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.
I agree. But...the argument made in the opinion does not address the general case, and the court built its decision on this specific case from some relevant portions of other cases--but didn't truly consider the broader question, as I read it.
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.
And you are right on target here. I appreciate your clear thought on this topic in place of knee-jerking. :-)
I'm not claiming there's no potential danger in the opinion--what I'm claiming is that by giving credence to the ideas within, the argument for homeschooling is weakened. What should be pointed out is that there are now other differences that make the Turner reasoning irrelevant (moot?). For example, if a parent is credentialed, then no affidavit would be required if the parent operated under EC 48224 rather than EC 48222. Also, note that the background check requirements mention that it applies to PAID teachers only.
It's time for the legislative branch to step up and make it clear that homeschooling is protected, but that doesn't mean we should tear down the limited protections we have, just to demonstrate that need.