Main Contents
[From HSC (Homeschool Association of California); www.hsc.org]
Rehearing in Homeschooling Case
On Monday, June 23, the Court of Appeal in Los Angeles held oral arguments for the rehearing in the In re Rachel L homeschooling/abuse case in California. I flew down for it along with HSC’s lawyers from Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati. Elizabeth Bryant, HSC’s legal co-chair, did all the driving in crazy LA traffic, and Leslie Buchanan, HSC’s president, came to listen. Karen Taylor of CHN was there, as was CHN’s counsel (who’s really an HSC legal volunteer, Jerry Salcido). CHEA’s representative couldn’t come, but their counsel was there. HSLDA came as did the man who worked with me on the brief about the history and efficacy of homeschooling that was filed on behalf of several schools, advocacy groups and businesses such as AtoZHomescool and Diane Flynn Keith. There was a reporter there from the LA Times, but very few people who looked like regular members of the public (security was VERY tight). The court did not permit any TV cameras to show up.
The arguments were long (two and a half hours in a hot courtroom) and thorough. The judges asked lots of questions, with some consistent themes. As soon as you thought you had one judge pegged as to how he or she was thinking, he or she would ask another question that made you wonder about your prior conclusion. They were reasonably generous about letting people finish their presentations or points even if they ran over a little on time.
Some of the attorneys presenting made wonderful arguments that we loved. Others were potentially damaging. Most of the folks on our side did a really good job. One woman from Munger Tolles, who represented CHEA in our joint brief, made a presentation on behalf of all three groups and did very well.
It is absolutely impossible to predict how the court will rule on this — whether it will be narrow, sweeping, or something entirely different, and we don’t want to feed any rumor mill. It’s just too hard to read those tea leaves, although I am sure some people will try.
They have 90 days to do something, which means we should expect a ruling by late September. All three of the big groups will, of course, coordinate to make sure we give consistent advice about how to homeschool come fall, and will work together after the ruling comes out should any change in advice be necessary. If the ruling goes against us, our pro bono firms have assured us that they’re in it for the long haul and will be with us every step of the way.
As before, we encourage everyone to keep on doing what they’ve been doing, to keep showing the world a positive image of homeschooling, to educate their friends and neighbors about homeschooling, and to stay informed.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to write me.
Debbie Schwarzer
HSC Legal Co-Chair
annemiller @ July 1, 2008
|
General |
Comments (0)
[Thanks to Judi Munday for sending us this article!]
Monday, June 23, 2008 (SF Chronicle)
Homeschool is a constitutional right for parents
Damien M. Schiff
Can California force parents to send their children outside the home for their education, regardless of the quality of instruction they receive at home? Today, the California Court of Appeal in Los Angeles will hear arguments in a case raising this issue - the constitutional rights of parents to direct the education of their children. The case arises out of a dependency hearing in which court-appointed attorneys for Jonathan and Mary Grace, two minor children who had been receiving instruction at home, asked the trial judge to order them to attend public school. The judge refused on the grounds that the parents have a constitutional right to homeschool their children. But the Court of Appeal reversed the ruling and interpreted California law as requiring homeschooling parents to have teaching credentials.
Understandably, the appellate court’s decision in February created an immediate controversy with homeschooling and parental rights’ advocates across the nation. Subsequently the Court of Appeal, in an unusual move, decided to withdraw its first decision, request additional briefing, and hear the case again.
But - should the court ultimately rule the same way - a mandate against homeschooling, rather than a focus on the merits of this individual case, makes no sense. For one, the court can resolve the appeal without addressing the constitutional issue by interpreting state law not to mrequire credentialing for homeschool instructors.
Read the rest of the article
Damien M. Schiff is an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation. He submitted a brief to the Second District Court of Appeal, arguing against the court’s earlier ruling that outlawed homeschooling for non-credentialed parents. A link to our brief is at www.pacificlegal.org.
Copyright 2008 SF Chronicle
annemiller @ July 1, 2008
|
General, Legislative |
Comments (0)
- From the HSLDA E-lert Service
Dear HSLDA Members and Friends:
On Monday, June 23, 2008, HSLDA founder Mike Farris argued in defense of homeschooling in the California Court of Appeal in the now-infamous Rachel L. case. In February, this same court had ruled that homeschooling is illegal in California. The court later vacated its own decision in response to a request for rehearing filed by attorney for the father, Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, with substantial assistance by Farris and other attorneys at HSLDA. Farris argued as a friend of the court on behalf of HSLDA’s 15,000 member families in California, as well as Focus on the Family, and Private and Home Educators of California.
Farris was joined in his defense of homeschooling by lawyers representing the Attorney General and Governor of California, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, California’s three largest homeschooling groups (California Homeschool Network, Homeschool Association of California and Christian Home Educators of California), Pacific Justice Institute on behalf of Sunland Christian School, and Alliance Defense Fund lawyer Jeff Shafer, on behalf of the family.
“The weight of legal and scholarly authority presented to this court in defense of homeschooling is unprecedented,” said Farris, who has argued dozens of similar cases since founding HSLDA 25 years ago.
In addition to those who presented oral argument, friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the right of parents to homeschool were submitted by Pacific Legal Foundation, National Legal Foundation, Sutherland Institute, Liberty Counsel on behalf of 13 members of Congress, Gifted Homeschoolers Forum, et al, Seventh Day Adventist Church State Council, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (prepared by noted law professors David Llewellyn, John Eastman, and Erwin Chemerinsky), American Center for Law and Justice and The Western Center for Law and Policy.
Farris is guardedly optimistic that the three-judge panel will not repeat its earlier error, but he covets your prayers. “The homeschooling movement has been successful not because of the work of lawyers but because the Lord has blessed it,” noted Farris. “We must always remember Proverbs 21:1—‘The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever he wishes.’ ”
A decision is expected within a few weeks.
Sincerely,
J. Michael Smith
HSLDA President
To read more, visit HSLDA’s California Homepage.
annemiller @ June 30, 2008
|
General |
Comments (0)
The following article was posted in the Texas Homeschool Coalition Newsletter on May 22. Please keep the situation in Texas in your prayers.
Appeals court rules Texas had no right to seize sect kids
By LISA SANDBERG and TERRI LANGFORD San Antonio Express-News and Houston Chronicle
SAN ANGELO — A Texas appeals court ruled today that a San Angelo judge exceeded her discretion when she ordered the state to take custody of children from a polygamist sect.
The order by a panel of the 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin gave State District Judge Barbara Walther 10 days to vacate her order, which applied to more than 460 children.
Read the rest of the story….
Parental Rights and CPS
By TIM LAMBERT
In April, Texas officials initiated the largest removal of children by CPS (Child Protective Services) in the nation’s history. The removal was instigated by phone calls from a woman who identified herself as a sixteen-year-old girl in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) community near Eldorado, Texas. She said she had been forced to marry a man in his fifties and was being abused. On the basis of her calls, a judge granted a court order to authorities to enter the property of the group and investigate the allegations and to issue an arrest warrant for the man identified as the husband of this woman. The state has now all but admitted that the call was a hoax and has dropped the arrest warrant for the man named. News reports identified the caller as a 33-year-old woman in Colorado, a former member of the sect with a history of making such calls.
The raid with armed officers and tanks resulted in the removal of every child from the property, with mothers initially allowed to accompany their children. According to press reports, almost 500 children were removed from the property without resistance from the parents or families. The sect practices polygamy and arranged marriages of underage girls; by media accounts the members are very industrious and productive and require modest dress for the women, who do not cut their hair or wear make-up.
Texas law requires a hearing to be held within 14 days of the removal of children to review the evidence of abuse/neglect and a judge must rule on whether or not CPS has evidence of abuse/neglect to justify the continued separation of the children and their parents. The judge in this case held a hearing for all the children at the same time with over three hundred attorneys representing the children and parents. Most of the attorneys had never even spoken with the clients they were representing or had access to them. While a case could and should have been made that underage girls who were pregnant or had children should be removed because of the clear evidence of sexual abuse, the judge ruled that all children should remain wards of the state. CPS then separated the children from their mothers, including children as young as 13 months and teen boys, about whom no one had alleged abuse or neglect.
Attorneys for the FLDS parents filed an appeal of this decision with Texas Third Court of Appeals arguing, “… ‘at most’ the Department of Family and Protective Services showed that only one group of children - girls 15 and over - were at risk because of underage marriage practices of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Instead, the state removed all children based on future risk and without considering less-traumatic alternatives for the children.”
This action has resulted in a national focus on the FLDS group and the handling of these kinds of cases by CPS. The controversy stems, in my opinion, from a difference in regard to a view of parental rights. Some argue that the government was justified in taking all of the children in spite of what appears to be a lack of evidence of abuse and/or neglect of some of those children. In fact, CPS claims that all the children are at risk because of what the group believes regarding polygamy and marriage at a young age. The problem with this view is that the law clearly requires evidence that the children are in imminent danger of abuse and, according to legal experts, taking such actions based on what people believe rather than their actions is illegal. The state should not remove children from their parents without clear evidence of abuse and/or neglect.
Some have expressed the opinion that these people are dangerous. They seem to hold this view because of the appearance of the people, their views on dress and make-up, their withdrawal from society, and their teachings that our society is sinful, in addition to their practice of polygamy and underage marriage. In short, they are different from the culture at large, and thus the allegations against them are more believable; also government officials have made the allegations, and therefore, they must be true. Many home educators have responded to these arguments with anxiety, recognizing that many of those comments could be made about many who homeschool as well.
While many of us teach our children the biblical view of government, that God established it for the restraint of evil-doers, we should also emphasize that our government requires the assumption of innocence until the proof of guilt. News stories in Texas have recently reported the 33rd incident of a wrongly- convicted man in a Texas prison who has been proven innocent by DNA testing. This man served 27 years for a crime he did not commit. This should give us pause. We should be careful about believing those accused by CPS are guilty, based only on CPS allegations and news stories.
I have received comments from home schoolers who champion CPS as “heroes for the family 99% of the time.” While this might be true to some extent, it is little comfort for innocent families who happen to be in the percentage of families who suffer at their hands. The attitude exhibited by CPS workers in dealing with the FLDS families was publicized by a report released by John Kight, chairman of Hill Country Mental Health- Mental Retardation Center in mid-May.
“‘We don’t condone what they say went on out there (at the ranch), but we’re just aghast at the methods they used to go out there and take the kids away from their mothers,’ Kight said. ‘We want him (Texas Gov. Rick Perry) to hear first hand what went on, … how abusive CPS was and how they’ve trampled all over their rights.’
“Eleven employees of the Hill Country Community Mental Health-Mental Retardation Center recently provided written reports of their experiences at the request of the regional governing board. Each expressed frustration - and some anger - at how CPS treated the children….
“‘Never in all my life, and I am one of the older ladies, have I been so ashamed of being a Texan and seeing what and how our government agencies treat people,’ wrote one employee of Hill Country Community Mental Health and Mental.” Deseret News, 5-13-2008
One MHMR worker stated, “I witnessed a small boy, maybe 3 years old, walking along the rows of cots with a little pillow saying, ‘I need someone to rock me, I just want to be rocked, I want to find a rocking chair.’ Two CPS workers were following him and writing in their notebooks but not speaking to him or comforting him. Sally and I started toward him but his 8-year-old brother came and picked him up, saying ‘I’ll take care of him.’ ,,,That little boy will always be in my mind. How can a beautiful healthy child be taken from a healthy, loving home and be forced into a situation like that, right here in America, right here in Texas?”
“Chairman John Kight said he wants state legislators and the governor to hear the employees’ stories. ‘You have damaged these children for their lives,’ he said. ‘This is an agency that looks like it’s gone out of control.’” - Salt Lake Tribune, 5-13-2008
The reports by these MHMR workers seem to support anecdotal evidence that we hear from home school families who have experienced similar actions by CPS workers. In fact, the FLDS circumstances are not uncommon. Often an anonymous, malicious, false allegation is made against a family; sometimes children are removed without evidence of abuse/neglect; and it is not at all uncommon for a judge to grant CPS continued custody of children without evidence for as long as 18 months, while the family tries to meet the demands of CPS to regain their children. In the FLDS case, children have been housed all over the state, and some families are being required to travel 1800 miles per week to visit their children, in addition to working to provide for their families and taking the training and testing required by CPS. In fact, some believe that what CPS is requiring of these families is not possible to accomplish.
Texas law requires CPS to investigate any allegation of abuse or neglect, and there are countless examples of anonymous calls resulting in innocent families being put through circumstances similar to what has happened to the FLDS families. Although a statute is in place to prosecute such false claims, they are rarely, if ever, pursued by district or county attorneys. In fact, CPS and the state encourage people with any concern for a child to call CPS. This kind of public exhortation, coupled with aggressive responses by CPS officials, often result in innocent families being harassed and children being emotionally abused.
The THSC office took a call recently from a home school family whose children were standing at the curb of their front yard calling for their dog who had escaped, when a woman stopped her car and told them they should not be outside. The children ran into their home, and the well-meaning woman called the local police who forced their way into the home “because the children were in danger.”
Many have asked, what can we do? Pray for these families and for others who have to deal with CPS investigations. Follow the news that THSC PAC publishes on this and other issues that could impact home schooling. Contact the governor, your state representative, and state senator and express your opinion.
Certainly no one with whom I have talked in the home school community supports polygamy or underage marriage, but many hold the view of the MHMR workers that CPS is out of control and must be held accountable. One MHMR worker stated, “I have worked in the domestic violence/sexual abuse programming for over 20 years and have never seen women and children treated this poorly, not to mention their civil rights being disregarded in this manner. It makes us all wonder how safe anyone is who has children.” Many home schoolers with whom I’ve talked have voiced the same concerns, in my opinion, legitimately.
Read the reports of the MHMR workers
Here are links to letters written by staff members from the Hill Country Community Mental Health-Mental Retardation Center, which provided assistance to FLDS women and children in San Angelo shelters in April. They are critical of conditions in the shelters and how child welfare workers treated the women and children. Sal t Lake Tribune, 05/13/2008
annemiller @ June 30, 2008
|
General |
Comments (0)
From the HSLDA E-lert Service
Dear HSLDA Members and Friends,
On May 19 all the filings of the legal briefs to re-hear the case In re Rachel L. were completed.
The Court of Appeal, which made the fateful decision on February 28, 2008 to declare all homeschooling illegal unless the parent is a certified teacher, will now begin the process of considering the arguments. The current schedule anticipates oral arguments to begin this June.
HSLDA has been at the forefront of the process to defend the right to homeschool in California and across the country. In this case, we were able to successfully help Gary Kreep of the U.S. Justice Foundation, who represents the father at the center of this case, Mr. L., to prepare the arguments to grant the petition for re-hearing. When the Court of Appeal granted the petition for rehearing, the original opinion was vacated and no longer has any legal effect.
Furthermore, in the latest round of filings, we have also been able to provide substantial assistance to the Alliance Defense Fund, which is partnering with the U.S. Justice Foundation in order to make the strongest argument possible to preserve homeschool freedom in California. So much is at stake, and all parties involved have shared their unique perspective to present the best case possible.
HSLDA has also filed a friend-of-the-court brief in conjunction with Focus on the Family and Family Protection Ministries to show the benefits of a home education. These arguments draw on the extensive development of homeschooling and the successful track record of parents educating their children at home.
Also, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has filed a brief in conjunction with the Attorney General of California, which supports a parent’s right to homeschool. Their brief begins with this statement: “Recognizing that home-schooling has a long and positive history in California and across the nation, the State of California provides a broad statutory framework that authorizes and regulates the practice.†In other words, the Governor and Attorney General are strongly arguing for no changes to the current law. To read the brief click here.
While we do not know what the court will decide, you can be confident that hundreds of hours were spent by many different organizations to defend your right to homeschool.
We hope and pray for a successful outcome in this case.
Sincerely,
J. Michael Smith
HSLDA President
annemiller @ June 30, 2008
|
General |
Comments (0)
Accounts do NOT Apply to Virginia Homeschoolers
An alert Update reader asked an important question about the Coverdell Education Savings Account. Does it apply to K-12 education expenses for Virginia homeschoolers?
The Coverdell Education Savings Account (ESA), an account allowing you to save tax free for college expenses as well as K-12 education expenses, applies only to homeschools that are considered private schools. Virginia homeschools are not considered private schools.
22.1-254 (A) states the following: Instruction in the home of a child or children by the parent, guardian, or other person having control or charge of such child or children shall not be classified or defined as a private, denominational or parochial school.
Based on this section of the Virginia homeschool statute, the ESA would not apply to homeschool education expenses for Virginia homeschoolers. We apologize for not realizing this before we posted the article last week!
Blog @ June 26, 2008
|
General |
Comments (0)
A Coverdell Education Savings Account (ESA) is an investment tool
similar to a Roth IRA, except instead of retirement, the money is used
for education expenses. Unlike the “529″ and other plans that help you
save tax free for college education expenses, the ESA is the only
plan that allows you to save for K-12 education expenses as well!
What’s the tax advantage?
Contributions (deposits) to ESAs and interest earned accumulate tax
free, and distributions (withdrawals) are also tax free when used for
eligible education expenses.
What are the contribution limits?
Maximum contributions to ESA accounts are limited to $2,000 per student
per year, up to the student’s 18th birthday.* Almost anyone may
contribute, including grandparents, family friends, businesses, and
organizations. The contributions may all be made to one account, or
multiple accounts may be established for the same student, so long as
all accounts together do not exceed the $2,000 per year per student
contribution limit (or else penalties will be imposed). Also, there are
income limits for individual contributors. Their ability to contribute
to ESAs begins to phase out when their modified adjusted gross income
is more than $95,000 for single filers and $190,000 for joint filers.
Businesses and organizations have no such income limits.
What are the distribution limits?
Distributions must be used for eligible education expenses during the
same calendar year in which the expenses are incurred and within 30 days
of the distribution. All funds in the account must be distributed by the
student’s 30th birthday, or penalties will be imposed.* The funds may
also be rolled over into another ESA or some other education savings
account (a “529″ for example) without penalty, but the new account must
benefit the original student or a relative of the original student.
*Children with special needs are not subject to ESA age restrictions.
What are eligible education expenses?
Eligible expenses for K-college include books, supplies, equipment,
tutoring, tuition, computer hardware and software, and even Internet
access if your students are required to use the Internet in their studies.
Do homeschool expenses qualify?
Yes, in states where homeschools are legally classified as private
schools. In other states, homeschool expenses are not eligible.
Are there disadvantages to ESAs?
There are potential disadvantages to ESAs. First, they are rare in the
investment world. Finding a bank that offers ESAs and a banker who is
knowledgeable enough to gain your confidence could take some detective
work on your part. Next, account service fees and interest rates on
investments vary. It pays to do your homework by asking questions up
front and shopping around before opening an account. Also, you will have
to carefully coordinate withdrawals with other tax benefits (especially
Hope and Lifetime learning credits), and your income tax return could
become a bit more complicated. An experienced tax professional could be
a big help if this is not your area of expertise. Finally, and perhaps
most importantly, unless Congress takes action, certain ESA benefits
will expire after the year 2010: Elementary and secondary expenses
will no longer qualify, the maximum annual contribution will be reduced
to $500, and a tax will be imposed on withdrawals in the years that you
claim a Hope or Lifetime credit.
Where can I find more information?
- HSLDA’s article, “Some Home Schoolers Excluded from Education
Savings Accounts” http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200107200.asp
- IRS Pub. 970, “Tax Benefits for Higher Education”
- Web site: savingforcollege.com
- Local banks, accountants and financial planners.
========================
Beryl Amedee is an experienced homeschool mom, legislative analyst, and
income tax return preparer. This article is intended as information
only, and is not to be used as either investment or tax advice.
Permission to reprint may be granted upon request by contacting Mrs.
Amedee. E-mail: amedees@bellsouth.net. Mail: 200 Rhett Place, Gray, LA
70359.
(c) 2008 Beryl Amedee
Blog @ June 17, 2008
|
Uncategorized |
Comments (0)
We just received this update on the California situation, released March 26 by Roy Hanson’s Private and Home Educators of California. Roy Hanson serves as the legislative consultant for CHEA. Please continue to pray for our brothers and sisters in California.
NEWSFLASH March 26, 2008
From: Roy Hanson’s Private and Home Educators of California
***** ***** ***** *****
For many years we have worked together with all of the statewide
private homeschool organizations in California on homeschool issues.
In the aftermath of the February 28th Appellate Court’s decision in
southern California, we have stayed in close communications with these
organizations. Our goal has been to share critical information with
each other and find common ground on the best strategy to protect our
right to continue home schooling under the private school option.
Private and Home Educators of California is a program division of
Family Protection Ministries. We continue with our full-time presence
at the state Legislature in Sacramento, monitoring and advocating for
private home school freedoms.
The leaders of the five statewide private homeschool organizations are
issuing the following statement.
JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING HOMESCHOOLING IN CALIFORNIA
The following organizations, California Homeschool Network, Christian
Home Educators Association of California, Private and Home Educators
of California and HomeSchool Association of California, represent the
major California-based organizations working on a statewide basis to
support private homeschooling. They, together with the Home School
Legal Defense Association, which also works in California to support
private homeschooling and which has members in California, jointly
issue the following statement:
1. We are united in the goal of protecting the right of parents to
teach their children privately at home without additional governmental
interference.
2. We believe that children deserve to learn in the environment that
best meets their individual needs. We support the right of parents to
direct their children’s education including, if they desire, teaching
their children privately at home apart from any public school program
and without a teaching credential.
3. We believe that the opinion rendered by the Second District Court
of Appeals in the case titled “In re Rachel L.” on February 28, 2008
is excessively broad in its scope and incorrectly states the law as
applied to home education in California.
4. We believe that the interpretation of California law, as understood
by our organizations and by the California Department of Education
prior to the issuance of this decision, is correct, that the interests
of both the State of California in ensuring that children are educated
adequately and of parents in directing their children’s education are
well met by this prior interpretation of law, and that no change in
California law regarding the teaching of children privately at home is
needed.
For further information, please contact these organizations as follows:
California Homeschool Network
P.O. Box 55485
Hayward, CA 94545
1-800-327-5339
http://californiahomeschool.net
Loren Mavromati, President
loren.mavromati@californiahomeschool.net
Christian Home Educators Association of California
P.O. Box 2009
Norwalk, CA 90651-2009
1-562-864-2432
http://www.cheaofca.org
Mary Schofield, Esq., Vice President
maryschofield@cheaofca.org
Private and Home Educators of California
P.O. Box 730
Lincoln, CA 95648-0730
1-916-786-3523
http://www.pheofca.org
Roy Hanson, Director
Jim Davis, Legislative Liaison
contact@pheofca.org
HomeSchool Association of California
P.O. Box 77873
Corona, CA 92877
1-888-472-4440
http://www.hsc.org
Debbie Schwarzer, Esq., Legislative Chair
hsc-legislative@hsc.org
Home School Legal Defense Association
P.O. Box 3000
Purcellville, VA 20134-9000
1-540-338-5600
http://www.hslda.org
J. Michael Smith, Esq.
media@hslda.org
***** ***** ***** *****
Permission is given to reprint this document or distribute it by email
in its entirety without alteration. You are encouraged to link to
this document on our website HYPERLINK
“http://www.pheofca.org/“www.pheofca.org.
***** ***** ***** *****
If you are in any kind of a leadership position supporting private
homeschooling and received this email as a forward from someone else
(rather than directly) and would like to find out how you can receive
it directly, please visit our website HYPERLINK “http://www.pheofca.org” www.pheofca.org and click on “Leaders.”
annemiller @ March 27, 2008
|
Uncategorized |
Comments Off
As a mother of eight (26, 25, 23, 21, 18, 16, 14, 11), I’ve learned–sometimes the hard way–that as my children get older, our relationship must change. I recently came across this helpful list of pointers in Laurie Bluedorn’s “Homeschooling with the Trivium” newsletter, and thought the list could be a blessing to many. With her permission, I’m reprinting it here for you.
At the end, Laurie asks what else needs to be mentioned; I would add it is important to always insist on respect. We can disagree, we can debate, we can endlessly discuss, but it all must be done respectfully. It is also imperative to keep a sense of humor when interacting with our young adult/adult children. We must not take ourselves too seriously. A little humor, and the ability to laugh at both our own and our children’s foibles, goes a long way to reducing tensions and building great relationships. - Anne
How to treat your adult children:
1. The majority of the time that you are talking with your adult child, you should be doing the listening, not the talking. Real and attentive listening. Respectful listening–not appearing to be listening or thinking about what you need to be doing next or what you want to say next, but real listening.
2. Talk to your adult children in the same way which you would talk to any of your peers. Your body language, tone of voice, facial expressions, language, and level of respect should be the same as what you use with your peers.
3. There must be trust. The members of a family must trust each other. Without mutual trust there can be no family peace, order, fellowship, respect, or communion.
4. Address the concerns of your adult children in a timely manner. Don’t continue to put off resolving issues or acting on matters, but have enough respect for your adult children to move forward, making decisions promptly on issues which are important to them. Don’t be eternally saying, “Well, I’m praying about it.”
5. Avoid exaggeration–it undermines trust and respect. Exaggeration is a learned behavior and your children will most certainly adopt the behavior if they see it in you.
6. If children are exposed to a steady stream of negativity and criticism, leveled against them or against others, it will undermine their trust and confidence in you, and it will interfere with their ability to respect you. When the parent is negative and critical, his intended result is that the child will become more discerning and careful. But in actuality, the effect of steady negativity and criticism is usually the opposite–it serves to pull down and inhibit growth, and causes the child to not take the parent seriously.
7. It is most likely that at some time in his life and in some area of his life, your adult child will disagree with your views on different issues, be it politics, nutrition, music, dress, or (gasp!!) theology. Have enough respect for your adult child to discuss these differences in the same way that you discuss differences with your peers.
What else needs to be mentioned? Laurie
annemiller @ March 16, 2008
|
Uncategorized |
Comments (0)
