California Court Rules Homeschooling Illegal

LifeSiteNews ^ | 3/5/08 | Hilary White

[wagglebee]

LOS ANGELES, March 5, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Thousands of homeschoolers in California are left in legal limbo by an appeals court ruling that homeschooling is not a legal option in the state and that a family who has homeschooled all their children for years must enrol their two youngest in state or private schools. Justice H. Walter Croskey in a written opinion said, "California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children."

The sweeping February 29th ruling says that California law requires "persons between the ages of six and eighteen" to be in "public full-time day school," or a "private full-time day school" or "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught".

The two youngest of Phillip and Mary Long's eight children must be enrolled in a state approved school. Phillip Long told WorldNetDaily, "We just don't want them teaching our children. They teach things that are totally contrary to what we believe. They put questions in our children's minds we don't feel they're ready for."

Mr. Long cited the state curriculum's inclusion of sex education, including its promotion of homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. "When they are much more mature, they can deal with these issues, alternative lifestyles, and such, or whether they came from primordial slop. At the present time it's my job to teach them the correct way of thinking," he said.

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. 

The 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles agreed with the trial court decision that had found, "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where they could interact with people outside the family".

"There are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting," the ruling said.

Michael Smith, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), said in a March 3 statement that the organization "strongly disputes this interpretation of California law" and is studying the decision.

The group called the ruling "a very bad decision" saying, "the opinion holds that homeschooling is not a legal option in California."

"If the opinion is followed, then California will have the most regressive law in the nation and homeschooling will be effectively banned, because the only legal way to homeschool will be for the parent to hold a teaching certificate. Parents should not have to attend a four-year college education program just to teach their own children."

Smith added, "California is now on the path to being the only state to deny the vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach their own children at home."

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Back to School: Organization Gives Reasons to Consider Homeschooling
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/aug/06082407.html

Home Schoolers Concerned Over New Ontario Compulsory Attendance Law
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/feb/06020301.html

Three More Families Appeal for Help as Germany Continues Crackdown on Homeschooling Families
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/apr/07041609.html

[Chickensoup]

Boy was it a good book and a warning of things to come:

Nice, concerned fascism

[aomagrat]

When does california start building a wall to keep people from leaving?

[proudpapa]

If they outlawed homeschoolin’ where I live, they would need a lot of money to build several new schools and hire several more teachers.

[netmilsmom]

Find my MI hubby a job and we are there.

[A_perfect_lady]

Ah yes, not “meeting people outside the family,” like the kids I teach. Ricardo, who can’t keep his hands off his privates, Jose, who can’t keep his hands off of others, Jorge, who steals money right out of other kids’ backpacks, Kevin, who had a wooden shank up his sleeve, Consuela, who wants to be a mommy like her 16 year old chola sister, the other Jose who slashes tires, Edwin, who is stoned all the time, Fidela, whose parents think it’s great that she’s caught herself a 22 year old and she’s only 14, Robert, who will teach your kids every nasty word in the book, and in two languages no less, Leslie, who will download filthy gangsta rap onto your kid’s iPod, David, who will then steal your kid’s iPod.... Yes, yes, your kids need to get out and meet people.

[fetal heart beats by 21st day]

“Ah yes, not “meeting people outside the family,” like the kids I teach. Ricardo, who can’t keep his hands off his privates, Jose, who can’t keep his hands off of others, Jorge, who steals money right out of other kids’ backpacks, Kevin, who had a wooden shank up his sleeve, Consuela, who wants to be a mommy like her 16 year old chola sister, the other Jose who slashes tires, Edwin, who is stoned all the time, Fidela, whose parents think it’s great that she’s caught herself a 22 year old and she’s only 14, Robert, who will teach your kids every nasty word in the book, and in two languages no less, Leslie, who will download filthy gangsta rap onto your kid’s iPod, David, who will then steal your kid’s iPod.... Yes, yes, your kids need to get out and meet people.”

Priceless!

[bill1952]

What do you mean by older baby boomers?
Explain your time frames.

> I’m one of the ashamed younger Baby Boomers (of which group most are also libertine father-haters).

That one just flew over my head, as well.

[cgk]

bflr.

[newzjunkey]

This was talked about on Roger Hedgecock's local southern CA show on Wednesday.

WND also has a story.

[Tired of Taxes]

LOL... Sounds like the school I went to.

[newzjunkey]

The judge's profile Division Three: JUSTICE H. WALTER CROSKEY

PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND:

Associate Justice, California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 3 (November 20, 1987 - Present);
 rating received from Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation (October 21, 1987): "Exceptionally Well Qualified."

Judge of the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles (January 4, 1985 - November 20, 1987)

Civil trial attorney for 23 years practicing in both state and federal courts; practice emphasized commercial,
 business and real estate litigation (May 1, 1962 - January 4, 1985)

U.S. Navy (JAG), Commissioned Officer (May 1, 1959 - April 30, 1962)

Admitted to Practice
California - January 1959
District of Columbia - June 1960
U.S. Supreme Court - February 1962
U.S. Court of Military Appeals - October 1959
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:

University of Southern California Law Center, LLB/JD (June 1958)
University of Southern California, School of Public Administration, B.S.
(Major: Law Enforcement and Police Administration), Magna Cum Laude (June 1955)
HONORS AND AWARDS:

Bernard S. Jefferson Award, Distinguished Service in Judicial Education, California Judges Association, 1992
Roger J. Traynor Memorial Award - Appellate Justice of the Year, Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association, 1993
Distinguished Service Award - Jurist of the Year, Judicial Council of California, 1994
Jurist of the Year Award, Los Angeles County Bar Association, 1998
JUDICIAL COMMITTEES:

Member, Judicial Council Appellate Standing Advisory Committee 1993 - 1995
Chair, Judicial Council Ad Hoc Committee on Trial Court Funding 1990 - 1992
Chair, Second Appellate District Court Reporter - OSC Panel 1989 - 1995
Member, State-Federal Judicial Council 1989 - Present
Member, Executive Committee of the Los Angeles Superior Court 1986 - 1987
Co-Chair, "Fast Track" (AB 3300) Rule Drafting Committee, Los Angeles Superior Court - 1987
LEGAL ARTICLES:

“Litigation Cost Shifting, An Economical Path to Court Reform”, which proposed a statutory modification to the so-
called “American Rule” in California regarding the award of attorneys fees in civil litigation, published in the Los 
Angeles Lawyer (Vol. 8, No. 6, September 1985)
“Bad Faith: The Expansion of Tort Remedies in Non-Insurance Litigation”, published in the Beverly Hills Bar 
Association Journal (Vol. 19, No. 4, Fall 1985)
“Bad Faith in California - Its History, Development and Current Status”, American Bar Association, Tort & Insurance 
Law Journal (Vol. XXVI, No. 3, Spring 1991)
“Understanding and Applying The Hearsay Rule”, published in the Los Angeles Lawyer (Vol. 14, No. 11, February 
1992); (co-author)
“Avoiding Evidence Pitfalls”, published in the Los Angeles Lawyer (Vol. 15, No. 1, March 1992); (co-author)
California Practice Guide, Insurance Litigation (3 volumes), The Rutter Group (co-author), published 1995
“The Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations in California: A Judge's View”, Connecticut Insurance Law Journal (Vol. 5, 
No. 1, 1998-1999)

PERSONAL DATA:

Born August 2, 1933, Los Angeles, California
Married, 2 Children
Elder, Presbyterian Church (Pacific Palisades, California)

[MountainFlower]

WOW! What next? Prayer taken out of schools. God taken out of public lives. Now they are trying to force the education on us? WHERE in the constitution does it say that the government, state or federal, has the right to force an education of the government's choice upon one's children? NOWHERE! PTL we live in South Dakota!!

Would they still argue if the family is involved in homeschool support groups and church activities, the children volunteer in the community on a regular basis and have jobs in local businesses? How would they determine what amount of interaction outside the family is enough? too much?

Homeschooling my kids has been the one of the greatest blessings in all of our lives! I only wish I had started sooner, so my oldest would have had it all her life, instead of half of her school-life.

This is absurd to me. I cannot believe they think they can outlaw homeschooling! I am thankful that my oldest is finished. My middle one will be finished with high school in a month or so, and Lord willing the youngest will be finished in 2 years. By the way, anyone interested in curriculum...yell.

[cherry]

basically....its protection time for the teachers....they don’t no stinking parents taking over their jobs.

[WillRain]

Parents who do nothing to promote their kids education? Quite legal!

Those who do everything? Banned!

I’d like to say “Only in California” but in the long run, I doubt it.

[kellynla]

BTTT

[SQUID]

Leave the Peoples Republic of Caliphornija. That's all.

I predict it will become the first official communist state. Lots of Commies came to Hollywood during the cold war and that's exactly their goal.

SanFransisco and LA have passed laws that are very consistent with Marxist concepts from top to bottom.

[NYer]

Ping!

[Notwithstanding]

We need federal legislation
that denies federal education funds
to states that do not recognize
a parent’s right to homeschool.

The Organic Right of American Parents to Provide Lifelong Education Act (Organic APPLE Act)

[trisham]

What!?

[Mrs. Don-o]

I suspect they zeroes in on the worst, morally tainted, abusive, out-of-legal-compliance family they could find, in order to make this sweeping ruling affecting 10’s of thousands of legitimate Homeschooling families.