2009
New Hampshire Family Court Orders Girl to Public School over Home Schooling Preference of Mother

In a case that is of great consequence to education law, as well as to religious liberties issues more broadly, a New Hampshire state court judge recently removed a girl from home schooling by order.1 On June 14, 2009, Judge Lucinda Sadler of the Laconia Family Division ordered a ten-year-old girl out of religious home schooling and into public school against the wishes of her mother. In The Matter of Martin Kurowski and Brenda (Kurowski) Voydatch,2 “the parties reserved for the court the issue of whether Amanda would attend public school for the 2009-2010 school year, or continue to be home schooled by Ms. Voydatch.”3 The portion of the case discussing the background and decision of the judge ordering Amanda Voydatch into public school is summarized below.
Amanda Voydatch had been home schooled by her mother since first grade. Ms. Voydatch assembled Amanda’s home schooling curriculum from a private university where the materials were created by certified teachers. Since first grade, Amanda has undergone regular standardized testing and is evaluated via interviews and a portfolio review to determine her academic proficiency. Amanda’s curriculum at the time of this hearing included “math, reading, English, social studies, science, handwriting and spelling, Spanish and bible [sic] class.”4 Amanda’s curriculum was comparable to the public school curriculum, except for the addition of Bible class. Mr. Kurowski, Amanda’s father, disagreed with Ms. Voydatch’s decision to home school Amanda because he believed “home schooling prevented adequate socialization for Amanda with other children of her age.”5
In January 2009, Amanda began attending art, Spanish, and physical education classes in the public school. One teacher stated Amanda is “an active participant in classes and is adapting well and making friends and keeping up with the work.”6 Another confirmed that Amanda “seemed to get along and was a pleasant participant in the class, but also said that Amanda might feel more comfortable if she were a member of the class: she did not have as much intimacy with the group as might be expected.”7 However, her art teacher commented that Amanda had a number of absences resulting in unfinished projects.
In February 2009, the Guardian ad Litem recommended Amanda receive counseling. She was then enrolled with a counselor after a pleading in which Ms. Voydatch sought modification of the parenting schedule, alleging that Amanda was “experiencing “extreme difficulty”…[and] “Amanda’s emotional and mental health have been negatively impacted…” by the increased time with Mr. Kurowski.8
The counselor determined that Amanda “appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on issues of religion and faith. Amanda challenged the counselor to say what the counselor believed, and she prepared some highlighted biblical [sic] text for the counselor to read over and discuss, and she was visibly upset when the counselor (purposely) did not complete the assignment.”9 The court determined that the counselor was unable to conclude that Amanda was experiencing extreme difficulty or that extended contact with her father was placing her mental and emotional health at risk. The counselor concluded that frequent continued contact with Mr. Kurowski’s similarly-aged daughter would benefit Amanda.
The counselor also determined that Amanda would be best served by exposure to differing points of view. The counselor’s assessment was that Amanda’s interests, emotional and intellectual development, would be best served in a public school setting where group learning was present, as would be social interaction with similarly-aged children.
The Guardian ad Litem highlighted her concerns that Amanda’s relationship with her father suffers due to Amanda’s religious beliefs. Amanda expressed her belief to the counselor that her father’s refusal to “adopt her religious beliefs and his choice instead to spend eternity away from her proves that he does not love her as much as he says he does.”10 Mr. Kurowski testified that although he and Amanda discuss religion, he believes that exposing Amanda to other points of view will decrease Amanda’s “rigid adherence to her mother’s religious beliefs, and increase her ability to get along with others and to function in a world which requires some element of independent thinking and tolerance for different points of view.”11
In response, Ms. Voydatch acknowledges that she has strong religious beliefs and that she shares those beliefs with Amanda. However, Ms. Voydatch denies that she pushed Amanda to the same belief system. Ms. Voydatch testified that Amanda is upset with the parenting schedule because Mr. Kurowski “bombards [Amanda] constantly” about her faith and that Amanda only reveals her true feelings to Ms. Voydatch, who is “the trusted adult” in Amanda’s life.12
The court determined that the evidence from the Guardian ad Litem, the counselor, and Amanda’s teachers does not support a conclusion that Amanda is a deeply troubled child at risk of emotional and mental damage from exposure to her father. The court found that the evidence in this matter supported a contrary conclusion that Amanda is generally well-liked, socially interactive, academically promising, and is at or superior to grade level. The court continued that:
[d]espite Ms. Voydatch’s insistence that Amanda’s choice to share her mother’s religious beliefs is a free choice, it would be remarkable if a ten year old child who spends her school time with her mother and the vast majority of all of her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view. Amanda’s vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to the counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.13
The court explained that it “is extremely reluctant” to make a determination about Amanda’s education.14 In then making the determination to send Amanda to public school, the court explained that it is “guided by the premise that education is by its nature an exploration and examination of new things” and children require “academic, social, cultural, and physical interaction with a variety of experiences, people, concepts, and surroundings in order to grow into an adult who can make intelligent decisions about how to achieve a productive and satisfying life.”15 The court noted that “it is clear that the home schooling Ms. Voydatch has provided has more than kept up with the academic requirements of the Meredith public school system.”16 But the court determined the issue was whether public school will provide Amanda “an increased opportunity for group learning, group interaction, social problem solving, and exposure to a variety of points of view.”17 The court held that by a preponderance of the evidence, “it would be in Amanda’s best interest to attend public school.”18
The court cautioned in dicta following its holding that it is “mindful of its obligation not to consider the specific tenets of any religious system unless there is evidence that those tenets have been applied in such a way as to cause actual harm to the child” and determined that this evidence did not exist.19 Thus, the court declined “to impose any restrictions on either party’s ability to provide Amanda with religious training or to share with Amanda their own religious beliefs.”20
Amanda Voydatch was then ordered by Judge Lucinda Sadler to attend public school starting with the 2009-2010 school year.
* Nathan Fox is a graduate of Drexel University’s Earle Mack School of Law and Pennsylvania attorney practicing in the Philadelphia suburbs.
Endnotes
1 The Alliance Defense Fund, http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=5050.
2 No. 2006-M-669.
3 In re Martin Kurowski and Brenda (Kurowski) Voydatch, No. 2006-M-669, 1 (N.H. Fam. Div. July 14, 2009).
4 Id. at 2.
5 Id. at 2-3.
6 Id. at 4.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 5.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 6.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 7.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 7-8.
20 Id. at 8.
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].