The California Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in favor of homeschoolers earlier today. The entire decision is available here, but a few excerpts.
Most important, of course, is the actual decision.
We will conclude that: 1) California statutes permit home schooling as a species of private school education; and 2) the statutory permission to home school may constitutionally be overidden in order to protect the safety of a child who has been declared dependent.
No arguments from me there!
I found this part interesting, which goes into the confusion and explains why the court ruled as it did.
Thus, as of that time, given the history of the statutes and the Legislature’s implied concurrence in the case law interpreting them, the conclusion that home schooling was not permitted in California would seem to follow. However, subsequent developments in the law call this conclusion into question. Although the Legislature did not amend the statutory scheme so as to expressly permit home schooling, more recent enactments demonstrate an apparent acceptance by the Legislature of the proposition that home schooling is taking place in California, with home schools allowed as private schools. Recent statutes indicate that the Legislature is aware that some parents in California home school their children by declaring their homes to be private schools. Moreoer, several statutory enactments indicate a legislative approval of home schooling, by exempting home schools from requirements otherwise applicable to private schools.
We are therefore confronted with: 1) compulsory education statutes which were apparently intended to eliminate the permission previously granted to home school; and 2) later enactments which reflect the Legislature’s understanding that the compulsory education statutes permit home schooling, as a species of private school education. Under these circumstances, it is our view that the proper course of action is to interpret the earlier statutes in light of the later ones, and to recognize, as controlling, the Legislature’s apparent acceptance of the proposition that home schools are permissible in California when conducted as private schools.
And of course there is this very important bit, which I have no disagreement with.
Because the United States Supreme Court has held that parents possess a constitutional right to direct the education of their children, it argued that any restriction on home schooling is a violation of this constitutional right. We disagree. We conclude that an order requiring a dependent child to attend school outside the home in order to protect that child’s safety is not an unconstitutional violation of the parents’ right to direct the education of their children.
Because if you have abused your children, you lose some rights. The state, in my view, needs some form of probable cause and in this case, they seemed to have it. Abuse cannot be tolerated, and I have no problems declaring that families with a history of sustained allegations of abuse cannot homeschool.
Good news!! I agree, abuse, with probable cause, should lose you some rights. I’ve seen some people trying to argue for homeschooling in this weird, legalistic, zealous way, as if no matter what, it’s their right. If you abuse your child (a history of prolonged abuse), you shouldn’t be allowed to homeschool, or parent, for that matter.
Let me tell you something Dana and Jennifer, This whole case was B.S. There was no abuse. I don’t abuse my children unless you call spanking abuse. Almost every thing about this case was a fairy tail. The courts are corrupt and create Lies and then make their rulings on the lies they created. I hope you never find yourself a victim of the juvenile court system.
Thank you, Jennifer. It isn’t reasonable (and sort of hurts homeschoolers in general) to try to argue that you have an absolute right to homeschool, regardless of abuse issues.
Thank you for adding your side, Phillip. I don’t pretend to know anything more than what was in the court documents, but it seems to me that pulling children by their hair and failing to protect children from a sexual predator goes beyond spanking. If these things did not happen, then I’m sorry this is all happening.
Without knowing you or your family personally, I can’t possibly judge whether or not the initial case is problematic. I can only say that I agree with the court that in cases of sustained abuse, the state can and should intervene to protect a child. And in some situations, that may not mean loss of custody, but greater monitoring, as through forced schooling.
if you have abused your children, you lose some rights. The state, in my view, needs some form of probable cause and in this case, they seemed to have it.
I understand and agree with what you’re saying from a natural family angle.
But, what about homeschoolers who are serving as foster parents/potential adoptive parents. Many can’t homeschool because the State is in charge of those abused children and the State has decided they can’t be homeschooled. That’s when more and more laws about child abuse tend to hem kids into a bureaucracy and non-nurturing environment per standardization.
How many times could hurting children be helped by home education? But it’s not permitted in many states, because of the State status quo for those hurting the most.
I was just thinking about a different angle than this CA situation.
Yeah, I understand that. Hypothetically, once the state has placed a child in foster care, the child should be in a safe environment, but unfortunately, CPS doesn’t seem to have a good record with that.
I don’t know…they are wards of the state so a foster family’s choices are limited, even if homeschooling would be best for the child. I don’t know how other states do it, but a foster family can legally homeschool a child here in NE, but since the parents retain educational rights until parental rights are terminated, they can only do so with the approval of the biological family. I don’t think it is a common situation.
“I don’t abuse my children unless you call spanking abuse.”
Phillip’s own children documented a long history that went way beyond simple spanking.
Unfortunately, in postmodern society ‘abuse’ is in the eye of the beholder. The California Teachers Association will likely continue to insist that any education of minors that does not fall under the CTAs control constitutes abuse…and we are all currently witness to the relentless efforts that the more ‘tolerant’ crowd will go to in order to re-define a word.
Thanks for the excerpts.