Of course, that's not what was ruled at all.
The decision affirms that you can't break the law to homeschool, but following the current law allows homeschooling.
Please read my PRIOR posts 226 and 227.
If you wish to believe this is a bunch of nothing, and you wish to disregard what HSLDA is saying LEGALLY about a case, then you wish to continue to keep your head in the sand.
You are contributing to the statists among us who wish to keep ALL children under their thumb. Your further posts will tell me all I need to know.
I will read the entire case once I have the time but I think what is going on here is you have a case that is distinguishable on the facts as you have pointed out. However, the language used by the appellate court in their opinion goes beyond what would have been necessary to decide this case, specifically states that there is no right to homeschool in CA, and implies that it is fraudulent for homeschoolers to register as private schools - this is what HSLDA is concerned about. A lot of cases are decided on facts that are distinguishable but end up setting precedent that is used to dramatically change the law. When the next case comes along, the court relies on the problematic language in the first case rather looking at the the facts which were distinguishable.