Homeschooling plan discarded by judge – not good enough

A North Carolina judge – ruling in a civil case – has ordered three kids to attend public school in the fall. The kids routinely tested better, were active in outside-the-home clubs and involved in sports activities; but that was not good enough “rounding” for Judge Ned Mangum.

The decision came down in a divorce case between the mother and father. The father cheated on his wife, and since he was moving out, he’d have to provide child support to mom. Homeschooling means mom would stay at home.

Dad did not like that idea and the judge agreed. So since dad messed up, the kids will get the short end of the stick.

Most likely, when the family was together, dad was fine with mom staying home with the kids. But now since he’s not there – due to his adultery – the poor man’s expenses have gone up. He wants mom to go to work.

The terrible thing here is that the kids are hurt.

Read the full story over at World Net Daily, but here are a few excerpts.

A statement released by a publicist working for the mother, whose children now are 10, 11 and 12, said [Judge] Mangum stripped her of her right to decide what is best for her children’s education.

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.”

“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. …

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.”

I’d say dad does not believe continued homeschooling is in the best interest of his wallet.

Pam Geller over at Atlas Shrugs thinks you should get on the horn and request the judge be removed from the case. A Web site has been set up by supporters with more details.

2 replies
  1. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Since when is the "best interests of the children" a second or third rate government school "education?

Comments are closed.