Friday, March 20, 2009

Liberals Stole My Children!

christian, christianity, religion, sound, doctrine, mills, custody, home schooling, jesus, god, religion, bible, child, abuse,
You know, or not.

Hat tip to The Panda's Thumb for finding the actual Court documents relating to this case. (If you haven't checked out The Panda's Thumb, you should. I only understand about one in three words of some of their posts, but it's still really interesting. And if you only read about what you already know, how would you learn anything new?)

The christosphere has been abuzz with stories of a woman who is losing custody of her children because she dared to homeschool them and raise them as good christians. In fact, check out this email from the Christian Anti Defamation League:

Dear Personal*,

A North Carolina Judge, Ned Magnum, has a issued an order that three homeschool children be returned to public school next year as part of a pending divorce settlement. This ruling is against the wishes of a Christian homeschooling mother Venessa Mills. Venessa has been homeschooling her children, ages 10, 11, and 12,for the past four years, taking them out of public schools in 2005. The father, Thomas Mills, who is an admitted adulterer, wants the children to go to public school. He is opposed to the children being exposed to "religious-based science curriculum."Judge Magnum must now decide between two competing sets of parental wishes. The way this is settled will set a very important legal precedence. The judge must decide what is in the best interest of the children. But under this very vague standard much havoc can be wrecked. Parental rights of homeschooling parents can be undermined as well as unintended harm done to the children.

Read more about the Judge's critic of homeschooling and why this is a threat to its future.


Dr. Gary L. Cass

P.S. Many Christian families choose to homeschool their children instead of placing them in private or public schools. Yet, as seen in the case of Venessa Mills, this right might be taken away soon. Click here to read more about this case and why it is so important.

Wow! That sounds really dire, doesn't it? Interfering with peoples' religion and how they raise their children- hardly sounds American at all, does it?

Because that's not what happened.

As the Mills v. Mills Temporary Custody Order shows, the issue wasn't homeschooling at all.

Mrs. Mills joined a cult (don't get me started on the difference between religions and cults. We will be using the accepted definition of cult for the purposes of this post.) and went from what everyone, including her exhusband, described as a "loving mother" to an abusive control freak.

According to a member of the cult that has since left, the leader of the cult "directed me to develop a 'boot camp style' program to instill better manners in my children. The point of this program . . . should be to 'break' the children and to establish my authority as a parent, so that the children would obey me right away. The program that I ultimately devised, and that [the cult leader] approved, involved waking the children up in the middle of the night to do push-ups and physical exercises, and screaming at them 'boot camp style.' This program lasted approximately one month. My children were ages 11, 7 and 4 at this time. During this month of 'training', my middle child became stressed out to the point of throwing up. When I informed [the cult leader] that she was stressed out and need to lie down and rest, he told me that she did not need rest, but she needed to work and that I needed to 'break her.'"

As an example of what Mrs. Mills was doing to her own children at the behest of the cult leader, we have this testimony: "The children were in the kitchen doing dishes and Daniel asked for permission to go to the bathroom. Mrs. Mills said that Daniel had to stay and finish the dishes. Instead of going to the bathroom, Daniel urinated in his pants right there in the kitchen, soaking the floor." Daniel would have been 8 years old at that point.

This is not a religion issue or a homeschooling issue, and I find it appalling that people are defending this woman's abusive behavior in the name of defending Christianity.


  1. This sort of behaviour is child abuse. But of course, reality is meaningless to the defenders of this cultist. It's just their persecution complex at it again.

  2. Undoubtedly, they would reject her as apostate under any other circumstance, but in this one, she's a crusader for the christian way.

    Hypocrisy, much?

  3. I freaking love being on the CADL mailing list. I don't blog about it very often since they're such a bunch of nuts (of the phylum absurdius-fringe-ass-hatteri) but it makes for good mid-poop reading. I called them out on a similar truth stretch when they insisted that Christians' freedom of speech is being infringed upon. It's a long story but basically a bunch of CADL douchenozzles decided to march into a gay pride celebration (with requisite city permits) with anti-gay messages blaring from bull horns and signs. The police probably saved their pathetic lives taking them into custody. It would have been an especially fabulous and colorful lynching though.

    Super J.

  4. Breaking children. Wow. I see why they think this persecution of Christians though. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" and all that. And apparently the original letter got the children's ages wrong. Either that, or the youngest one became 6 years older while the other only became one year older due to some kind of time warp.

    It's truly sick that people would think to physically and mentally tax their loved ones to the limit for the sole purpose of making them controllable. The term "control freak" is insufficient to describe such a person, because control freaks aren't nearly as malevolent and reckless. I am glad that these people decided to blindly dive in and defend this lady though. I get a good morbid chuckle out of that.

  5. you don't "break" a child! unless you actually want to BREAK a child!

    i just erased what i wrote, because i think that it went much further than even you will allow on your blog.

    but i know you agree with me. people like her deserve to be treated EXACTLY as they have treated their kids. EVERY goddamned member of that cult does. the leader, triple.

  6. I tend to believe in the "tie up a rapist and leave him alone in a room with a bunch of rape victims armed with baseball bats" kind of justice for that level of evil, so I probably would agree with you.

    I truly hate literalists for this reason: "spare the rod and spoil the child" doesn't HAVE to mean "smack your kids", it can just as easily mean "discipline your children or they end up brats", which is true. I am very into discipline for children (just ask my niece), but it comes in the form of removing privileges and having long discussions about why we don't do those things.

    Either it works or my niece is just naturally well-behaved, and since children are generally anarchists if you let them be, I suspect the former.

    CADL usually just cracks me up (christian antidefamation? in the US? c'mon!), but this was really bad. How do you defend a child abuser?

    It would have been an especially fabulous and colorful lynching though. LOL!


Comments are for you guys, not for me. Say what you will. Don't feel compelled to stay on topic, I enjoy it when comments enter Tangentville or veer off into Non Sequitur Town. Just keep it polite, okay?

I am attempting to use blogger's new comment spam feature. If you don't immediately see your comment, it is being held in spam, I will get it out next time I check the filter. Unless you are Dennis Markuze, in which case you're never seeing your comment.

Creative Commons License
Forever in Hell by Personal Failure is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at