1. Stability: The "one week on, one week off" schedule has children constantly bouncing back and forth between each parent. They barely settle with one parent before they are moved to the other, and then the pattern just keeps repeating. While seen by many to be more "fair" in terms of time for the parents, what is overlooked is how grossly unfair it is on young children who, especially in a divorce situation, need stability. It is the legal equivalent of Solomon cutting the baby in half - except there's no hidden wisdom or reprieve, the baby really does get cut in half, 50/50, between both parents. Only selfish parents, or a self-serving judge, would be satisfied with such a "solution."
2. History: For years, the standard visitation for fathers was weekends, or every other weekend plus an evening or two. It was a system that worked, and that provided much needed stability for the children. They were given the time and consistency to settle with the mother, while maintaining much the same relationship with the father that most would have had anyway. The courts stuck with it because, generally, it worked well. However, in recent years, political-correctness and liberalism have started to erode basic common sense, and the result is the ever-descending spiral of chaos that we see today.
3. Reality: Most fathers don't spend 50% of the time with their children anyway, even in a "happy family," non-divorced scenario. Generally, a father doesn't spend anywhere close to the amount of time with his children - especially young children - as the mother does. Weekends and a few evenings are about all most children get with their fathers anyway - if they're lucky. In many cases, it's even less than that. So giving such a father a 50% custody split in a divorce makes absolutely no sense.
4. The Mother Bond: Like it or not, it's a scientific fact that children have a greater bond with their mother in many significant ways. It's a scientific fact that it's the mother who carries the child for nine months, who gives birth, who nurses, feeds and cares for the baby in its earliest life. In the majority of cases, it's also the mother who continues to play this same role throughout the childhood years. To be sure, fathers have an important role of their own to play - and no-one's advocating cutting out fathers - but it's not "50/50." Until fathers start giving birth to their own children, there will always be a strong moral and scientific argument to support mothers getting a higher percentage of time by default.
In Venessa Mills' case, some people - including Judge Mangum - have tried to make a big deal of her supposedly unreasonable demands to limit the visitation given to her husband. Of course, these people conveniently ignore the fact that Venessa was given no time to negotiate, and no peace from persistant badgering by her adulterous husband whom she was forced to continue living with while Judge Mangum postponed court proceedings due to an emergency with his dog. Or the months of constant attacks and attempts to undermine her and her children's religious beliefs. Or the fact that Mr. Mills admitted in court that he had spent time with his mistress that he could have been spending with his children. Or the fact that Judge Mangum defended Mr. Mills as having "no criminal record" - despite the fact that adultery is still a crime in North Carolina (NC statute 14-184).
Under the circumstances, only a heartless, ignorant, or prejudiced individual would fail to understand Venessa Mills' demands, or fail to see that they were solely motivated by her desire to protect her children, or refuse to accept that there was still room for negotiation had she been allowed it.
Judge Mangum, however, managed to completely ignore all common sense and non-hearsay evidence by ruling that it was in "the best interests of the children" to punish and ridicule their mother, split their time 50/50 between both parents and - on top of all that - to disrupt them further by uprooting them from four years of homeschooling and forcing them into public school.
This kind of injustice and opinion is what now passes as "in the best interests of the children" in our courtrooms. Anyone who dismisses this case as having no bearing on homeschool rights, or no bearing on them, will only have themselves to blame when they finally wake up and discover that they are in the same situation.
Posts
3 comments:
Ms Williams
I have been following your blog about this case and have a slightly different perspective to share.
1. The written court order: The language in this order is very typical of how formal legal findings are presented for the formal record. So this is not unusual.
2. You have expressed concern about Mr. Mills affair which I agree was wrong. I will challenge you the Mrs. Mills involvement in the Sound Doctrine Church was also a type of affair: her affections moved from the husband to the founders of the church. This is a type of emotional affair which can be just as devastating to a marriage.
3. Ms. Mills is the person that moved to cut off most of Mr. Mills contact with the children. I believe that parenting is the responsibility of both parents. You say that 50/50 is not good for the children, well maybe the children should live with the father full time and he can have primary care responsibility.
4. I am a pediatric nurse and am very concerned about what is recorded in the court record about the mother's behavior toward the children. Forcing a child to urinate on themselves can be considered a form of child abuse! I find it very telling that Ms. Mills parents, siblings and friends have all expressed concern about the changes in her behavior since joining this new church.
5. Even the HSLDA has issued a statement that this is not about home schooling but a civil matter about divorce and the HSLDA does not feel that this should have any effect on parents who chose to home school. I respect the work of the HSLDA and look to them to have a reasonable view on the legal issues related to home schooling.
6. My perception is that you have decided that the father is evil and the mother is good. But according to the recorded findings the father is very involved in a different church.
7. I simply do not agree with you and feel that you need to present a more well rounded perspective on the topic. I think, this involves more than home-schooling. The order also says that the change should occur at the beginning of the next school cycle.
8. You have attempted to make the Ms. Mills appear blameless and present Mr. Mills as an evil/villain in the case. The truth is probably that both parents bare responsibility. If Ms. Mills is so concerned about being around Mr. Mills then she could have moved out rather than complaining about when he moved out.
9. This case is very complicated, as most divorce cases are. The break up of a marriage is never easy or simple. Also from the published ruling it sounds like things have changed with the home schooling and there are concerns that the children are no longer "thriving" like they have in the past. Several findings were noted in the Judges ruling that refer to this change.
10. You seem to have decided that the judge is wrong simply because he does not support your point of view. Yet others think he is correct because the ruling supports their view. The judge had to make a decision and did. Just because someone testifies in court does not make them credible and the Judge did not find some of the testimony supporting Ms. Mills to be credible.
Finally: Why did Ms. Mills attorney of record request to be removed from the case? This is very telling to me because this request came from the attorney and not Ms. Mills.
Thanks for listening to this long post.
A Pediatric RN in the south
To the nameless person above:
1. The written Court order is completely different from the verbal ruling the Judge gave. Have you listened and compared?
2. Venessa Mills' church teaches its members to love their husbands/wives. She was involved with this church for over 5 years, yet the divorce only arose after Mr. Mills committed adultery. Sorry, but tour interpretation is incorrect and not based on any knowledge of the church or the marriage.
3. Actually, Mr. Mills also originally filed to cut off Venessa Mills from any custody. It's a typical "opening move" that attorneys play on each other. I'm afraid people don't have all the facts on this.
4. Even the Court Order does not state that a child was "forced" to urinate on himself. Nor did the judge find any evidence of child abuse. Twisting facts and making accusations of that kind - without full knowledge of the situation - is dangerous and downright irresponsible.
5. I respect the HSLDA, too. The HSLDA is entitled to their opinion, but their stance is more concerned with not getting involved in a divorce than any real consideration of the homeschooling issues.
6. This blog states the facts. It does not make judgments on who is good or evil.
7. Judge Mangum presented an entirely one-sided picture of this case. By letting people know the other side of the story, and the facts that the judge left out, I am giving a more "well rounded" perspective. You're right, this involves more than homeschooling. There are far greater issues of injustice here. But the judge's original comments refer to homeschooling, and - regardless of any other issues - those comments were made and should be addressed.
8. Again, you are making judgments on situations without having all the facts. Her moving out was not an option.
9. There was nothing in the judge's ruling suggesting that the children were not "thriving" in homeschool or that anything had changed. The children are still doing very well in homeschooling.
10. The judge's original ruling was not consistent with his written Order. His remarks were not consistent with the facts of homeschooling. His conclusions of law do not match up with his findings of fact. Whether you or I agree with the judge's decision or not, the facts show that it is inconsistent and flawed. He should own up that he made a mistake instead of trying to cover it up.
11. Again, you are not familiar with all the facts or legal procedure. The attorney has to inform the judge of her withdrawal. It doesn't mean that the request came from the attorney and not Mrs. Mills.
2. I will challenge you the Mrs. Mills involvement in the Sound Doctrine Church was also a type of affair....
I love my cat. He takes time away from my husband to feed him and care for him. My cat even tells me *when* to feed him and *when* to play with him. Sometimes my cat gets right in between my husband and me when we have some time to spend together and demands my attention. In fact, he is rather jealous acting when anyone gets near me. Am I having an emotional affair with my cat?
While I have known some people to loose a healthy balance between church obligations and family, there are other ways that a mature, responsible person can keep his commitment with his wife and work on those issues instead of seeking his own pleasure with another woman. Did he try to seek help for their marriage?
If he felt the marriage was over, he should have done the responsible thing of leaving the home himself. If he did not do either of these things--even if his attorney told him not to--it would tell me a great deal about his character, which is not being evaluated.
3. You say that 50/50 is not good for the children, well maybe the children should live with the father full time and he can have primary care responsibility.
It think 50/50 thing is ridiculous and very hard on the children, but better that than to have the children live full-time with someone who does not work at keeping together the marriage that produced them. How does one say, "Even though I had an affair and did not keep my commitment to your own mother, that does not mean that I won't keep my commitment to you and work things out between us if we have a problem."
8. If Ms. Mills is so concerned about being around Mr. Mills then she could have moved out rather than complaining about when he moved out.
Do you mean *without* her children, whom she is educating in that home?
Wow! It really is sad what our society has come to. Why doesn't the one who wants out of the marriage, evidence by the one who is stepping out on his spouse, be the one to leave. That would be the responsible thing to do--but when someone is acting irresponsibly...I guess that is a bit much to expect.
I am not on either side in this particular case, but I admit to a bit of bias. Being devoutly religious, without evidence of abuse, is not acting irresponsibly. An affair does not necessarily make the person an abusive or bad parent, however it is a symptom of one's irresponsibility. I don't like children ending up with the parent who has been exhibiting the least responsible behaviors.
Post a Comment
Comments representing supportive or opposing views are welcome, provided they are genuine and reasonable. Anonymous comments are fine, but attacks hiding behind anonymity are more likely to be rejected.
If your comment does not appear, feel free to e-mail me at homeschool.injustice@gmail.com.