A New Hampshire woman who has home-schooled her 10-year-old daughter misrepresents her case by arguing that a judge's decision ordering the girl to attend public school “will trip several hot wires in a field full of constitutional landmines.”

Brenda Voydatch has battled her ex-husband, Martin Kurowski, over the education of their daughter Amanda since she began home-schooling her in first grade. Last month, a Laconia (N.H.) family court judge adopted a marital master's recommendation that it would be in the girl's best interests to go to public school in the 2009-10 academic year.

“[T]he Court is guided ... by the premise that a child requires 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,” the master, Michael H. Garner, said in his order.

Kurowski had testified that, in Garner's words, “exposure to other points of view will decrease Amanda's rigid adherence to her mother's religious beliefs.”

Voydatch attorney John Anthony Simmons (left), who is affiliated with the socially conservative Alliance Defense Fund, has filed a motion for reconsideration. “Left unaltered, the decision [ ] will trip several hot wires in a field full of constitutional landmines,” he says.

Under the strict scrutiny standard, the government must advance a compelling state interest when it impinges on parental and religious rights. “In this case, the state has no legitimate interest -- much less a 'compelling' one -- to punish this child by forcing her to attend the local public schools,” Simmons argues.

There may be those who disagree that public education is a form of punishment to which students are sentenced. But Simmons has also disregarded the family law context in which Garner made his decision.

As attorney Kysa M. Crusco says in the New Hampshire Family Law Blog, “[T]his case is not a constitutional matter or a ruling on the merits or value of home-schooling. It is an example of what happens when two parents cannot agree on what is best for their child.”

Although Voydatch has primary custody of Amanda, she shares decision-making responsibility with Kurowski. "When two parents with joint decision-making responsibility disagree and they cannot come to any common ground, we submit it to the court,” Kurowski attorney Elizabeth Donovan said. “The court takes all the testimony and the court renders a decision.”

The evidence before Garner included the testimony of a guardian ad litem appointed by the court to represent Amanda's best interests. “The Guardian ad Litem concluded that Amanda's interests, and particularly her intellectual and emotional development, would be best served by exposure to a public school setting,” Garner said.

Voydatch insisted that her daughter had freely chosen to share her religious beliefs, but Garner said “it would be remarkable if a ten year old child who spends her school time ... and the vast majority of all her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view.”

He also indicated some doubts about Voydatch's credibility:

In considering the testimony of both parties, the Court has also considered Ms. Voydatch's testimony about statements made by the Guardian ad Litem during her investigation and during negotiations, statements specifically rebutted by the Guardian ad Litem's testimony after Ms. Voydatch testified. The Court finds the Guardian ad Litem's recollection and testimony reliable, and has considered this finding in analyzing the reliability of Ms. Voydatch's other testimony.

By Matthew Heller
9/14/09