According to the ruling, they claimed to be operating under the "independent study" rules of Sunland Christian School (a "valid charter school" under California law).
The ruling, again, addresses this issue by reference to California law, and relevant precedent, and rejected the claim.
Thus, the "judges," illegitimately wishing to give the state better leverage in their abuse case, had to rule that there is no right of parents to homeschool.
Well, no. They're an appellate court, which must be asked (by appeal) to address particular rulings of the lower trial court. The trial court made a specific ruling on home-schooling, which was then appealed. The appeals court took the case and ruled on it.
Again, the real issue here is that folks are trying to work around the law as written. The judges should (one hopes) stick to the law as written. And home-schoolers in California should work to change the law.
“According to the ruling, they claimed to be operating under the ‘independent study’ rules of Sunland Christian School (a “valid charter school” under California law).
“The ruling, again, addresses this issue by reference to California law, and relevant precedent, and rejected the claim.”
And appears to have done so by distorting law and precedent to take after this family.
I don't know the whole history of homeschooling in California. I live in Maryland. However, I'm somewhat aware that the state of California was at one time not especially hospitable to homeschoolers, but that after much thrashing about, remedies were found and put in place to permit homeschoolers sufficient freedom of action. Appeals to court cases decided in the 1950s seem to bypass the settlements found in later decades. I assume evil intent on the part of the “judges” involved in this travesty.
Here's some stuff from HSLDA's site that sheds a little more light on the matter:
---------------------------------------------
In February 1986, the Santa Maria Municipal Court ruled, in two home school cases handled by HSLDA, that the compulsory attendance statute is void because of its unconstitutional vagueness and upheld the right of home schools to operate as private schools. People v. Darrah, No. 853104 (Santa Maria Mun. Ct. Mar. 10, 1986); People v. Black, No. 853105 (Santa Maria Mun. Ct. Mar. 10, 1986).
Furthermore, in Institute of Creation Research v. Honig,Civil No. 90-0483-B-(M), January 29, 1992, the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of California ordered ... "a private K-12 school is not within the jurisdiction of the State Department of Education for the purpose of approval of courses or course content or issuance of regulations, except as provided by law," (p. 3). This ruling would apply to all home schools that file a private school affidavit.
-------------------------------------------
As you can see, jurisprudence in California on the topic of homeschooling didn't end in the 1950s.
“Well, no. They're an appellate court, which must be asked (by appeal) to address particular rulings of the lower trial court.”
Well, yes. The trial court ruled in favor of the family, and the appellate “judges,” with clear bias toward the authoritarian state authorities, manipulated and twisted law and precedent to come to the opposite conclusion of the trial court.
“Again, the real issue here is that folks are trying to work around the law as written. The judges should (one hopes) stick to the law as written. And home-schoolers in California should work to change the law.”
It appears that to the degree that the “judges” followed any standard but their own tyrannical natures, they followed outdated precedents that contradict the actual plain language of the law, and failed to follow how this part of the law has evolved in California.
sitetest