0 responses so far ↓

• 1 Couple of education items « Principally Political // Jul 7, 2009 at 1:40 pm

  […] at higher levels than their public school peers. More can be found out Lisa Naeger and this case at Missouri Political News Service and Missouri Matters, or the St. Louis Homeschoolers website. There is a rally in St. Charles, […]

• 2 Paul Ground // Jul 8, 2009 at 10:22 am

  I sent a longer response yesterday on Missouri Matters, but I do feel constrained to alert readers that, in my personal judgment, MOPNS description of this matter is misleading and unfair.

  Nothing I know about this case suggests that the State of Missouri, either through the St. Charles County Family Court or otherwise, is seeking to deprive Lisa Naeger of the right to home school her children. Instead, the Court is seeking, as it does in every dissolution case, to resolve disputes between the parties, that is, Lisa and her husband, about the course of their children’s lives.

  In such a situation, it strikes me as completely inappropriate for MOPNS or Missouri Matters to spend its time artificially rallying supporters for Lisa with doomsday descriptions of potential infringement of parental rights. In the first place, the decision of a single circuit or family court in this state has virtually no precedential value, partly because they are trial courts and their decisions do not bind other courts, and partly because those decisions aren’t even reported anywhere. So the idea that some sort of intervention in this matter would have any effect greater than to help Mrs. Naeger personally is ludicrous.

  Secondly, I don’t know Mrs. Naeger. I have no reason to doubt the representations made by several people that she is a fine person and mother. On the other hand, I don’t know Mr. Naeger, either, and have no reason to think he is less competent, less well-meaning, or less caring about his children than is his wife.

  After all, Mr. Naeger is a parent, too. What about his “parental rights?” Don’t they count? Do we propose to intervene in this dispute, waving banners about parental rights, in order to promote the rights of one parent and diminish the rights of the other, all while shouting slogans about “parental rights?”

  In my judgment, due process was created just for such situations. Why not let Lisa have her say, let Jeffrey have his say, let the guardian ad litem, who represents the itnterests of the children, have his say, and then let the Court make a decision based on having all the evidence before it?
  Wouldn’t that be better than whipping up some unwarranted panic aimed mostly at making sure one party gets his or her way?

• 3 teacher // Jul 8, 2009 at 4:19 pm

  I agree with Paul. This is not about the state telling a mom she can’t homeschool. It’s about a soon to be ex-husband wanting his wife to quit homeschooling so she can go to work and he won’t have to pay as much support. The headline is very misleading because no one knows if this mother will be ordered to send her kids to public school. I seriously doubt a judge would do that unless the children are being abused or neglected and there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that. If there was, the kids would have been removed from the home by now.

  Responsible reporting – it’s not just for the MSM, but for blogs as well. That is, if you want to have any credibility.

• 4 another teacher // Jul 8, 2009 at 9:50 pm

  You are both wrong. I have seen what is going on in this case firsthand. The father NEVER had anything to do with his kids’ education until the divorce started – including extra-curricular activities!

  The first meeting the kids’ had with the guardian ad litem left the them in tears. She has charged at least $20,000 in fees thus far. She has been negative about homeschooling from the beginning without attempting to find out anything about it.

  Testing was done on everyone in the family and all that came of it was that the father has problems.

  The kids’ are adamant about not going to school. The mother has provided them with excellent academic education and plenty of social activities. When the children showed signs of reading problems, the mom immediately got them help. She knows their learning needs.

  The previous two commentors are speaking from a very, very idealistic view of the courts. This is not a case that is representing the rights of the children at all.

  It is very unfair for people who have no knowledge of a case to comment on it.

  GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT FIRST – before you do harm to an important case!

• 5 Yet Another Teacher // Jul 9, 2009 at 6:40 am

  I am always amused when people, like Mr. Ground, expound at length about things they know nothing about.

  I agree with “Another Teacher” and may I suggest to Mr. Ground that you go to the meeting Saturday and get the facts before commenting further.

  I have heard Mrs. Naeger speak and I have seen some of her documentation. In my opinion the issue has little to do with the divorce – there are far more significant issues at play here – primarily parental rights issues. The father’s rights are being restricted as well, not just the mothers.

  For the record, I feel the rights of the father should be equally considered, and I hope that they are. I also believe the rights of the children should be considered, especially since they are in high school and are not of a “tender age” – who by the way want to continue homeschooling. I have in my hand a written public statement by one of the children to this effect.

  There are orders and actions that appear, in my humble opinion, to be very disconcerting and should be to all parents, not just homeschoolers and not just one parent or another in a divorce situation.

• 6 Paul Ground // Jul 9, 2009 at 11:56 am

  I’m always amused when someone wants to respond to my outrageous remarks, but is afraid to use his or her name.

  With all due respect, you missed the points, of which there were two. They are simple, and I’ll try to break them down for you.

  (1) It is more than a little inaccurate journalistically to paint an individual dissolution case as a state assault on the rights of homeschoolers. If we want to paint the main-stream media as in thrall to their own political presuppositions, shouldn’t we seek to do better?

  (2) As a general principle, our legal system did away with juries of people who knew the parties about 800 years ago, during the reign of Henry II in England. We decided that better judgments are made by the impartial. So as a general practice, we exclude potential jurors who know the parties and are prejudiced. While dissolutions are not tried to juries, the logic still applies. Everyone should get his or her day in court, and the system should sort it out — not half a dozen of one party’s anonymous pals who are confident they know best.

• 7 B. // Jul 31, 2009 at 4:02 pm

  Mrs. Naeger is in a fight for her rights and all Homeschoolers. The case is very simple, Lisa’s husband has been fine with Homeschooling all along and only now when he files for divorce does he HAVE A CONCERN about homeschooling. The courts have a duty and an oligation to listen to what the kids desire since they are teens. A professional expert testified yesterday that he watched how the children have been doing with their studies and he said they are doing fine. The kids have not been in ANY TROUBLE and they are flourshing. The school districts and many don’t like it when they lose money to homechooled family’s so they fight anything about homeschooling. Those who want to save face in the court are trying to say this is only a divorce case. That is a lie IN THIS CASE IF THE KIDS ARE FORCED AGAINST THEIR WILL TO GO TO SCHOOL THIS COULD HURT ANY AND ALL CASES. I know Lisa and she is a great mother and that is why the kids want to remain having her homeschool them. The father did not have much to do with the kids education, most of their life he admitted it. HE IS BITTER AND TRYING TO PUNISH HIS WIFE! THE FATHER IS A POWERFUL ATTORNEY AND A GOOD OLD BOY! that is what this is about.

Leave a Comment