Posted on 06/13/2003 12:26:29 PM PDT by pabianice
"We have legal custody of the children and we will do with them as we see fit," DSS worker Susan Etscovitz told the Bryants in their Gale Street home. "They are minors and they do what we tell them to do!"
WALTHAM, MA -- A legal battle over two home-schooled children exploded into a seven-hour standoff yesterday, when they refused to take a standardized test ordered by the Department of Social Services.
George Nicholas Bryant, 15, and Nyssa Bryant, 13, stood behind their parents, Kim and George, as police and DSS workers attempted to collect the children at 7:45 a.m. DSS demanded that the two complete a test to determine their educational level.
After a court order was issued by Framingham Juvenile Court around 1 p.m., the children were driven by their parents to a Waltham hotel.
Again, they refused to take the test.
"The court order said that the children must be here. It said nothing about taking the test," said George Bryant.
The second refusal came after an emotion-filled morning for the family, when DSS workers sternly demanded the Bryants comply with their orders.
"We have legal custody of the children and we will do with them as we see fit," DSS worker Susan Etscovitz told the Bryants in their Gale Street home. "They are minors and they do what we tell them to do."
Four police officers were also at the scene and attempted to coax the Bryants to listen to the DSS worker.
"We are simply here to prevent a breach of the peace," said Waltham Youth Officer Detective James Auld. "We will will not physically remove the children."
Yesterday's events are the continuation of a six-year legal battle between the family and Waltham Public Schools and the state.
The Bryants contend that the city and state do not have the legal right to force their children to take standardized tests, even though DSS workers have threatened to take their children from them.
"There have been threats all along. Most families fall to that bullying by the state and the legal system," said George Bryant.
"But this has been a six-year battle between the Waltham Public Schools and our family over who is in control of the education of our children," Bryant continued. "In the end the law of this state will protect us."
The Bryant children have never attended public school.
Both sides agree that the children are in no way abused mentally, physically, sexually or emotionally, but legal custody of the children was taken from Kim and George Bryant in December 2001. The children will remain under the legal custody of DSS until their 16th birthdays.
The parents have been ruled as unfit because they did not file educational plans or determine a grading system for the children, two criteria of Waltham Public School's home schooling policy.
"We do not believe in assessing our children based on a number or letter. Their education process is their personal intellectual property," said Bryant.
George Bryant said he was arrested six years ago, after not attending a meeting that the city contends he was summoned to. The meeting was called by the Waltham School Department for his failure to send his children to school.
"We want these issues aired in the open, in public. The school system and DSS have fought to keep this behind closed doors," said Bryant.
Superintendent of Schools Susan Parrella said she was unaware of yesterday's incident and that, currently the school department approves of the education plan filed by DSS for the Bryant children.
"An acceptable home school plan is in place right now," said Parrella. "I was not aware of any testing occurring today."
The Bryant children freely admit that they have no intention of taking a test.
"We don't want to take the test. We have taken them before and I don't think they are a fair assessment of what we know," said Nyssa Bryant. "And no one from DSS has ever asked us what we think."
Kenneth Pontes, area director of DSS, denied that workers have never talked to the children privately, but admitted that this type of case isn't often seen by his office.
"This is an unusual case. Different school systems require different regulations for home-schooled children. Waltham requires testing," said Pontes.
Pontes said that a possibility exists that the children will be removed from their home, but that was a last course of action.
"No one wants these children to be put in foster homes. The best course of action would for (the Bryants) to instruct the children to take the test," said Etscovitz.
The Bryant family is due in Framingham District Court this morning, to go before a juvenile court judge. According to DSS, this session will determine what their next course of action will be and if the children will be removed from the Bryants' home.
"These are our children and they have and always will be willing participants in their education," said Kim Bryant.
Well, per the link below (from an educrat publication), "A Harvard graduate, a Boston University graduate, and an MIT Ph.D. failed the Massachusetts new-teacher assessment test", so I'm sure the Massachusetts education establishment can figure out how to design a test that home-schooled kids would flunk.
http://www.education-world.com/a_admin/admin109.shtml
Funny how the educrats scream bloody murder when anyone tries to make THEM take tests, but then they think it's totally unreasonable when homeschooling families refuse to take tests.
NO, I am a retired nurse turned independent filmmaker whose family has been disrupted for three generations now by social workers. My great grandfather lost all five of his kids when his wife developed pneumonia and died three weeks after giving birth. Her sister moved into the duplex to help raise the family. The wreckers took all the kids from my ggf because of "immorality" i.e., my ggm's sister moving in UPSTAIRS to raise her departed sister's kids. Evidently, just living in the same building with the family, even tho they slept down and my g-aunt slept up, was cause enough. The four eldest kids , including my gm , were placed into an orphanage, where they were not even allowed to acknowledge that they knew one another. They grew up in that place. The newborn was adopted by a physician and his wife who used my g-aunt as a house servant all her life. My ggf disappered, probably into a pit pf despiar after losing his entire family in one blow. The child who was adopted was raised Protestant; the other kids Catholic; it caused a permanent rift in the family.
The other generation involves one of my peers within the family, who lost her firstborn to forced adoption in 1968. She developed severe recurrent depression, PTSD, and a host of other psychological ills from the adoption. The family again was split between those who forced the adoption and those who had no say.
My current project is a documentary on forced adoption in the 1960s. I have studied the topic for years and years, and interviewed literally hundreds and hundreds of people who were affected by adoption. As a nurse, mother, and citizen, I have an interest in child welfare. As a filmmaker, I have a responsibility to bring light to the community. That's where I am coming from. What's your background?
There's a good reason for that. And know this; in some cases, if a parent has been accused by DSS, he or she has fewer rights than a bona fide terrorist. A quick review of the treatment of unwed mothers in this country in the 1960s makes that as plain as day.
It would feel nice to say this to DSS, wouldn't it? In MA, though, such an "aggressive attitude" could be noted by DSS. Then, when that "anonymous tip" came in on the child abuse hotline, they would most likely get an order from a judge to interview your children outside your presence.
The end of the process could easily be that they would try to cut a deal with your wife to leave the children in her custody ONLY IF you left the home, and began your anger management counseling. Laugh if you want--but I've read worse about that state.
You can refuse them politely, but then you'd better get a lawyer.
What greater terror can exist for a parent than to lose their children? If the classical definition is used (one using terror to achieve a political goal), then these bureaucrats aren't just coming off as terrorists, they ARE terrorists.
Hey brainiac, if MA homeschool law does not require testing then HELLO, NO school district can. This is outrageous.
Nice work. Thanks.
Test the dog. He looks smarter than the kids.
And.......you are surprised by this?
Thank you. That's what I was going to say -- but then toned it down. Almost got sued for libel once, so I'm extra cautious now. Then again, I don't know what I was thinking, considering I'm labeling a GROUP as terrorists, vs. calling a specific individual a terrorist.
Way ta go, Bill
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.