reply to post by hotbakedtater
I understand and agree with what you're saying as far as talking about a 14 year old child that you have custody of. However this was not the case
here. When the girl was 16 and not going to school she was in the mother's custody, NOT the fathers.
The judge didn't issue the order to the father until almost three years later when the girl was 18, had a child of her own and was no longer a minor.
The girl was taking G.E.D. classes and took the test, but failed the math exam. Would you have the father take the test for her? Maybe she has an
undiagnosed learning disability in the subject of math.
You actually agree that the man should be locked up for six months and maybe lose his job because his daughter didn't pass one part of the G.E.D.
exam? You may have been able to make your 14 year old son to go to school, but should you have been locked up for six months because he failed a test?
If you really agree with the sentence, then maybe you should reread the article, because it is the mother who failed to make sure that the child
received an education, not the father. Her father did not fail her, her mother did.
There's an old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The girl was 18 years old, he could force her to go to school
sure, but tell me how could he have possibly have forced her to learn?