Raleigh, N.C. — Judge Ned Mangum released his ruling Tuesday in a custody case that has become a cause célèbre in the homeschooling community, saying three children must go to public school next year.
Mangum reiterated his oral judgment that the children of Thomas and Venessa Mills must be enrolled in public school in the 2009-10 school year. Venessa Mills is in the fourth year of home schooling her children, who are 10, 11 and 12 years old.
In an affidavit filed to request the change, Thomas Mills grants that he agreed the children would be home schooled, but temporarily. “I made it clear to (Venessa Mills) I objected to our children being removed from public schools,” he stated.
Thomas and Venessa Mills are in the process of divorcing. Thomas Mills cites Venessa’s involvement with the Sound Doctrine Church for their split. “She became unrecognizable as the person I married, and, in the name of her religion, she distanced herself from me,” his affidavit said.
He admitted that distance led him to stray from his marriage. He admitted to an affair. “Venessa Mills expressed appropriate concern for his transgressions,” the court order stated.
Venessa Mills asked the court to order that her husband have no decision-making authority related to the children’s education or religion.
The majority of the testimony supporting Mangum’s ruling dealt with Venessa Mills’ membership in the Sound Doctrine Church. According to the ruling, her mother, father and sister said under oath that “they are concerned about Venessa’s involvement with Sound Doctrine and are particularly concerned about the effect on the children.”
A woman described as Venessa’s “life-long friend” who served as her maid of honor at her 1994 wedding said, “Because of my friendship with Venessa Mills, it is extremely hard for me to make this affidavit, but I want to make the court aware of my concern for the Mills children.”
Since joining the Sound Doctrine Church, “Venessa has pushed her loved ones away,” Shanna Winkler-Hanson said. “From what I observed, it was apparent to me that Venessa has an extreme amount of control over the children,” her affidavit said.
Former members of Sound Doctrine Church also wrote affidavits questioning the practices of the church, calling them “very cult-like” and saying the church was “run by fear and manipulation.”
In his custody ruling, Mangum wrote that both parents should have the opportunity to influence the children’s religious development. “This court can not and will not infringe upon either party’s right to practice their own religion and expose their children to the same,” he wrote.
In addition to outlining the children’s physical custody and school arrangements, Mangum ordered that Venessa Mills undergo a mental health assessment.



![[SLIDESHOW]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/entertainment/out_and_about/2012/02/02/10707648/bbpics_miyon53519-100x75.jpg)
![[SLIDESHOW]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/lifestyles/travel/2012/02/09/10710709/10710709-1328829176-100x75.jpg)
![[SLIDESHOW]](http://wwwcache.wralsportsfan.com/asset/basketball/2012/02/09/10705803/10705803-1328766083-100x75.jpg)
![[SLIDESHOW]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/lifestyles/travel/2012/02/08/10704761/10704761-1328743348-100x75.jpg)






WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.
This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.
March 18, 2009 8:27 p.m.
I am a divorced father of 2 teens; my ex is a control freak - obsessive and paranoid; she pulled them out of school to ‘protect’ them from the ‘bad’ elements under the guise of home schooling. They were not permitted to any media or computers; every social contact was under her control. She became so obsessed that she alienated me from them for 2.5 years through fear, intimidation and isolation even though I had joint legal custody through a mediated settlement; she claimed they didn’t want to see me which of course was proven all lies.
With only a GED my older child was rejected from all of the 4 year colleges to which she applied; she is now clawing her way back through community college; my ex simply stopped educating my younger child in her frosh year. Oh and by the way, I didn’t cheat.
March 18, 2009 4:48 p.m.
If you read the order, you will see that the mother was requesting to cut the father out of the children's lives. The father was asking for an equal say in what happens to his children. The judge had the uneviable job of deciding how to be fair to two parties who had very, very different goals and opinions.
The judge's order did not say that the mother couldn't practice her relgion or that she couldn't teach her beliefs to her children. What it did say is that the father had the equal right to teach HIS beliefs as well.
The affair is a moot point. I haven't seen anything that said he committed adultry if front of the children or that he was otherwise behaving inappropriately with them. Given that, the affair may be relevant to the divorce, but not the custody of the children.
March 18, 2009 12:18 p.m.
If the spouse is also the children's parent, then s/he DOES have the (shared) right to decide what is and is not appropriate for your (shared) children.
Everyone making this about religious freedom is missing the boat. The judge doesn't say the mother can't practice her religion and teach it to her children. His order just gives the father equal time. Do you think HE doesn't have the right to teach them HIS religion?
And those who claim that his affair makes him unfit as a parent are so far off-base as to be utterly ridiculous. No one condones adultery, but it is an offense against the spouse, not against the children.
H/S may be a right, but one parent can't claim it unilaterally. ESPECIALLY when expecting the other to support not just the education, but them, too.
March 18, 2009 12:03 p.m.
If you want to feel strongly about this and post - take the time to READ THE RULING.
If she was teaching lessons with a religious slant, or covering the 10 commandments, or integrating religion into her lessons - I really don't think anyone would be up in arms. Including hubby.
But she's not - she's teaching 100% directly from the Bible. She's teaching and controlling based on the teachings of a fundamentalist splinter group that advocates "breaking" the children into 100% blind obedience.
One child stood and did the dishes and wet his pants when she said he could not use the bathroom. Nice, huh?
Her parents and friends are concerned about HER - but she's an adult and can make choices - the kids cannot and they are in danger.
March 18, 2009 11:56 a.m.