Religion & Law

Yesterday the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued its ruling on a dispute between divorced parents over their daughter's education.  (HT: Volokh)  The trial court ruled for the father, who wanted to send the daughter to public school, over the mother, who had been home schooling her, and the Supreme Court affirmed.  These sorts of disputes are always thorny because the court by necessity is asked to rule on matters that implicate religious convictions and commitments.  From the Supreme Court's opinion:

In its order, the trial court did not express a belief that daughter needed to be exposed to other religions that were contrary to or different from the beliefs of her parents. Instead, it considered the importance of daughter having the ability to openly communicate with others who have a different viewpoint on a subject matter, whether or not the topic is religious in nature. It also considered the benefits of group learning, group interaction, social problem solving and exposure to a variety of points of view. We reject mother?s contention that the trial court expressed disapproval of her actions in encouraging daughter to share her religious views. Rather, the trial court found that daughter?s firm religious convictions likely stemmed from the amount of time she spends with her mother, considering that daughter primarily resided with, and had been primarily educated by, her mother.

I do not know enough about the case to opinion on what the outcome should have been, and I acknowledge that courts are put in a very difficult position when they're asked to rule under these circumstances.  But I am troubled to the extent that "exposure to a variety of points of view" is a basis for favoring public school in a dispute over a child's education.  This rationale would not be limited to cases involving home schooling, but could also justify a preference against private religious schooling.  I don't think that should be the state's call to make.