stop considering what a child/teenager wants, or thinks, or more likely feels, what is good for them, in education, in a lot of things. I know when I was younger, I wanted to be listened to.

Reminds me of what Marilyn Manson said when asked what he would have said to the Columbine school shooters: (to paraphrase, recalling from memory)

"What would you have said to them?"

MM: "Nothing. I would have listened to them."

[RationalBiker]

If there's a good reason not to eat candy the whole day, the parents can explain that, in terms the child can understand. They should also ask why does the child want so much candy. Maybe the meals they offer are not very pleasant and they need to improve that.

And if the child insists on an exclusive candy diet anyway?

How about rat poison? Should the parent allow their 2 year old to eat rat poison if it wants?

[softwareNerd]

Some good posts about the court-case, from lawyer Timothy Sandefur here, with follow-ups here and here blog.

[RationalBiker]

I would really like for Jill to answer my questions. I don't think she has seriously though through the ramifications of dealing with a child who will not always respond to rational instruction, something inherent in pretty much all children due to their as yet underdeveloped rational capacity.

Edited March 26, 2009 by RationalBiker