Canadian children (including a toddler) ordered to school for "socializaion"

Oh dear me. Oh dear. I'd love to hear from some Canadian friends about what recourse this family might have. Please tell me this isn't the final word!

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/201105060.asp

 

Oh, my! As if preschool was the kind of scoialization a child needed!

 

Wow. As a Canadian I would have to think that there are other circumstances involved. Neglect isn't a term we throw around lightly. If though it is as cut and dry as the article made it sound then thats just rubbish. To not even allow them the right to speak on their own behalf or have witnesses/testimony seems more then a might fishy. However being that it is Quebec I can't say I am overly surprised. And having spoken to other parents I really do think there is an overall lack of education in the public as to what homeschool means. I would love to see more homeschool organizations educate the public rather then hide in fear of this sort of thing happening. I also think it's ridiculous to demand a three year old needs socialization outside of the home.

 

I'd be careful assuming too much. I've read similar stories where an injustice seemed to be happening but inevitably there are other issues and much more to the story.

Oh yeah, hi all.

 

I think there's more to this story. Now, I live Ontario, not Quebec, but according to my lawyer friend the only time truancy ever becomes a legal issue is when there are other complicating circumstances such as abuse, neglect or delinquency.

In my personal experience, all I had to do was call the school and inform them we'd be withdrawing our child. No one ever contacted me. No one checked up on us or asked me what (if anything) I was teaching. In a newspaper story about a sick home-bound child, a school official was actually quoted as saying, "If they're not enrolled in our school district, they're not our responsibility."

I'm wondering if this "homeschooling" family was like the family I used to sell comics to when I was a university student. They'd come into the store all in a group - six kids ranging in age from four to about sixteen. They all had identical haircuts - buzzed on the boys and girls, except the girls got to keep the barest fringe around their hairline. Their clothes were dirty and all matching (sack dresses on the girls, slacks on the boys). And they SMELLED. Especially the older ones. It was hard to even have them at the counter, because there was literally a cloud of foulness around them, like they'd never had a bath in their lives. The little ones and the girls never spoke. The oldest boy did all the ordering, in kind of a hushed whisper, not looking in anyone's eyes.

I always thought their parents were doing something really bad to those kids. But they came to our store every week for years. Far as I know, they still are.

 

If the children were being abused in some way, wouldn't the state have taken them into their custody? How is putting them in public school helping anything? Especially the two youngest who are younger than compulsory age?

This just doesn't make sense.

 

I agree. I have no idea what the laws are in Canada, but it seems like if they were concerned for the general well-being of the children- including neglect- they would need to do a lot more than make them go to school for part of the day.


btw- I also knew children who 'smelled' ... but it was because their parents made homemade soap and I was used to the perfumes put in the store bought stuff (not that that was what was going on with the sack-dress kids, but just thought I'd share)

 

I have four sons. They always smell bad. And all the perfumed-soap in the world won't change that.

 

LOL!!! Faythe has smell about her a lot. She'll have just got out of the shower, and she'll STILL smell! I've come to the conclusion that it's just her body and metabolism. And I've explained to her that, because of that, it is esential for her to be sure to shower EVERY DAY, etc. And she HAS improved! But she sometimes forgets that when she gets out of the shower, she needs to put on fresh deoderant.

 

Seriously? Body odor aside. Yes if there was actual neglect in any harmful way the kids would have been taken from the parents. But I know its late so I don't recall. But I don't think the article said the kids were still with the parents or not. It could be they were removed from the home in which instance of course foster care is required to send them to the local school.

 

Jackie: Does your Faythe take garlic pills? I remember growing up that my mom would try to get me to take garlic pills but would tease me that if I took too many, I'd smell like garlic, that it would ooze out of my pores. She never explained how much was too much! (Yeah, good going, Mom! That really makes me want to take garlic now!!)

 

The article says nothing of being removed from the home or foster care. Which, I assume from past articles, HSLDA would have been all over broadcasting. "Children removed from home for homeschooling" would have been a much better story than "Children ordered to school." So I am assuming they are still with the parents.

The article says the parents were originally reported for neglect, but the trial centered around homeschooling. Which, again, assuming that's the case, leads one to believe that there was no abuse or neglect. Which then begs the question: why on earth were they ordered to school!? And it says the children will be allowed to return to homeschooling if/when YPS approves the family's plan for socialization (a plan it also says is unlikely to ever be approved). So, again, it seems socialization is the only issue.

 

I agree. If the kids had been pulled from the home, it would have said so. I'm going to try and find a local report about this.

Mom 2 3: No, Faythe doesn't take garlic pills. We have a VERY Italian neighbor, a large man who sweats a great deal, and I'm aware of the effects of "too much" garlic, lol!

ETA: Here's one I found: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/quebec-judge-orders-three-year-old-into-daycare-for-socialization I didn't notice anything about "neglect", but it did say they hadn't filed for the proper exemption.

 

Folks, I LOVE the smell of garlic (I cook with it constantly). And I would never judge a teen for being a bit whiffy, having a couple of teens myself.

Let's just say we could tell when these kids walked into the store without even seeing them. And they smelled like a dumpster, not like garlic or patchouli or organic soap. Our other customers would clear out when they came in. It was bad, and in retrospect I'm sorry I never called the Children's Aid society (although they were probably already in their radar)... but I was 19 and taking my cue from the older employees in my store. And they told me there was no point.

The CAS is overburdened and foster homes are stuffed full and in general the state would prefer not to take children out of their homes unless there's actual danger to the child. Yes, this judge may be bigoted against homeschoolers and completely off the wall in his judgement. That happens sometimes (though I've never heard of it locally, thank goodness). However, the judge may also be ordering them into school so that there will be outside eyes on the family. It may be an alternative to removing the children from the home entirely.

 

Although, I have to say, THIS link sure makes the judge sound right out of his mind!

So, I'll go with the "just plain wrong" judge option based on this. Hopefully the family have a good lawyer!

 

No kidding!

A hearing impairment is a sign of neglect??? Unless mom or dad someone directly contributed to the child having the impairment in the first place, that's just a completely asinine thing to say!!!

 

I agree! Mild-to-moderate hearing impairment is notoriously hard to diagnose. Even school kids get missed!

I'm curious about the "opposing educational outings for the children" part, though. Most homeschoolers make good use of libraries, museums and galleries, so I'd be very surprised if this family doesn't.

 

Since when were "educational outings" a requirement for homeschooling? That's like saying I'm neglectful because my kids have never been served liver.

 

I don't know... I've never heard of a homeschool family that didn't at least encourage their kids to use the library. Or take them shopping so they can try counting money in the real world. Or take them to the post office to mail letters. "Educational Outings" are part of learning how to be a member of society, and just about any ordinary outing counts. If their refusal to take their kids out speaks to a larger pattern of family isolationism, that's potentially an issue.

If this is a case of "we don't want our children contaminated by contact with other human beings", rather than just an, "I'm too busy to take them swimming/ to the library/ to a homeschool group...", that's kind of worrying.

However, if the judge just thinks the kids should be dragged off to museums every week, well then yes... that's like punishing the parents for never serving liver.

 

And consider what you learned on those field trips in ps.


I don't know about you guys, but it was always hurry-hurry-hurry-hurry. We never got to READ the plaques, never really understood much of what we were looking at.

I took my kids to the State Museum. ds had been there TWICE with the school.. and he still hadn't seen half of the exhibits (and it's a small museum... they don't really change displays)

I have this vague memory of the Boston Museum of Science with ps. I can only remember one exhibit.. and the gift shop :roll: