Home schooling unlawful, says California court

OneNewsNow ^ | 3/6/2008 | Allie Martin and Jody Brown

[fweingart]

A three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal has determined parents in that state have no legal right to home school. A Christian attorney in Sacramento says unless the ruling is reversed, literally thousands of students in the Golden State will be subject to criminal sanctions. (click here for special webcast starting at 2 p.m. CST)

California Justice H. Walter Croskey has stated in an opinion that "parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction, and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program." The opinion was issued in the case of one family who enrolled their daughter in Sunland Christian School, a private home-schooling program based in Sylmar.

The ruling reverses an earlier opinion from a Superior Court that found that "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home." But in his reversal, Croskey refers to the "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

Brad Dacus, president of the Sacramento-based Pacific Justice Institute, calls the scope of the decision "breathtaking."

"It not only attacks traditional home schooling, but also calls into question home schooling through charter schools and teaching children at home via independent study through public and private schools," he explains.

According to Dacus, the ruling goes against prior court decisions. "Case law in federal court and by the U.S. Supreme Court [has] already recognized that parents have a fundamental right over the education of their children," he points out. "And in fact, the lower-court judge in this decision ... actually ruled that these parents had a constitutional right to home school their children. But it was reversed by this three-judge panel in this appellate court."

Dacus says an appeal has already been filed by his firm on the school's behalf. "We're going to try to have this decision non-published and specifically tabled until a final determination by the State Supreme Court," he says. And if the decision is not reversed, says the attorney, "more than 166,000 students currently receiving an education at home will be subject to criminal sanctions."

For the time being, the decision affects four counties in the Los Angeles metro area. Sunland Christian School, says the Pacific Justice Institute, has been in full compliance with the requirements of California law for more than 20 years.

[Gondring]

Please see what Ezekiel has posted here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1981532/posts?page=175#175

[Gondring]

Do you have any idea of all the good work that HSLDA has done. I really wouldn’t criticise this organization unless you have a good reason too.

I believe that "releasing a wave of hysteria without basis" is good reason.

[Red Badger]

The Golden Gate........

[Sharkfish]

Never mind.

[blam]

California exodus turns to stampede

[stevio]

They’re so worried about the “Fairness Doctrine”. They’re already silenced, he’s got kids, this should be an important issue to him. Speaking out against the gay mafia would have them silenced. How can 1% of the population be so powerful? We have no voice.

[cricket]

Guess this eventually will see SCOTUS eyes.

Conservatives better think carefully; what kind of 'Bench' these candidates would call their 'own'.

(No matter his Lib persuasions; McCain - because he not a committed ideologue - is the only reasonable answer here.)

[Alex Murphy]

A three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal has determined parents in that state have no legal right to home school. A Christian attorney in Sacramento says unless the ruling is reversed, literally thousands of students in the Golden State will be subject to criminal sanctions.

And people wonder why I won't live in California.

[GVnana]

Thanks Gondring, but that analysis is so contradictory to the LA Times and wire story that, frankly, I'm confused.

Here's the link to the Pacific Justice Institute's release on the case: "In his opinion, Croskey, 75, described what he called the "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

http://www.pacificjustice.org/resources/news/focusdetails.cfm?ID=PR080305a

[mvpel]

As I mentioned in a related thread, Californians evidently don't involve themselves in their state's legislative process.

They can't. The legislature has carefully designed things over the years so that they are all but unaccountable to the people who elect them - or rather, the people they select to elect them. Gerrymandering, high salaries, plenty of perks, and immense districts, plus the vast distance to travel to Sacramento, serve to guarantee that involving oneself in the California legislative process is either a waste of time or cost- and time-prohibitive for all but the richest people. Term limits just mean that a career politician jumps from one role to another, rather than preventing careerism in the first place, and guarantees that a new crop of freshmen every session can be easily indoctrinated and bullied into submission.

On the other hand, my town here in New Hampshire of 30,000 people has eight state representatives, and home school freedom is expanding, not contracting.

Free State Project

[phillyfanatic]

Now does it matter who appoints SCOTUS people? At least McCain will not give us the 9th Circuit or the Ca.Supreme Court morons. This is a huge blow to freedom and individual liberties and the case should go all the way to SCOTUS.

[TruthConquers]

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.

[dschapin]

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.

[vpintheak]

99.9% of the time YES! Abuse situations are a different story. Otherwise, until my kids are 18 and out the door, their butts belong to me.

[ridesthemiles]

Listen up, Subjects!

You WILL submit your children to become wards of The State. Assimilate into the Collective willingly or the forced submission will not go well for you.

You have NO choice in this matter.

(But is seems leftists are FOR “choice” on just about every other matter.)””

You WILL use no other light bulb except for the spagetti bulbs.
You WILL spay and neuter all your animals unless you have a kennel license.
You WILL pay sick pay to all your employees, regardless of your company size and your profits.
You WILL hire gender bender people and build another bathroom to accomodate them.
You WILL send your children to schools that don’t educate them, and they will be indoctrinated with homosexual books like Heather has 2 Mommies...
You WILL......

You Will.......

[monday]

Only totalitarian regimes demand that children are indoctrinated by the state. If this stands, the US will be a defacto totalitarian regime. Time for a new revolution.

[Amendment10]

Although California voters have the power to change their government, California could be in such a mess, as you have indicated, that they have the daunting challenge of essentially re-establishing their state. In fact, Californians are arguably a good example of the citizen apathy that Jefferson warned about.

"...Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you & I, & Congress & Assemblies, judges & governors shall all become wolves. ..." --Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Jan. 16, 1787 http://tinyurl.com/46x5d

[bjcintennessee]

PING

[manc]

problem is that some who do leave still carry on voting for the dems and never realise it was that party what had the effect on them leaving there

so now they bring their liberal votes to another state and thus ruin another state

Here in florida we have many people from massachusetts, NY and NJ who leave their states for high cost, high taxes, etc yet still continue to vote for the dims thus now trying to ruin this state

They are the people who need to stay in CA,NJ, MA, NY and leave us our state as a good state

[manc]

that si what we here say i northern florida

come to the state if you are conservative but if you are coming here with your liberal north east attitude then please stay north of the mason dixon line as we don’t want you

we like not being told to get emissions testing on our cars,
we like not getting inspection stickers on our cars
we like not being told to wear helmets
we like having a gun to protect ourselves and family and house
we like having no state taxwe like having a low cost of living up here in the northern part of the state