# California Court Rules Homeschooling Illegal



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

> *California Court Rules Homeschooling Illegal*
> 
> By Hilary White
> 
> ...


_read more at: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08030503.html_

As if I needed another reason to not live in California.


----------



## longshadowfarms (Nov 27, 2002)

Well, then PLEASE go to the HSLDA website and sign the petition! 

www.hslda.org

I also wonder whether this should go on some of the forums that will reach more of the people on this site. This is a HUGE attack on freedom that affects more than just homeschoolers.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

Don't bother putting it in GC...it already went ten rounds there


----------



## RiverPines (Dec 12, 2006)

And its a free country? LOL

This leaves me feeling ticked offed.:grump:


----------



## rkintn (Dec 12, 2002)

Here is another link to the petition:
https://www2.hslda.org/Registrations/DepublishingCaliforniaCourtDecision/?RedirectCompleted=true


----------



## RichieC (Aug 29, 2007)

1. That is an ABSURDLY misleading post title.

2. The Longs appear to be child-abusing freaks.

3. The court actually ordered that the youngest kids be homeschooled _according to the law_, and then given an opportunity to attend public or private high school if THEY wish.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

RichieC said:


> 1. That is an ABSURDLY misleading post title.


By paying very careful attention to the post, you will be able to determine that the post title is actually the title of the article.


----------



## RichieC (Aug 29, 2007)

deaconjim said:


> By paying very careful attention to the post, you will be able to determine that the post title is actually the title of the article.


It is still absurd. The court did no such thing.


----------



## ksfarmer (Apr 28, 2007)

The Los Angeles-area family was targeted by Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services after one of the children reported "physical and emotional mistreatment by the children's father," according to documents submitted to the court.


----------



## longshadowfarms (Nov 27, 2002)

The way the decision was worded, the ruling could be applied to ANY family in CA. I don't think anyone is arguing this particular case (well, maybe some are), just the wording of the decision. From the HSLDA site:

The Court could have restricted its decision to the facts before it, but instead, it issued a broad ruling that effectively outlaws home education in California. The Court also certified its decision for publication, which means that the decision can now be cited as legal authority by all other courts in California.

The family and their California counsel are planning to appeal to the Supreme Court of California, which could result in reversal.

Another option to keep homeschooling free in California is to petition the Supreme Court of California to âdepublishâ the opinion. If the opinion is âdepublishedâ then it cannot be used by other California courts and this threat to homeschool freedom will be neutralized for other California homeschoolers.

HSLDA will be formally petitioning the California Supreme Court to depublish the opinion. We would like to show that many other people, both in California and across the country, care deeply about homeschool freedom in California.


----------



## RichieC (Aug 29, 2007)

longshadowfarms said:


> The way the decision was worded, the ruling could be applied to ANY family in CA. I don't think anyone is arguing this particular case (well, maybe some are), just the wording of the decision. From the HSLDA site:
> 
> The Court could have restricted its decision to the facts before it, but instead, it issued a broad ruling that effectively outlaws home education in California. The Court also certified its decision for publication, which means that the decision can now be cited as legal authority by all other courts in California.
> 
> ...


The court did no such thing, and if HSLDA says it did, they're lying.

Go read the decision for yourself.


----------



## reese (Jul 6, 2004)

I'm passing this on with permission:

_Lillian, may I please post your last post on other hsing boards I frequent? 

Reese

Yes, it's my understanding that Debbie is aware and willing for it to be passed on. But PLEASE make sure people understand that it was written to her own organization's email list when she refers to "people on this list." In fact, I'll tweak those words for her right now, because I've been in close contact with her and I feel comfortable with her intent enough to know she'd want me to do that.
Thanks - Lillian_

*I am posting this with permission of HSC's Legal Chair who posted it this morning on HSC's email list. She and the other lawyers on HSC's legal team are hard at work, as are all the other organizations:

"I have been astonished about the hype about this case. So many have been making sensational claims that parents will be criminally prosecuted, etc.

Please rest assured about a number of things. First, the law, other than this court's interpretation, hasn't changed. Parents involved in a truancy prosecution might face criminal charges, but only after a rather lengthy series of hearings and court orders, and only if the parents failed to comply with the orders. It would be a criminal contempt charge, which isn't nothing but doesn't land you in Pelican Bay.

We have never known conscientious parents ever to be prosecuted under truancy laws to the point of contempt charges. It's highly unlikely.

The media also appear to be saying that no one can teach their children without a credential. I am not certain that the holding is that broad, and I also doubt it would survive legal challenge.

The holding really applied to private ISPs (there are persistent mistatements, that began with fact statements in the case, that the family was enrolled in a charter. Obviously a school with the name "Christian" in it wouldn't be a public charter. It was a private ISP). It could be read by someone reading broadly as applying to any situation where the child is not continuously in the presence of a credentialed teacher.

The court started on a very slippery path of appearing to think that some situations were OK and others weren't, effectively trying to enact an entire code of regulations for governing this situation from the bench. He hasn't been given the constitutional authority, of course, to do this.

How do we get rid of this case?

There are a number of paths. One is seeking actual review by the Supreme Court. HSC and at least several of the other major groups' legal teams aren't in favor of that. Even if you could get the court to accept your petition (they only take 3-5% of cases), the chances that it will be decided the way you want aren't real good. It's a very dangerous road to take, because if the Supreme Court were to affirm the appellate court ruling on either of the main points (constitutional or statutory), there aren't many options left. The constitutional argument, of course, could be appealed to the US Supreme Court, but the statutory case about the proper interpretation of the California Education Code could not. California Supreme Court is the last stop on that road. If that happens, then you have two bad choices that I'll discuss below.

There is another much easier choice, and it's the one we want, as well as the one being trumpeted in the HSLDA petition. You ask the California Supreme Court to depublish the opinion, or, in other words, have them say that while this might have been the right result in this particular case involving this particular set of facts, the court finds that the reach of the opinion is overbroad and should not become law for the entire state. That is the choice we all (meaning HSC and, I believe, the other groups) want.

You get this by filing a letter with the Supreme Court in compliance with the applicable rules of court. While anyone can file one by stating their interest, we DO NOT think it is an appropriate use of grassroots activism. We DO NOT want every HSC member or HSLDA member or grandmother or irate citizen dashing off their letters to the Supreme Court. There are sober, measured, legal arguments to make about why depublication is appropriate, and those arguments are made after researching the applicable standards, etc. The Supreme Court will not be swayed positively by public outcry. In fact, it could backfire, and backfire badly.

If the Supreme Court affirms on the statutory points, then the two bad choices are to either seek legislation or to do nothing and hope that a further case is brought that can involve a better set of facts and better explanation of the issues (and reaching a better result). Both are very dangerous. Legislation isn't the answer because of the extraordinary strength of the teachers' union. It is unlikely we will see any legislation ultimately pass that gives us the freedom we have today. And the second choice is dangerous. I know lots of families that would make terrific test case defendants -- they're conscientious, they actually get their kids educated, they follow the laws. But we don't get to pick who the family is. As a friend of mine said, we couldn't have gotten a worse set of facts for this case if we had a contest.

We are trying to get one or more of the fanciest law firms in the state to help us on taking the fangs out of this case. We know what we're doing. Please let us do our jobs.

I would be personally, professionally, and, as a representative of HSC, globally grateful if everyone stay calm and ask others to calm down. Specifically, I would ask people:

a. Not to write to the Supreme Court or any court.

b. Not to talk to their legislators or make any public statements about a need for legislation.

c. Tell their neighbors, friends, lists, groups both of the above and to educate them about the choices available and about how panic isn't necessary, marches on Sacramento aren't necessary, etc.

I wish this were the type of situation where we could put the fury, passion and energy of the members of this list to good use. Trust me, if we end up having to go the legislative route, we will have that situation at some points. But this isn't that type of situation, and too many folks stirring things up hurts instead of helps.

Thanks for listening.

Debbie Schwarzer
HSC Legal Team Co-chair"*



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Lillian J : Today at 05:19 PM.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

RichieC said:


> It is still absurd. The court did no such thing.


The Governor of California is under the misconception that they did. Perhaps you could give him a call and set him straight?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNCHVG0SD.DTL


----------



## RichieC (Aug 29, 2007)

deaconjim said:


> The Governor of California is under the misconception that they did. Perhaps you could give him a call and set him straight?
> 
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNCHVG0SD.DTL


Perhaps the governor of California is a politician pandering to a particular, energized interest group.

The decision makes homeschooling more difficult, certainly. It absolutely does not make it illegal.

Go READ the DECISION, not a lazy write-up of it.


----------



## Tracy Rimmer (May 9, 2002)

The fact of the matter is this case SHOULDN'T be about homeschooling at all, but yet again, the media has gotten hold of ONE aspect of this family that makes them "different" and focused on it. The media does that because they like to make sure that people read their articles and watch their coverage -- and people like to know how bad things only happen to people who are different from them so that they can say "see, that would never happen in our family because we don't [fill in "different" behavior here]". 

If these people followed some uncommon religion, but their kids were in PS, it would have been the uncommon religion that got the focus. 

In Canada, we had a case a few years ago where a family with several children who were VERY active in the homeschooling community separated -- Mom had the kids, Dad snapped and burnt down the house she and the kids were living in. The kids were home (there is still controversy whether or not he knew that) and didn't get out. What was focused on? Not the fact that this family had been ripped apart, not the fact that the poor mother was suffering, but the fact that they'd HOMESCHOOLED. 

Please, I'm asking you now, DO NOT FEED IT. You have no idea of the hoopla this caused in Canada -- how far it set us back, how many people read the articles just because they'd heard of the homeschooling controversy attached to it, and how divisive it became. 

This is NOT a home education issue -- this is, yet again, a family and parenting issue being disguised as a home education issue, and the more we argue about it, the more we feed the fires of those who use ANYTHING as an argument against us and for government regulation of EVERY aspect of our parenting of our children. Don't let it happen.

It's time to let this one go and let the controversy die down. It's sickening that people can treat their children in this way -- and even more sickening that they can use US, people who are honestly home educating their children, as a cover for it. I'm sick of it happening, I'm tired of being held accountable as though we're some sort of cult, and if we LET these nut-cases use us by acknowledging it and getting involved, it will KEEP happening.


----------



## country_wife (Sep 24, 2004)

Well said, Tracy!

The fact of the matter is that it was not just one of the children complaining of abuse. 
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach.../B192601.DOC+JD00773&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

And nothing has been changed in CA's homeschooling laws.


----------



## cchapman84 (Jan 29, 2003)

Check out the court's findings on the homeschooling matter: http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/ca/200803030.asp (it's a link to a PDF at the bottom). It states:



> However, California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children. Thus, while the petition for extraordinary writ asserts that the trial court's refusal to order attendance in a public or private school was an abuse of discretion, we find the refusal was actually an error of law. It is clear to us that enrollment and attendance in a public full-time day school is required by California law for minor children unless (1) the child is enrolled in a private full-time day school and actually attends that private school, (2) the child is tutored by a person holding a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught, or (3) one of the other few statutory exemptions to compulsory public school attendance (Ed. Code, Â§ 48220 et seq.) applies to the child.


I'd like to see where in the constitution it specifically gives states or the federal government the right to control or restrict a parent's right to school their children in a way that they see fit??? It's called unenumerated rights, and they're specifically protected by the 9th and 10th amendments, which seem to have been forgotten by the majority of courts and government bodies in this country. 

While the specifics of the case have little to do with homeschooling (it's more to do with abuse and the homeschooling part of it is only a small portion), this decision speaks volumes. It's paving the way to completely outlaw homeschooling, and case law (tort law) is often given precedence over actual law (as it's viewed as a "better" interpretation of the law in many cases). I would definitely be wary if I lived in CA and homeschooled my kids.


----------



## LagoVistaFarm (Mar 2, 2006)

country_wife said:


> And nothing has been changed in CA's homeschooling laws.


There are some California lawyers who will disagree with you. President is part of law.


----------

