Posted on 03/08/2007 11:03:19 AM PST by Coleus
Honorable Thomas Zampino of the Family Division of the New Jersey Superior Court has ordered penal charges against a home-schooling mother of seven. According to a report by Matt Bowman on the website constitutionallycorrect.com, the mother's supposed infraction is home-schooling her children without supervision from the local school board - a right explicitly upheld in New Jersey law. According to the court's opinion, Tara Hamilton is the defendant in a suit brought against her by her recently estranged husband, Stephen Hamilton. Stephen brought the suit in an attempt to force Tara to enroll their school-age children, aged 12 to 4 years, in parochial school because he believes that they are not receiving an adequate education while being home-schooled. All seven children currently reside with Tara. According to the court document, Stephen claims that "continued home schooling is not in the children's best interest, they lack socialization skills and that it is too difficult for the mother to teach the children at five different grade levels. The father argues that the children are not receiving an education equivalent to a public or parochial school."
Prior to the marital discord that led to this suit, the Hamiltons had similarly home-schooled all of their school-age children. In an effort to implement "certain basic requirements and safeguards", the judge ordered Tara to submit her home-schooling children to standardized tests supplied by the local school district despite NJ law which says, "A child educated elsewhere than at school is not required to sit for a state or district standardized test." The judge also ordered the local school board to file a suit against Tara in order to be able to "evaluate the instruction in the home," a requirement only permissible if the local school board determines that there is credible evidence that the home education is below the standards of the public school.
Because of NJ's explicit laws protecting the parental right to educate their children at home, the judge had only limited options when it came to personally implementing his philosophies of "monitoring" and "registering" home-schoolers." The judge cautioned that, should the school board refuse to comply with his 'suggestions', the court would "consider, by formal opinion, a request to join those parties to action." The New Jersey Department of Education website states, "The provision, "to receive equivalent instruction elsewhere than at school," in N.J.S.A. 18A:38-25 permits parent(s)/guardian(s) to educate the child at home." According to New Jersey law, parents desiring to home-school their children are not required to submit any type of communication of intent to a local school board. Parents are also not required to have their home-school curricula approved by a school board.
A NJ school board may only act against a home-schooling parent "If there is credible evidence that the parent, guardian or other person having custody and control of a school-age child is not causing the child either to attend school (public or nonpublic) or to receive equivalent instruction elsewhere than at school…" Under those circumstances, the school board is permitted to request the parents/guardians of a school age child provide proof, such as a letter of intent, that the child is receiving "equivalent instruction." The judge criticized the NJ law and lamented the fact that it upholds the rights of parents to home-school their children without interference from the government. Implying that children being educated by their parents are unsupervised, the judge stated, "This is shocking to the court. In this day and age where we seek to protect children from harm and sexual predators, so many children are left unsupervised."
The judge continued, "In today's threatening world, where we seek to protect children from abuse, not just physical, but also educational abuse, how can we not monitor the educational welfare of all our children?" He then gave the case of a recently found starving child locked "in a putrid bedroom" as an example of what happens when home-schooled children are not "registered and supervised." In what Bowman refers to as a "judicial temper tantrum" the judge opines, "This is not an attack against home schooling, but rather a statement that it is necessary to register those children for whom this alternative is chosen and to monitor that their educational needs are being adequately nurtured. Judicial interpretation of the statute requires such steps to measure 'equivalent instruction' when the alternative 'elsewhere than at school' is chosen by parents."
Bowman commented on the judge's circumvention of the law by requiring the school board to take the action that he could not, saying, "Well, state law does allow school districts to haul parents into court under state penal law if credible evidence exists that their children's education is improper. Presto! Order the local school district to charge the mom with violation of penal law! Never mind that the school district is not a party to this divorce proceeding. Never mind that "[t]he mere fact that a child has been withdrawn to be home-schooled is not, in itself, credible evidence of a legal violation."" Bowman summed up the opinion saying, "The court's opinion seethes with contempt for parental primacy in education, for large religious families, and for the democratic process itself. Instead of legal reasoning, the court disgustingly showcases the prospect of children "found unfed and locked in a putrid bedroom." Bowman concluded by drawing a scary comparison between the actions of this activist NJ judge and the recent human rights violations against a home-schooling family in Germany. "It can seem distant when we hear news of police raiding homes in Germany and abducting home-schooled children, but in our small world of judicial oligarchy and broken families, Germany is not so far away after all."
To respectfully contact Jon Corzine, governor of New Jersey:
Office of the Governor, PO Box 001, Trenton, NJ 08625, 609-292-6000
www.constitutionallycorrect.com
Read Justice Zampino's full ruling
Go after abusive parents for abuse, which there are already laws against, and the government stays out of educational matters entirely. Because once you say "the government can make sure homeschoolers are meeting an acceptable math and writing standard", how can you stop them from making sure homeschoolers are properly educated about global warming, alternative lifestyles, and rainforest depopulation?
The government is interfering only because the parents cannot agree as to what education choice they want to make for their children. What do you when two parents with equal rights cannot agree as to how the children should be educated?
Interesting article. Not sure how I feel about this. Is the mother inadequate at teaching? How are the kids test scores? Why is the mother not working with the school board according to the law (in article)? A Catholic School education is excellent and could be good for the kids. I think that if the women would follow the law and ensure she was good at teaching the classwork, the judge would have sided with her. There was no talk of sending the kids to government school like many posts are saying.
Literacy rates, out of public education today, rise until sometime between 6th and 8th grade and fall between there and high school graduation. More colleges offer now, and find they need to offer, remedial English and English composition courses to incoming freshman than ever was needed in all US history - even in earlier eras of high immigration.
And the mantra of the education establishment and their Dim friends is that they just need more money. In truth, every dime of any additional money only adds to the size of the public education industry, in terms of employees and cost. It never adds to the product, education, coming out of the industry.
Smack 'em both and tell them not to be stupid.
What I would do is continue the educational choice they'd made together previously. If they had the kids in school, leave them there. If they were being homeschooled, allow that. Otherwise one parent can use the courts to get back at the other.
I was addressing the generalized statement that implied the government had a right to judge home education at all, not the particular nasty sordid legal case.
"How dare people not want their kids in public schools.
Off with their heads!"
If only the home schooling was in Muslim subjects, they would hav ebeen afraid to touch the issue...
If the court requires her to put the kids in parochial school, I hope they also require Stevie to pay for it.
Tell the one who wants the more expensive option that he/she must pay those costs. That's when you find out how truly concerned about the children's education they really are.
Only if they let me dress up like the Justice statue - blindfolded and carrying a great big sword that I can menace people with.
"without his help the kids may indeed be getting a substandard education."
Wouldn't matter if they are or aren't.
According to the law this judge should have dismissed this case the moment it was brought to court. But instead the 'judge' decided that the law didn't apply to this bench.
This judge should be thrown off the bench and disbarred.
That is one way to cut down on law suites....
Feverishly praying hubby gets a position in ANOTHER state!
I HATE New Jersey.
Ok, there is too much legal jargon in here. What does this mean?
"consider, by formal opinion, a request to join those parties to action."
ping
It is obvious that the judge, much like the majority in the US Supreme Court (Kelo decision), cannot read plain English and should be remanded to a remedial reading class.
This is just a child custody issue. The homeschooling angle was a ruse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.