Article on CA court ordering homeschooled kids back into ps.

[LG Gone Wild]

Is this really happening?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57679

[Janet in WA]

Is this really happening?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57679As I mentioned on that "other" message board -- I'm betting there's more to this story. Not saying the ruling is right, just that there's a reason this particular family was targeted, and that reason will help the rest of the CA's homeschooling population decide to what extent the ruling has implications for them.

[LG Gone Wild]

As I mentioned on that "other" message board -- I'm betting there's more to this story. Not saying the ruling is right, just that there's a reason this particular family was targeted, and that reason will help the rest of the CA's homeschooling population decide to what extent the ruling has implications for them.

I am alarmed that the family was using a school. If a court found that too dodgy, was about the rest of us who are merely R-4s?

BTW, what do you mean by the "other" board? I really don't know.:o

[Daisy]

There is a lot of hearsay floating around about it. Some of what I have heard.

1) This particular umbrella school refuses to file an affadavit. They tell their homeschooling parents not to file an affadavit stating that it is an illegal requirment.

2) The owner of the umbrella school used to work with CHEA and Home Protection Ministries and a rift over the above issue caused them to part company. So this school is not part of HSLDA or any of it's CA-based affiliates which means these parents don't have much legal support (most likely). Not saying that is good or bad, just the way it is.

3) Supposedly, one of the children in the household filed a complaint and there is some confusion about whether the parents were taking a delayed academics approach??

Even so, I find myself every irritated by the judges ruling (if the report by WND is completely accurate). He is setting a dangerous precedent. With the information provided, I would simply have expected the judge to tell the parents what the CA laws are and that they had a set period of time in which to comply. In CA, you have 3 options, 1) Public School Charter, 2)File an affadavit declaring yourself a private school or 3) Be a certified teacher and thus tutor to your own children. I have several friends who do not file an affadavit. They claim it is their constitutional right to homeschool their children. I agree with them but obviously CA doesn't.

[Janet in WA]

BTW, what do you mean by the "other" board? I really don't know.:oThis just appeared today on another message board that I (and many others here) frequent and my comments were the same there. I wanted to acknowledge that I had already posted these comments elsewhere in case you (or others) had already seen them.

[Daisy]

Oh, so now we are just drifting over here. I have a friend who has a call into Family Protection Ministry. I'll post when & if she discovers anything.

[Janet in WA]

Even so, I find myself every irritated by the judges ruling (if the report by WND is completely accurate). He is setting a dangerous precedent. With the information provided, I would simply have expected the judge to tell the parents what the CA laws are and that they had a set period of time in which to comply. Well, if I were a betting woman, I'd bet that this family has already been told -- at least once, by at least one CA authority -- that they must do this. I'd be surprised (and as unhappy as you) if the first they heard of this was the day they were dragged into court.

[LizzyBee]

Specifically, the appeals court said, the trial court had found that "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting."

If the above quote is accurate, that is scary, because it can be applied to all homeschoolers!

[Janet in WA]

Specifically, the appeals court said, the trial court had found that "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting."

If the above quote is accurate, that is scary, because it can be applied to all homeschoolers!Yep, legislating from the bench. And I don't like that part of it either. But what I'm wondering is what put this particular family in a position to be the target of those words by a judge? I'd want to know if there are implications for other homeschoolers in CA who are in complete compliance with the law.

[abbeyej]

I'm afraid my opinion of World Net Daily has dropped so low that I won't even bother going over to read the article. If someone can post a link to an article from a less biased source, I'd be curious to read it.

That said, if the family refused to file an R-4 and their "umbrella school" (although without an R-4, I don't know how they'd call themselves that) didn't file one either... It sounds to me like they were *asking* to be made an example of. Yikes. California really has *very* home school-friendly laws. Why on earth would someone try to take a stand over filing an R-4, for heaven's sake?!? If that's in fact the case, I really do have trouble mustering much sympathy.

[Daisy]

Well, that was my deal also. I couldn't find another source. The family exists and there was a court case and a superior court case. I was able to confirm the existence of a trial but couldn't read any briefs or anything specific about it. That is why my friend put a call into Family Protection Ministries b/c we can't find any more info. I, too, am wondering if WND kinda twisted it their way??

[WendyK]

I too think there must be more to it. Aren't there a ton of other hs'ers successfully hsing in California? So something must be up that we aren't getting through this article. I am sure rotten and unfair stuff happens to people, but I just can't believe that is it. I know nothing of the regulations in California regarding hsing though.

[LG Gone Wild]

I'm curious to know why it has lost favor with you but I don't want the thread to evolve into a debate over worldnetdaily.

I must admit, I enjoy the headlines and don't bother to read the articles in full except for when Chuck Norris posts.

I'm afraid my opinion of World Net Daily has dropped so low that I won't even bother going over to read the article. If someone can post a link to an article from a less biased source, I'd be curious to read it.

[abbeyej]

I, too, am wondering if WND kinda twisted it their way??

Well, they certainly have in the past. Without shame or remorse. Enough that they've lost all credibility in my eyes. Which is unfortunate...

[Amy in NY]

I don't have time to read it, though. My procrastination activity (i.e. WTM board) has to end. 5 kids + dinner dishes + 8 loads of laundry to put away.

Oh boy...wish I could stay here and read it.


http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:1xvWeJr6b0oJ:www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.DOC+%22Sunland+Christian+School%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

[allearia]

Here you can read the actual court ruling:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF


I haven't read it carefully but it does look pretty bad to me.

[Janet in WA]

Here you can read the actual court ruling:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF


I haven't read it carefully but it does look pretty bad to me.I've read it carefully. It's bad. I think everyone should read it.

[abbeyej]

Thanks, Amy and Laura -- this is very interesting reading.

[Melinda in VT]

I read it, and it does sound bad.

[abbeyej]

I read it, and it does sound bad.

I'm not sure. Though the court is obviously biased against home schooling in general, it does refer specifically to the exemptions in Education Code 48220 et seq -- which is exactly where the exemption that most home schoolers in California rely on (whether they file their own personal R-4 affidavit or join with an "umbrella" school that files a single R-4 for all the families it serves). http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=48001-49000&file=48220-48232

I remain curious whether the "school" with which this family was affiliated had in fact filed an R-4.

All that said, yes, it concerns me that the court chose to focus on the constitutionality of home schooling rather than on the alleged abuse / neglect by the family. By attempting to differentiate between "day schools" and home schools (which until now has not be a legal distinction in California), a few cases like this could certainly cause Ca home schoolers to need to lobby for specific home school laws. Blech. (That's me being articulate... ;))

[Melinda in VT]

The part that I thought was bad was where the court emphasized that students had to be educated in the school or be taught by a licensed tutor. That would seem to rule out even those homeschoolers who are enrolled in schools that do file R-4s. Right?

[abbeyej]

The part that I thought was bad was where the court emphasized that students had to be educated in the school or be taught by a licensed tutor. That would seem to rule out even those homeschoolers who are enrolled in schools that do file R-4s. Right?

Well, they say that, then immediately reference the code under which home schoolers have been operating as private schools (filing R-4 affidavits) for years. In CA, filing an R-4 (and meeting certain other requirements) *makes* one a private day school -- there is no such thing (legally) as a home school.

[Janet in WA]

The part that I thought was bad was where the court emphasized that students had to be educated in the school or be taught by a licensed tutor. That would seem to rule out even those homeschoolers who are enrolled in schools that do file R-4s. Right?That's how I read it. The ruling seems to dismiss any way the law could support home instruction by a parent who is not a certified teacher.

And the court sums up the parents' options for complying with the law to be...

"Upon remand, absent any legal ground for not doing so, the court must order the parents to (1) enroll their children in a public
full-time day school, or a legally qualified private full-time day school and (2) see to it
that the children receive their education in such school."

There doesn't seem to be any mention of the option of filing an affidavit and declaring their home to be a private school. Is that between the lines somewhere? Is that the "legally qualified private full-time day school". That possibility seems to be dismissed by much other verbiage throughout the ruling.

[Einen]

Here you can read the actual court ruling:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF


I haven't read it carefully but it does look pretty bad to me.

I read it and it's very alarming.

[Kay in Cal]

I do have to say that reading the actual reading is very upsetting--it seems to dismiss the very foundation of the right to homeschool (and, actually, to use any non-public schools). I'm wondering where this is going to go?

[Sunny]

I remain curious whether the "school" with which this family was affiliated had in fact filed an R-4.

I'm not sure it matters :( They seemed to indicate that because there was no direct supervision, nor actual attendance at this "school", it didn't qualify.
2 years ago, they made this ruling that as homeschoolers, we did NOT qualify as private schools. They changed the online R-4 sign up that year to reflect that homeschoolers could not use the R4. We did anyway.

I believe they will use this to enforce the interpretation that homeschools are not private schools, even if done as a group umbrella.

[mcconnellboys]

True, that's what scares me about it, too. Unfortunately, judges during the past couple of decades have a very bad record for trying to make law, rather than just follow it.....

Regena

[astrid]

I'm afraid my opinion of World Net Daily has dropped so low that I won't even bother going over to read the article. If someone can post a link to an article from a less biased source, I'd be curious to read it.

Sorry, but from a source like World Net Daily, I'm not inclined to

a.) believe this is the whole story
or
b.) muster much sympathy if the family hasn't followed the rules.

Thousands of people homeschool in California. This seems like just another example of the yellow journalism that World Net Daily employs to feed their faithful readers a steady diet of mistrust and persecution.

JMHO.

[abbeyej]

I believe they will use this to enforce the interpretation that homeschools are not private schools, even if done as a group umbrella.

Ugh. I guess the time has come when Californians will have to lobby for specific home school laws, or a specific clause to include us as private schools.

[astrid]

Well then, that IS upsetting. Especially since when it comes to education, there has been a national trend over the past few decades that "as California goes, so goes the nation." EEEK.

[Jenstet]

From what I read, and this may have little to do with the situation, there seems to be an uproar with Arnold suggesting tolerance for gay teachers. Using their sexuality as positive role models so kids won't feel as scared when they come out. When a teacher's sexual leanings come up in a school setting I have no idea but, whatever. My point is that there has apparently been an outcry from parents suggesting an "exodus" of sorts from the public school system into homeschooling. Maybe the judge has some strong feelings about this matter and she(the mother) is the one to be made an example of.
It was strange to me and I think I may have misunderstood but she is only in trouble with two of her kids? Doesn't she have 6 or so.
I think you all are right about there being more to the story.

[Janet in WA]

I'm not sure it matters :( They seemed to indicate that because there was no direct supervision, nor actual attendance at this "school", it didn't qualify.
2 years ago, they made this ruling that as homeschoolers, we did NOT qualify as private schools. They changed the online R-4 sign up that year to reflect that homeschoolers could not use the R4. We did anyway.

I believe they will use this to enforce the interpretation that homeschools are not private schools, even if done as a group umbrella.It seems to me that in the wording of the ruling, and the case law cited, this court is attempting to close that loophole.

[Janet in WA]

I think I may have misunderstood but she is only in trouble with two of her kids? Doesn't she have 6 or so.
I think you all are right about there being more to the story.Two of the children are suing for the right to attend public school.

[elegantlion]

I found it quite interesting on page 16, where they talked about the Amish "Deeply held religious beliefs". Obviously the Amish culture stands out as religious. Yet, it seems they are saying if you are more mainstream in your religion, your level of conviction can not be quantified. :mad:

[Melinda in VT]

I found it quite interesting on page 16, where they talked about the Amish "Deeply held religious beliefs". Obviously the Amish culture stands out as religious. Yet, it seems they are saying if you are more mainstream in your religion, your level of conviction can not be quantified. :mad:

I thought that the key thing they were focusing on was the group aspect of it.

the court found that the Amish traditional way of life
does not rest on personal preferences but rather on “deep religious conviction, shared by
an organized group, and intimately related to daily living”

I think had the CA family belonged to a church that taught separation from society in other ways, or that formally promoted homeschooling as a key tenet of their religion, the judges might have given more weight to a comparison to the Amish. At least, that's how I read it.

[Janet in WA]

I thought that the key thing they were focusing on was the group aspect of it.

the court found that the Amish traditional way of life
does not rest on personal preferences but rather on “deep religious conviction, shared by
an organized group, and intimately related to daily living”

I think had the CA family belonged to a church that taught separation from society in other ways, or that formally promoted homeschooling as a key tenet of their religion, the judges might have given more weight to a comparison to the Amish. At least, that's how I read it.That's how I read it too. The ruling stated more than once that the right to opt out of sending a child to a state-certifed school should not be a matter of personal preference.

[Shannon831]

The parents in this case assert that when the mother gives the children
educational instruction at home, the parents are acting within the law because mother
operates through Sunland Christian School where the children are “enrolled.”
However, the parents have not demonstrated that mother has a teaching credential such
that the children can be said to be receiving an education from a credentialed tutor. It is
clear that the education of the children at their home, whatever the quality of that education, does not qualify for the private full-time day school or credentialed tutor
exemptions from compulsory education in a public full-time day school.

That pretty much applies to anyone hsing in Cali through the affidavit. I really hate that Ca doesn't have established HS laws, just loop holes.

[Ellie]

The parents in this case assert that when the mother gives the children educational instruction at home, the parents are acting within the law because mother operates through Sunland Christian School where the children are “enrolled.” However, the parents have not demonstrated that mother has a teaching credential such that the children can be said to be receiving an education from a credentialed tutor. It is clear that the education of the children at their home, whatever the quality of that education, does not qualify for the private full-time day school or credentialed tutor exemptions from compulsory education in a public full-time day school.

That pretty much applies to anyone hsing in Cali through the affidavit. I really hate that Ca doesn't have established HS laws, just loop holes.

However, that "loophole" has been good to us for over 25 years. I'm thinking the court will have trouble with its interpretation (i.e., that private schools must have certified teachers), as that will affect *all* private schools in California. Many private schools, especially smaller church-run schools, do not hire certified teachers. The law specifically says that teachers must be "capable of teaching," not that they must be certified.

That has been part of the dispute over the years: School officials say we are tutoring our children, which requires the tutor to be credentialed, while we say we have a private school, which does not.

It is true that Sunland Christian School and Terry Neven parted ways from CHEA many years ago, and that parting was not amicable. Terry has his own defense organization, CHELD, but I'm thinking this group, if it is involved, has not given the accused parents very good advice or representation.

FTR, I could not find Sunland Christian School in CA's private school directory for this school year. I had not heard that he didn't file an affidavit, but it looks as if that may be the case.

[Mrs Mungo]

All I know is: if I were in California I would be joining HSLDA, no matter how much I dislike their politics.

[Kate CA]

However, that "loophole" has been good to us for over 25 years. I'm thinking the court will have trouble with its interpretation (i.e., that private schools must have certified teachers), as that will affect *all* private schools in California. Many private schools, especially smaller church-run schools, do not hire certified teachers. The law specifically says that teachers must be "capable of teaching," not that they must be certified.

That has been part of the dispute over the years: School officials say we are tutoring our children, which requires the tutor to be credentialed, while we say we have a private school, which does not.

It is true that Sunland Christian School and Terry Neven parted ways from CHEA many years ago, and that parting was not amicable. Terry has his own defense organization, CHELD, but I'm thinking this group, if it is involved, has not given the accused parents very good advice or representation.

FTR, I could not find Sunland Christian School in CA's private school directory for this school year. I had not heard that he didn't file an affidavit, but it looks as if that may be the case.

Ellie, does this article alarm you at all? I have not had enough time to sit and read it thoroughly. I know your CA history and it was a relief to read what you wrote here. I am not a person given to being fearful about our established homeschool (R-4), but does this concern you?

Thanks for your time.

[abbeyej]

...I'm thinking the court will have trouble with its interpretation (i.e., that private schools must have certified teachers), as that will affect *all* private schools in California. Many private schools, especially smaller church-run schools, do not hire certified teachers. The law specifically says that teachers must be "capable of teaching," not that they must be certified.

Actually, if you read the court ruling, you would see that they specifically argue that private school teachers do not need to be certified because it's easier for the state to monitor schools than individual families and also because teachers in a private school have accountability within the school in a way that families do not. The ruling does *not* suggest that private school teachers need certification, only home school teachers. (It implies that home schoolers cannot use the private school exemption, only the "studio" exemption from mandatory public school.)

[Dawn]

WOW.

Sad situation for that family. Scary situation for homeschooling in CA....

[Kate CA]

WOW.

Sad situation for that family. Scary situation for homeschooling in CA....

Do you use HSLDA? What do you think of this? I am going to check their website and see if they have anything on this. I don't like the sound of it.

[Friederike in Persia]

I realise that most of you are more concerned about what it could mean for you, but what a mess that family must be in:o
2 of your own children suing you for the right to go to ps??? I wouldn't want to be present when they're doing school at home!

[Melinda in VT]

I realise that most of you are more concerned about what it could mean for you, but what a mess that family must be in:o
2 of your own children suing you for the right to go to ps??? I wouldn't want to be present when they're doing school at home!

I was unclear from reading the court ruling if the kids want to go to public school or if their attorneys (court appointed?) were acting in what they thought was the best interest of the children in spite of what the children wanted.

[Susie in CA]

Two of the children are suing for the right to attend public school.

This says it all! Here is why this family stands out among the thousands of other Californians who homeschool.

Susie

[Nicole not in CA]

The wording is definitely unsettling. It's frustrating when there is an unusual or crazy situation that then has the potential to set precedence for the rest of homeschoolers.

Each time that I have moved out of California, something happened/is happening with homeschooling in the state. The first time was when the department of education was sending letters to a bunch of families stating that homeschooling was not within the law and not a true private school, and I was thinking that as much as I *LOVE* California, I was glad I was not there at the moment. I really hope this doesn't change anything with homeschooling laws or application of the laws in CA. I loved the ease of homeschooling in CA, and as someone else said, what happens in CA often affects the rest of the nation.

[Cadam]

This is what don't understand. I read it and the court papers says two of the kids accused the father of abuse.

When CPS goes to investigate they find that the family homeschools and then the remainder of the 18 pages is about homeschooling. What about the abuse allegations?!!???!

Why is the court addressing the homeschooling when kids are potentially being abused? Where are the findings of the abuse investigation?

Yes, I worry about the implications of this case for all of us but frankly we are a lobby not to be messed with. That past has proven that over all and when necessary homeschoolers will put up a fight. Wether or not you like hslda or hate them they can kick into gear, notify their members and have a state capitol flooded with calls and emails in a matter of hours.

I am more worried about kids possibly being abused and the fact that the juvenile court doesn't seem to give a flying flip.

[Mekanamom]

Unfortunately, my immediate concern about all of this is that it opens up an avenue for harassment for those of us who have disgruntled family members willing to cause trouble.

If the law that has been protecting homeschoolers in this state for (did someday say 20+ years?) is no longer quite as rock solid as it was... how long before some anti-homeschooling crazed relative decides to push their luck and make another example out of some unfortunate family.

All in the "best interests" of the children, of course. :mad:

I have some ideas ready to spring into action if needed. It's just exceedingly irritating having the possibility of trouble hanging over one's head.

(I hesitated to post because my board name is searchable on the internet, and a lot of what I post shows up on google. I don't think my comments could make anything worse, though...)

[Melinda in VT]

*This* court ruling was only about the schooling issue. The footnote on page 18 mentions a separate, unpublished ruling on the non-homeschooling issues.

[Cadam]

*This* court ruling was only about the schooling issue. The footnote on page 18 mentions a separate, unpublished ruling on the non-homeschooling issues.

Thank you, I only skimmed the last 10 pages. I am glad they are addressing the abuse allegations though.

[Liberty]

For those living in CA, maybe you should all contact your congressman and become squeaky wheels about closing the loopholes.

[Ellie]

Actually, if you read the court ruling, you would see that they specifically argue that private school teachers do not need to be certified because it's easier for the state to monitor schools than individual families and also because teachers in a private school have accountability within the school in a way that families do not. The ruling does *not* suggest that private school teachers need certification, only home school teachers. (It implies that home schoolers cannot use the private school exemption, only the "studio" exemption from mandatory public school.)

I have never heard of a "studio" exemption. There's a tutoring exemption.

This has been the argument all along (that homeschoolers cannot file an affidavit per Section 33190 of the Ed. Code), and that's why there are so many private schools made up of only homeschoolers; IOW, someone files an affidavit with many families so that there are lots of children on the affidavit, which looks like a "regular" private school, instead of each family filing with just 1 or 2 children--clearly homeschoolers. Sunland Christian School is such a program. (Californians call them "Independent Study Programs," but they really are private schools, period.)

The legal watchdogs in California have long avoided trying to have the laws changed, as that could be a bigger problem than just working with the existing vague law. One of the particular problems in this situation is that it looks as if Sunland did not file an affidavit, making it *not* a legal private school. That might be why the parents are going with their religious views instead of the private school law. And that really seems to be muddying the water.

[Ellie]

Ellie, does this article alarm you at all? I have not had enough time to sit and read it thoroughly. I know your CA history and it was a relief to read what you wrote here. I am not a person given to being fearful about our established homeschool (R-4), but does this concern you?

Thanks for your time.

I haven't decided yet.:( It alarms me that the family that finally gets to court appears to be so ignorant of the law, and that they do not have good representation. It alarms me that they were enrolled with Sunland (because of what I know about history with that group). It could be HSLDA's worse nightmare. Ok, yes, I guess I am alarmed:(

California's private school law has worked for homeschoolers for a looooong time. But I have to repeat myself by saying that *anyone* who homeschools should be a member of HSLDA. Regardless of what one thinks about HSLDA's "politics" or anything else, those folks know the law; if the parents in question had been members, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. If you continue to file an R-4, you should make the annual HSLDA membership fee part of your budget.

[Miss Peregrine]

Maybe I am missing something??

This quoteThe parents in this case assert that when the mother gives the children
educational instruction at home, the parents are acting within the law because mother
operates through Sunland Christian School where the children are “enrolled.”
However, the parents have not demonstrated that mother has a teaching credential such
that the children can be said to be receiving an education from a credentialed tutor. It is
clear that the education of the children at their home, whatever the quality of that education, does not qualify for the private full-time day school or credentialed tutor
exemptions from compulsory education in a public full-time day school.

I take it to mean because the mom is not a certified teacher she cannot teach the kids. So she could have rested upon Sunland as being a private school. But since Sunland didn't file an R-4, it does not qualify as a private day school.

I don't see where it implies homeschooling is illegal. The education code says children must be taught by a certified teacher OR be enrolled in a private day school. Sunland didn't comply with the law.

[Tammyla]

I haven't decided yet.:( It alarms me that the family that finally gets to court appears to be so ignorant of the law, and that they do not have good representation. It alarms me that they were enrolled with Sunland (because of what I know about history with that group). It could be HSLDA's worse nightmare. Ok, yes, I guess I am alarmed:(

California's private school law has worked for homeschoolers for a looooong time. But I have to repeat myself by saying that *anyone* who homeschools should be a member of HSLDA. Regardless of what one thinks about HSLDA's "politics" or anything else, those folks know the law; if the parents in question had been members, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. If you continue to file an R-4, you should make the annual HSLDA membership fee part of your budget.


We aren't eligible here for HSLDA membership because we are part of a home school assistance program. :(

I'd call, e-mail and contact my local and state reps if I lived in California.

[Daisy]

I didn't realize this was still at the top. I started a new thread about HSLDA's Response this morning. Here it is...

We received a copy of the decision on Friday and our legal staff has been analyzing the decision and looking at the background and facts of the case. An analysis of the decision is being drafted and will be emailed to all our California members.

We believe the court erred in its decision and it is our belief that homeschooling is still legal in California via the private school exemption.

You should be receiving our litigators’ analysis sometime today.

Pat Ramirez
Legal Assistant for CA
Attorney Michael Smith

[Dawn]

Do you use HSLDA? What do you think of this? I am going to check their website and see if they have anything on this. I don't like the sound of it.

Yes. Years ago our friends who homeschooled strongly encouraged us to use HSLDA when we had also hoped to hs someday. She was never one to believe that even with the most friendly laws and increasing numbers of hsers that we would ever be "safe".

I think that the future looks a lot less "promising" for homeschooling than it did just a few years ago. It will ultimately come down to the issue of parental rights which are being eroded at an alarming rate.

UGH.

[Melinda in VT]

Maybe I am missing something??

This quote

I take it to mean because the mom is not a certified teacher she cannot teach the kids. So she could have rested upon Sunland as being a private school. But since Sunland didn't file an R-4, it does not qualify as a private day school.

I don't see where it implies homeschooling is illegal. The education code says children must be taught by a certified teacher OR be enrolled in a private day school. Sunland didn't comply with the law.

In footnote 4, on page 12, the ruling states: "In support of the parents’ home schooling, Terry Neven, Sunland Christian
School’s administrator, submitted a letter in which he stated the school is a private
school and the two younger children are enrolled there. The letter fails to mention that
the children do not actually receive education instruction at the school." [emphasis in the original]

On page 14, it also refers to "the ruse of enrolling them in a private school and then letting them stay
home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

Continuing on page 14, "Although Mr. Neven reported to the Lynwood Unified School District that he
makes visits to the parents’ home about four times a year, and although some of the
children in the family reported to the Department of Children and Family Services
social worker that they were given tests at the end of some school years and they took
the tests at the Sunland Christian School, the fact remains that the children are taught at
home by a non-credentialed person."

So, I think the ruling does potentially call into question the legality of homeschooling even if you file an R-4.

Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, not homeschooling, not in CA--although my sister fits those last two.

[Miss Peregrine]

Thank you, Melinda!!

That makes sense now.:)

[Ellie]

We aren't eligible here for HSLDA membership because we are part of a home school assistance program. :(

I don't know what a "home school assistance program" is.:confused:

[Daisy]

I don't know the term "homeschool assistance program" either?? The only way you are prevented from joining HSLDA is if you go through a public school charter. Independent Study Programs can and are encouraged to join HSLDA.

[Ellie]

Maybe I am missing something??

This quote

I take it to mean because the mom is not a certified teacher she cannot teach the kids. So she could have rested upon Sunland as being a private school. But since Sunland didn't file an R-4, it does not qualify as a private day school.

I don't see where it implies homeschooling is illegal. The education code says children must be taught by a certified teacher OR be enrolled in a private day school. Sunland didn't comply with the law.

Well, here's the thing: What the law says is that children must be enrolled in a public school or a private school, or tutored full time by a credentialed teacher. It doesn't say that children must be taught by a certified teacher, if you see the difference here. The court seems to be saying that it is not even legal for parents to file their own affidavits if they are not credentialed/certified teachers (which is Terry Neven's position, not that he is anyone special).

[Ellie]

For those living in CA, maybe you should all contact your congressman and become squeaky wheels about closing the loopholes.

Oh, no--we *like* those loopholes. It's the loopholes that give us such freedom--file an affidavit annually and call it a day. And if the state legislature gets involved, boy howdy, you can bet the closing of the loopholes will become chains around hsers' necks.:eek:

[Kate CA]

I was unclear from reading the court ruling if the kids want to go to public school or if their attorneys (court appointed?) were acting in what they thought was the best interest of the children in spite of what the children wanted.

I found the other court case on the family and it is *not* good. We do not want this family representing all of CA homeschooling. I do feel for those children--their family situation sounds *very* distressing.

[sdWTMer]

Oh, no--we *like* those loopholes. It's the loopholes that give us such freedom--file an affidavit annually and call it a day. And if the state legislature gets involved, boy howdy, you can bet the closing of the loopholes will become chains around hsers' necks.:eek:

I agree with you Ellie. Just leave well enough alone. I guess not now though, eh?

What I'm curious about is our state is in such debt, would they target homeschoolers to try to get the money for our children should they be forced to go to a public school? :confused:

[Dawn]

I found the other court case on the family and it is *not* good. We do not want this family representing all of CA homeschooling. I do feel for those children--their family situation sounds *very* distressing.

And sadly:mad: it's these very rare cases that are going to be held up as reasons WHY hsing should be illegal. :(

[sdWTMer]

Kate, could you link to that as well?

Tnx

[Karenciavo]

And sadly:mad: it's these very rare cases that are going to be held up as reasons WHY hsing should be illegal. :(

That is the case in NJ, although, it hasn't happened yet. Homeschooling parent abuses child = homeschooling should be under oversight of state or worse.

[Kate CA]

Kate, could you link to that as well?

Tnx

Yes. http://tinyurl.com/2fet38 it is very lengthy reading and really quite disturbing.

[Daisy]

That file reads like a bad movie. Sigh, what a mess. And as saddened as I am about that family's issues and the possible mistreatment of those kids, I'm more upset about how this is going to impact the thousands upon thousands of homeschoolers in this state.

[Daisy]

Just received from HSLDA

California: Unfortunate Court Decision in California

Dear HSLDA Members and Friends:

The Second Appellate District in Los Angles County handed down a
decision on February 28 involving a non-member homeschool family that
has caused much concern among California homeschoolers.

Home School Legal Defense Association is looking at the background of
the case to determine the implications of this particular decision by
the Second Appellate District for the homeschool community in
California.

We do want to make one point clear, however. Nothing has changed in
California regarding your homeschool. HSLDA maintains that the advice
we give homeschool families is accurate and that filing a private
school affidavit, or enrollment in a private school independent study
program (I.S.P) is a valid option under the law in California.

We will be examining this situation and providing a detailed analysis
of this court decision in the near future.

To read the court opinion visit:
http://www.hslda.org/elink.asp?id=4804 .

Sincerely,

J. Michael Smith
HSLDA President

[Kate CA]

That file reads like a bad movie. Sigh, what a mess. And as saddened as I am about that family's issues and the possible mistreatment of those kids, I'm more upset about how this is going to impact the thousands upon thousands of homeschoolers in this state.

Yes, I agree, on both of your comments.

[Mama Bear]

I do have to say that reading the actual reading is very upsetting--it seems to dismiss the very foundation of the right to homeschool (and, actually, to use any non-public schools). I'm wondering where this is going to go?


I agree, Kay. I don't understand the hoops CA requires, esp in light of many other states' very open requirements. Of course, then there's PA and etc. ;)

I don't know, I guess. It's just sort of yanked me back to when my folks were hsing me and my brothers and it would have been completely illegal except that my dad kept his teaching cert. up to date. It reminds me of the ever so slight feel of paranoia to certain outings.... And we weren't insurrectionists or anything. :D

Also, while I totally get that there are people who need the kind of supervision this ruling implies is necessary, it bothers me that the conversation to follow this will be full of red herrings and not address the fundamental constitutional right of parents to make choices for their children. Lets face it: the vast majority of parents who pull their kids out to teach at home are letting themselves in for no end of hard work. Who does this? People who are interested in subverting their children's opportunities? Hardly.

Maybe it'll all work out or maybe CA homeschoolers need to rise up and make themselves heard. The implied challenge to freedoms makes me twitchy.

"...the juvenile court has authority to limit a parent’s control over a dependent child, including a parent’s right to make educational decisions for a child..."

:eek:

[Mama Bear]

Unfortunately, my immediate concern about all of this is that it opens up an avenue for harassment for those of us who have disgruntled family members willing to cause trouble.

If the law that has been protecting homeschoolers in this state for (did someday say 20+ years?) is no longer quite as rock solid as it was... how long before some anti-homeschooling crazed relative decides to push their luck and make another example out of some unfortunate family.

All in the "best interests" of the children, of course. :mad:

I have some ideas ready to spring into action if needed. It's just exceedingly irritating having the possibility of trouble hanging over one's head.

(I hesitated to post because my board name is searchable on the internet, and a lot of what I post shows up on google. I don't think my comments could make anything worse, though...)


...to all the above. Should such a thing happen, I hope plenty of your and others' ideas come out and work well.

Yuck.

[Mama Bear]

Yes. http://tinyurl.com/2fet38 it is very lengthy reading and really quite disturbing.

I had to stop reading the recounting of the details. It is horrifying to me that such a swamp of a family system leads with a banner of "homeschooling." May God have mercy on those children.

[Kate CA]

I had to stop reading the recounting of the details. It is horrifying to me that such a swamp of a family system leads with a banner of "homeschooling." May God have mercy on those children.

I know. I couldn't read it all either. It is *so* disturbing.

[kalanamak]

Unfortunately, my immediate concern about all of this is that it opens up an avenue for harassment for those of us who have disgruntled family members willing to cause trouble.



Keep in mind this family repeatedly came to the attention of the courts over years and years. I suspect that the court, in the attempt to work with this father with something like paranoid personality disorder, is dragging in every possible way of getting around him.

No one picked out homeschooling as the issue and started going after him. The hundreds of hours of visits and interviews and court hearing, etc cannot and are not going to be rained down on any family who has a disgruntled auntie who calls the local police in concern. The state would go bankrupt.

If the state just removed them, some would raise an outcry. If dirt came out later (child punished with blows, went to bed with ruptured spleen and died...this happened with the ex of someone I know), some would raise an outcry. Pity the poor state who has to grasp at legal straws to try and bring these kids into a setting (school) where someone can, as we say in the medical world, "eyeball them" for bruises or disturbing behavior. I deal with paranoid people, and it is hard to put in writing the sixth sense you have that you are dealing with simmering rage. It is hard enough in MD notes, and I can't imagine trying to do this in legal writing. The passive voice is "professional", but it can't convey the message that "everyone who comes in contact with this jerk worries he's going to start clubbing them with the nearest weapon the moment he senses he isn't getting his way".

I hope this makes sense, I'm out the door to work and don't have time to edit.

[Ellie]

I agree, Kay. I don't understand the hoops CA requires, esp in light of many other states' very open requirements. Of course, then there's PA and etc. ;)

<snip>

Maybe it'll all work out or maybe CA homeschoolers need to rise up and make themselves heard. The implied challenge to freedoms makes me twitchy.

I understand what you mean, but I think it's important to remember what HSLDA has said: The law in California has not changed. That one court has made this ruling does not mean that all California homeschoolers are in danger.

The private school law doesn't really require hoops: a private school files an affidavit each year notifying the state that there is a private school at this address, with X students in X grades, # of teachers...just basic information about the school. That's it. (There are some minor recordkeeping requirements, but as NO ONE ever gets to see them, they're almost irrelevant.)

Since before I started hsing in 1982, homeschoolers were filing their own affidavits with their 1 or 2 or whatever children on the affidavits, there being no requirement for how many children must be enrolled. Back in the early 80s, some of the Christian pioneers were a little paranoid, and so they started getting several families together and filing one affidavit for all of them, so that instead of a bunch of private schools that were clearly homeschoolers, there would be one larger school, making each family more anonymous. There are many such schools now (I owned one myself for 16 years, not because I was paranoid, lol, but because I figured if people were going to enroll in such a school, they might as well enroll in mine; you might suspect that mine was pretty casual and relaxed as far as any requirements:D).

All this to say that there really aren't any hoops: Enroll your children in a private school owned by someone else who files an affidavit, or establish your own private school. That law has not changed, and I think that this court's ruling can be easily challenged by any other homeschooling family in the future...at least, if that family has decent legal representation. Let's keep our fingers crossed on that!

As far as homeschoolers making themselves heard, I'm not sure homeschoolers should do anything at this point. The legislature is not considering changing the law; it's just a realy lousy court case with a family that is NOT representative of homeschoolers in general.

[Mekanamom]

Oh I know the family in question has horrible problems (understatement), and they didn't end up in the court system because of homeschooling.

I did read some of that other court document that was linked here, and it was sickening. I think the children in that situation do need some way to get out.

But... it also sounds to me (and I'm not a lawyer or anything) like the wording in the judgment concerning just the homeschooling could make it easier for disgruntled relatives to pounce on homeschoolers if they were motivated to make trouble. I'll PM you.

[Karin]

The biggest problem is that 2 issues are being addressed by the court when the true problem is the allegations of physical abuse. As many of us know, children who are in ps who are abused are often missed by the teachers, but this type of case gives rise to the profligation of misinformation and fear-mongering. This is not a new fight, but certainly this court is trying to bring it to a new level. Why would the schooling issue be made public and not the abuse allegations? I know that this is in part due to the s*x abuse by that family friend (or was it a relative?) Honestly, if all these allegations in the second court publication (not to be made public, right?) are correct, this family has serious problems. But the problems they have do not reflect the majority of homeschoolers any more than those type of problems reflect the majority of families whose kids go to ps, private schools, etc.

Honestly, keeping freedoms and choices open seems to be a continual battle, and not just in the area of edcuation. But homeschooling is an area close to our hearts and lives.

[sdWTMer]

Here here!

[Dawn]

http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/ca/200803030.asp

Follow Up—Bad Decision by Second Appellate District of California
As many of you know, the Second Appellate District Court of Los Angeles handed down a very bad decision regarding a case involving a homeschool family.
Home School Legal Defense Association was not involved with this case, and the family are not members, which is why we only heard about this case when the opinion was released on February 28, 2008.
Since legal cases have many facets, and we are starting from scratch, it takes time to investigate and fully absorb all the facts which led up to a particular decision. We are in the middle of that process, but because of the interest in this case we want to give you as much information as we can regarding the implications for California.
The opinion holds that homeschooling is not a legal option in California. HSLDA strongly disputes this interpretation of California law. We believe that the court made a mistake when it relied on two decisions reached in the 1950s in order to show that homeschooling is not a legal option.
If the opinion is followed, then California will have the most regressive law in the nation and homeschooling will be effectively banned, because the only legal way to homeschool will be for the parent to hold a teaching certificate. Parents should not have to attend a four-year college education program just to teach their own children.
California is now on the path to being the only state to deny the vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach their own children at home.
HSLDA stands ready to provide assistance in appealing this decision in order to show the court that it made a mistake. It should have ruled that homeschooling is a fundamental right and that parents have a legal option to homeschool in California.


This is going to be big. We need to be in prayer!!

[mcconnellboys]

I don't know, I just read the actual decision tonight and the cases the Judge cites in his reasoning seem to me to all come from the '50's and 60's, before California statutes were revised to include homeschooling. I don't see how those arguments can stand when the actual laws have now been changed to allow homeschooling. He's citing old cases based on old statutes that have now been reworked.....which leaves me totally confused.....

Regena

[Kate CA]

I don't know, I just read the actual decision tonight and the cases the Judge cites in his reasoning seem to me to all come from the '50's and 60's, before California statutes were revised to include homeschooling. I don't see how those arguments can stand when the actual laws have now been changed to allow homeschooling. He's citing old cases based on old statutes that have now been reworked.....which leaves me totally confused.....

Regena

There are no specific statutes in CA that address homeschooling. That word does not exist within the law here. This is a much bigger deal than anything that has ever happened and could be very serious.

The only thing that makes me feel better is what was established in court in 1986:

"In February 1986, the Santa Maria Municipal Court ruled, in two home school cases handled by HSLDA, that the compulsory attendance statue 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)." (http://www.hslda.org/laws/analysis/California.pdf)

So because this is new, and the people were not represented by (what I think are) competent lawyers, this has opened the door for a lot of potential issues for CA homeschoolers.

[Janet in WA]

I don't know, I just read the actual decision tonight and the cases the Judge cites in his reasoning seem to me to all come from the '50's and 60's, before California statutes were revised to include homeschooling. I don't see how those arguments can stand when the actual laws have now been changed to allow homeschooling. He's citing old cases based on old statutes that have now been reworked.....which leaves me totally confused.....

RegenaCan you quote (or provide links to) the revised statutes and/or laws that now specifically include homeschooling?

The California Department of Education has policies in place that allow the laws (quoted by the court) to be applied to homeschoolers. But these policies don't constitute law. The court was relying on law, not the policies of the CDE.

[Mekanamom]

I don't know, I just read the actual decision tonight and the cases the Judge cites in his reasoning seem to me to all come from the '50's and 60's, before California statutes were revised to include homeschooling. I don't see how those arguments can stand when the actual laws have now been changed to allow homeschooling. He's citing old cases based on old statutes that have now been reworked.....which leaves me totally confused.....

Regena

California doesn't technically allow "homeschooling" per se. All independent homeschoolers are protected by the private school laws. We file our affidavits stating we are very small private schools every year. So when you get right down to it... homeschooling is not (and hasn't been) a legal option in California. We've been doing just fine as small private schools, though.

The wording in the judgment appears to put that in jeopardy, however. (Not to mention Independent Study Programs & some Charter Schools.)

Realistically... it would be a nightmare in this state to try and force all "homeschoolers" into the public schools. Many of the decent private schools have long waiting lists, and there aren't enough resources for the children currently enrolled in the public schools!

I'm not too worried about the long run. Can't say I'm feeling really comfortable about things today, though.

[Kate CA]

I'm not too worried about the long run. Can't say I'm feeling really comfortable about things today, though.

Gosh do I know what you mean. Sigh.

[Janet in WA]

There are no specific statutes in CA that address homeschooling. That word does not exist within the law here. This is a much bigger deal than anything that has ever happened and could be very serious.

The only thing that makes me feel better is what was established in court in 1986:

"In February 1986, the Santa Maria Municipal Court ruled, in two home school cases handled by HSLDA, that the compulsory attendance statue 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)." (http://www.hslda.org/laws/analysis/California.pdf)

So because this is new, and the people were not represented by (what I think are) competent lawyers, this has opened the door for a lot of potential issues for CA homeschoolers.I think this is serious, but more in the sense that CA homeschoolers need to get serious about getting some laws in place that specifically protect homeschooling.

[Janet in WA]

Realistically... it would be a nightmare in this state to try and force all "homeschoolers" into the public schools. Many of the decent private schools have long waiting lists, and there aren't enough resources for the children currently enrolled in the public schools!

I'm not too worried about the long run. Can't say I'm feeling really comfortable about things today, though.The problem, as I see it, is for individual homeschooling families who may find their right to homeschool challenged. This ruling won't help them. But giving some teeth to the law to specifically include homeschoolers would.

[Kate CA]

I think this is serious, but more in the sense that CA homeschoolers need to get serious about getting some laws in place that specifically protect homeschooling.

I don't agree, Janet. That opens up homeschoolers to the state's regulations if we do that. I don't want that at all. At this point it *is* legal for our family to establish ourselves as a private school and fall under the private school laws. There is no reason why we should not continue in this vein. We *are* private schools--for our family. It has been legal in this manner for 20+ years.

[Janet in WA]

I don't agree, Janet. That opens up homeschoolers to the state's regulations if we do that. I don't want that at all. At this point it *is* legal for our family to establish ourselves as a private school and fall under the private school laws. There is no reason why we should not continue in this vein. We *are* private schools--for our family. It has been legal in this manner for 20+ years.And I don't agree with you. :) Texas has NO regulation of homeschoolers at all -- it merely includes wording in the law that designates homeschools as private schools. Period. That's what CA needs. A court in TX could not do what the court in CA did because the law wouldn't allow it.

[Mekanamom]

The problem, as I see it, is for individual homeschooling families who may find their right to homeschool challenged. This ruling won't help them. But giving some teeth to the law to specifically include homeschoolers would.

Yes, I see the exact same problem. Absolutely. :(

Edited to add: I'm not savvy enough to comment with much weight either way on the yeas or nays of trying to introduce new legislation specifically about homeschooling. I don't think it's needed yet. But I surely do hope that any individual family who might be challenged has good legal support. (I do make a yearly donation to one of the state's homeschooling associations along with my membership fee. I hope some of it found it's way into the legal fund.)

[Ellie]

And I don't agree with you. :) Texas has NO regulation of homeschoolers at all -- it merely includes wording in the law that designates homeschools as private schools. Period. That's what CA needs. A court in TX could not do what the court in CA did because the law wouldn't allow it.

Janet, almost ever since I started hsing in California in 1982, the state leaders, among them J. Michael Smith of HSLDA, have resisted trying to get any legislation, because the current situation is *good*. Any effort to draft a good law could be disastrous; regardless of how positively worded it is going in, by the time it went through committees and discussions on the floor, there is ever possiblity that it could end up being like NY or PA or any of the other states which require much more oversight than is require now...which is none at all.

Texas does not have a homeschool law. It had a court case in 1994 which decided that homeschools were the equivalent of private schools in Texas, which are completely unregulated by the state. So Californians would love to have a similar court case, since the private school law is similar.

But no, we don't want legislation if it can be avoided at all.

[Janet in WA]

You're right. Thanks for the correction. I should have remembered that because the court case happened in the county where we lived (Tarrant).

[Shannon831]

Texas does not have a homeschool law. It had a court case in 1994 which decided that homeschools were the equivalent of private schools in Texas, which are completely unregulated by the state. So Californians would love to have a similar court case, since the private school law is similar.

But no, we don't want legislation if it can be avoided at all.



Well, now it looks like California has a court case that says homeschools are NOT private schools. What do we do with that?

[Colleen]

I'll go on record as one who does not support the establishment of home schools as private schools. In the popular vernacular, they are two different animals, and I feel that the two terms should not be used interchangeably. I adamently disagree with Ellie's implication that legislation is a negative. On the contrary, statutes that specifically identify the right to home school ~ and use such language ~ are only to our benefit. I encourage everyone to pursue the establishment of such statutes in their respective states.

[Ellie]

I'll go on record as one who does not support the establishment of home schools as private schools. In the popular vernacular, they are two different animals, and I feel that the two terms should not be used interchangeably. I adamently disagree with Ellie's implication that legislation is a negative. On the contrary, statutes that specifically identify the right to home school ~ and use such language ~ are only to our benefit. I encourage everyone to pursue the establishment of such statutes in their respective states.

It is not something I implied. It is something I said outright. It is something which the people who are most learned and experienced in constitutional law have believed that *in California*, where no current homeschool law exists, it is better to rely on the very vague private school law rather than try to introduce brand-new legislation. Of course it would be great to have a good homeschool law, such as the one in Illinois, or Wisconsin, or--even better--Oklahoma, where its constitution specifically allows for parents to teach their children at home. California is the state where the only time that such a law was considered, back in the early 90s, homeschooling would have been illegal under any circumstances.

Legislation *could* be a good thing, but it could also go horribly wrong. Letting sleeping dogs lie is the best course of action *at this time* in California.

[Colleen]

Leaving the situation as is in CA is not a matter of letting sleeping dogs lie because the dogs aren't truly sleeping. I believe establishing home schools as "private schools" leaves the door open to trouble ~ e.g. when courts ultimately construe (justifiably, imo) the two as different entities. Your concerns regarding what legislation might look like are valid, of course, but bottom line, I believe wording that preserves the right to home school is invaluable.

[Ellie]

Leaving the situation as is in CA is not a matter of letting sleeping dogs lie because the dogs aren't truly sleeping. I believe establishing home schools as "private schools" leaves the door open to trouble ~ e.g. when courts ultimately construe (justifiably, imo) the two as different entities. Your concerns regarding what legislation might look like are valid, of course, but bottom line, I believe wording that preserves the right to home school is invaluable.

But this has worked for over 30 years.

It isn't that the courts construe the two as different entities. It's that the law in California, as it stands right now, does not require certified teachers, a minimum number of students, or anything else that would keep a single family with only 1 child of filing an affidavit as a private school. Unless the legislature wants to change the private school law--and campus-based private schools all over the state would rise up in alarm over that--then there is no reason *not* that homeschoolers cannot file their affidavits.

One of the co-founders of CHEA (Christian Home Educators Association), Karen Woodfin, visited homeschoolers all over the state back in 1982 with some proposed legislation. It would have been a *wonderful* law, clearly giving parents/guardians the right to teach their children at home, free of government oversight. She got lots of flack from the homeschoolers she met with, though, over little things such as parents' being required to pass on records to any schools their dc might attend in the future; I thought one man was going to explode over that line. And before too long, she was advised by the newly born HSLDA that that would have been a bad time to introduce legislation, given the nature of the legislators at that time; by the time the bill made it through, it would probably have been draconian. Nothing has changed.

I have no doubt that HSLDA and others are ready and waiting for the right moment, but this is not it.

[Colleen]

It isn't that the courts construe the two as different entities. It's that the law in California, as it stands right now, does not require certified teachers, a minimum number of students, or anything else that would keep a single family with only 1 child of filing an affidavit as a private school.

I know that.:) I didn't say the courts currently construe home school and private schools as different entities; I said when they do. I believe they are not one and the same. I believe for legal purposes they should not be considered essentially the same.

I have no doubt that HSLDA and others are ready and waiting for the right moment, but this is not it.

I have no idea if that's true of HSLDA as I don't involve myself with that organization.

[Leah]

Being a Californian, I cannot even fathom a positive legislative decision in our state at this time! I shudder to think of what our legislative body would put together regarding homeschooling!!! This is no Oklahoma. I think our current situation works quite well and it has for many years.

I would never want to disregard the seriousness of this ruling, but there have been various challenges to homeschooling in CA over the years and it has always been dealt with quite satisfactorily by HSLDA. I know that some people have issue with them, but they are quite helpful here and I have no doubt that they will take any and all needed steps to help preserve homeschooling rights here.

[Karin]

I adamently disagree with Ellie's implication that legislation is a negative. On the contrary, statutes that specifically identify the right to home school ~ and use such language ~ are only to our benefit. I encourage everyone to pursue the establishment of such statutes in their respective states.

I think one of the questions now is, are sleeping dogs still lying? It's hard to say from here. I hope someone fights the homeschooling ruling part of this, especially if there is any other case law that contradicts it. Perhaps there's something unconstitutional about it--I'm not an expert on that. The best thing I think would be for that part to be overruled (or is the term overturned?).

[Mekanamom]

In part:

"The parents of Rachel L. enrolled her in Sunland Christian School, a private home schooling program. 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." Despite this statement by the Court, it should be noted that Sunland Christian School has been in full compliance with the requirements of the law for more than twenty years. "We've never been given an opportunity to represent our case in the Court of Appeal," said Terry Neven, the president of the school. "Consequently, we are excited that PJI will represent us before the California Supreme Court so that the rights of home schooling families are preserved," he stated further."

Full article here:

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

Edited to add: The Pacific Justice Institute appears to be representing the Sunland Christian School... not the family in question. I could be wrong; I just don't see any info other than the PJI representing the school. (There was some confusion about that elsewhere.) In any case, I'm very interested to see how this goes at the CA Supreme Court Level.

[Marie in Oh]

That filing an R-4 as a homeschooler always made me feel like I was subverting the law- that this afidavit was not meant for my purpose and it was eventually going to come to what it has today. I would have to agree with Colleen that specific homeschool friendly language in the education code is the way to go, if possible. I realize the chances of that happening in CA is slim to none, but if that was possible, it would be better to have laws on the books specifically speaking to the protection of homeschooling than filing and afadavit saying that I was operating as something I was not. Just my .02 as a former CA homeschooler.

[Ellie]

That filing an R-4 as a homeschooler always made me feel like I was subverting the law- that this afidavit was not meant for my purpose and it was eventually going to come to what it has today. I would have to agree with Colleen that specific homeschool friendly language in the education code is the way to go, if possible. I realize the chances of that happening in CA is slim to none, but if that was possible, it would be better to have laws on the books specifically speaking to the protection of homeschooling than filing and afadavit saying that I was operating as something I was not. Just my .02 as a former CA homeschooler.

I think it would be great to have good legislation, but that is not likely to happen in this lifetime.

I would be satisfied if there was a court decision, as there has been in Texas and Illinois, that homeschools were equivalent to private schools.

Neither a court case nor legislation is "better." Both are equally valid.

I don't understand why anyone would feel that complying with the private school law would was subverting the law somehow, but different strokes and all that.

[Ellie]

I have no idea if that's true of HSLDA as I don't involve myself with that organization.

Happily, HSLDA's good work on behalf of all homeschoolers affects you, even if you are not personally involved [*cheeky grin*]

[Danestress]

I think you are right.

The first time I thought about homeschooling we were in California. I found the legal situations there incredibly perplexing - and I'm an attorney. I didn't WANT to operate under those laws. I don't want to work with loop holes. I don't want to consider myself a private school because I'm not a private school. I would have been much happier with a law that regulated more clearly. I know some people would say that the state should regulate homeschooling at all, but I don't really believe that myself. While I know a lot of people would prefer no legislative or judicial oversight of homeschooling, I would tend to want to see the legislature define and qualify the right rather than courts.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Happily, HSLDA's good work on behalf of all homeschoolers affects you, even if you are not personally involved [*cheeky grin*]

Of course, if one were cynical, one might say that not having solid legislation in place ensures that HSLDA will be called upon again and again to "handle" these situations.

I'm just sayin'...

:D

[Daisy]

Well, I'm not sure that is true, since PA has some of the most detailed homeschooling legislation around and yet consistently requires HSLDA's intervention on a rate higher then other states with less legistlation.

Either way, I wish they would just all leave us alone and let us be FREE. We do still live in America, right?!

[Ellie]

I think you are right.

The first time I thought about homeschooling we were in California. I found the legal situations there incredibly perplexing - and I'm an attorney. I didn't WANT to operate under those laws. I don't want to work with loop holes. I don't want to consider myself a private school because I'm not a private school. I would have been much happier with a law that regulated more clearly. I know some people would say that the state should regulate homeschooling at all, but I don't really believe that myself. While I know a lot of people would prefer no legislative or judicial oversight of homeschooling, I would tend to want to see the legislature define and qualify the right rather than courts.

But the law is simple: File an affidavit once a year and call it a day. How perplexing is that? What "loophole" is it?

[Ellie]

Of course, if one were cynical, one might say that not having solid legislation in place ensures that HSLDA will be called upon again and again to "handle" these situations.

I'm just sayin'...

:D

HSLDA puts out fires all the time in states which do have laws. And even Texas, which is a "good" state for homeschooling, has been in the top 5 of states requiring HSLDA invervention (and that's not even counting the times that THSC gets involved).

A "good" law is no guarantee that there will be no hassles from Authority-Type Persons (ATP) who believe that it is their job to be the thought police.

[mcconnellboys]

Ah, I see. So the statutes currently in use for qualifying homeschools there do not specifically include the language that homeschools qualify under those statutes. They're being used, but the language has not been amended to include the word "homeschoolers". I thought that the language had been amended. I wonder if there is language in the notes of those that include homeschoolers? Because that might lend credence..... The statutes I was speaking of are SS 51745 (independent study); SS 48222 (private school affidavit or ISP); and SS 48224 (certified private tutor).

Regena

[Colleen]

But the law is simple: File an affidavit once a year and call it a day. How perplexing is that? What "loophole" is it?

The "loophole" (in my opinion) is the establishment of home schools as private schools. They are not one and the same (in my opinion). It would feel disingenuou (to me) to use the terms interchangeably. I do not tell people my sons are private schooled; I tell them they're home schooled. The former description gives one impression, the latter another altogether.

[Kate CA]

It's "simple" to you because it satisfies you.
No, it is actually stated in the law with only the term "home school" removed.

The "loophole" (in my opinion) is the establishment of home schools as private schools. They are not one and the same (in my opinion). It would feel disingenuou (to me) to use the terms interchangeably. I do not tell people my sons are private schooled; I tell them they're home schooled. The former description gives one impression, the latter another altogether.

Here is what the CA Private School filing site states:

Who should file a Private School Affidavit?
"33190. Every person, firm, association, partnership, or corporation
offering or conducting private school instruction on the elementary
or high school level shall between the first and 15th day of October
of each year, commencing on October 1, 1967, file with the
Superintendent of Public Instruction an affidavit or statement, under
penalty of perjury, by the owner or other head setting forth the
following information for the current year..."

Then in another portion of the code it states this:

"48222. Children who are being instructed in a private full-time day
school by persons capable of teaching shall be exempted. Such
school shall, except under the circumstances described in Section 30,
be taught in the English language and shall offer instruction in the
several branches of study required to be taught in the public
schools of the state. The attendance of the pupils shall be kept by
private school authorities in a register, and the record of
attendance shall indicate clearly every absence of the pupil from
school for a half day or more during each day that school is
maintained during the year."

So what you feel is a loophole, really does describe a homeschool situation. My children are "...being instructed in a private full-time day school by persons capable of teaching..." There really isn't any reason for a law that uses the term "homeschool." That is why Ellie is stating what she does - it is not her opinion, but what is written into the law.

[Colleen]

My opinion still stands. I am aware of the wording in CA. I am aware that you and Ellie and many others disagree with my interpretation of that wording. I am aware you are comfortable referring to your home school as a private school. I understand that. I respect that. And I would hope I could gain your understanding and respect in return when I state for the very last time that IN MY OPINION the law as it exists in CA is insufficient because IN MY OPINION the terms private school and home school should be distinguished from one another.

Good grief....

[Danestress]

But the law is simple: File an affidavit once a year and call it a day. How perplexing is that? What "loophole" is it?


Well, up until last week, I would have have thought you had a good argument. But the court opinon itself seems to back my view. You don't have to - I understand that you have a pretty strong opinion on this. But the court has ordered these kids to attend a qualified public or private school. And the court found no constitutional right to homeschool exists, which would be okay if the state law created such a right. But since it doesn't, I think that makes California parents and kids pretty vulnerable.

[Marie in Oh]

the afadavit itself. It was never intended when the the law was written to be used to cover homeschools. It is being used as a loophole as the only way homeschoolers can operate freely without an ISP, or whatever the acronym is, in CA. That is why I always felt like I was lying in my afadavit. I was not operating a private school (as was obvious when I put that I had (1) 2nd grader and (1 ) 1st grader in my school). I was homeschooling my then 2 children. I am sorry, but it isn't the same. I always knew that homeschooling would come under fire in CA for using a loophole in the current code.

[Mandamom]

>>> Edited to add: The Pacific Justice Institute appears to be representing the Sunland Christian School... not the family in question. I could be wrong; I just don't see any info other than the PJI representing the school. (There was some confusion about that elsewhere.) In any case, I'm very interested to see how this goes at the CA Supreme Court Level.[/QUOTE]>>>>


Yes, PJI is representing the private school rather than the family as the case has moved beyond what was originally a family issue and now a question of private and homeschooling throughout the state. Obviously people are really worried.

I have the latest worldnetdaily article linked in my blog California Homeschool Ruling (http://issuesofeducation.com/update-to-recent-california-homeschool-ruling/) as I've added a few more posts since and it is no longer at the top.

[Daisy]

Here is the latest e-mail I've received regarding the situation.

Concerning the California Court of Appeal Homeschool Case:

Included in this e-mail: 1) A disclaimer, a caution and an encouragement

2) A letter from the Principal of Sunland Christian School (I removed the appeal for money) and

3) The analysis of this situation from HSLDA (also on their website at

www.HSLDA.org ) I removed this b/c the post was too long and we've all read it anyway.


1. Disclaimer: We are forwarding the two messages presented as items 2 and 3, below, in the interest of sharing information with you on this developing situation, but please understand that this does not mean we necessarily endorse the specific statements or strategies described in those messages.

Caution: Please be aware that some members of our local homeschool community who have directed considerable thought over the past 48 hours to this situation, including persons with legal experience, have urged us to be very thoughtful about carefully managing our communications with each other, and especially with those outside the homeschool community, about the recent court decision. One main reason for this caution is that we don’t want to bring any unnecessary attention about this decision, and its possibly negative effects, to those outside our Homeschooling community at this time. Magnifying the issue outside our community could result in shortening the amount of time we each have to determine the best response for our own situations. Although it may be difficult, we may benefit from remaining calm and refraining from inflating the magnitude of this issue with those outside our community.

Encouragement: Despite the cloud on our horizon, there is much reason for hope. First, the recent decision is not from our County and not within our appellate district (it came from the Second District; we are in the Fifth). Second, the recent opinion can be read to apply only to the one homeschool at issue in that case, based on the unique facts of that case. It can also be read more broadly, which is why efforts to obtain reversal of the decision, such as those described in the other messages below, are certainly important. Third, you may take some comfort in knowing that there are local, California and HSLDA lawyers and others that are already at work carefully examining the details of the legal situation to try to develop more specific guidance for different kinds of homeschool arrangements in order to maximize the legal protections that may still be available, even if one assumes the recent decision will not be reversed and will be broadly interpreted. Hopefully, we will obtain that kind of guidance soon, and we will share it with you when we do. If you feel the need to seek your own legal guidance sooner, then of course you should do that. But please know that broader efforts to generate such guidance are also already underway. Please pray for wisdom for those who are involved in that effort, pray for peace in your own hearts as we each try to strike the correct balance between overreaction and inaction (each of which is likely now unhelpful, if not unacceptable), and pray for the best interests of our children, which is at the heart of why we have ever done any of this in the first place. Although the new court decision may raise fears in the homeschool community generally, and may bring about a time of trial for some homeschooling families -- as has now happened to one family in Los Angeles -- let us take encouragement and confidence in remembering that the reason so many of us have chosen alternatives to the public education system is because we are genuinely trying to do what we believe to be in the best interests of our children. Let us pray that judges, legislators, school district officials, and any other actors who might become involved at some future point as different events may unfold, will be able to recognize that our efforts are not only legally legitimate, but also excellent, because of our focus on the best interests of our children. And as always, remember that God is still in control.



2. From Sunland Christian School:

From: SCSandCHE@aol.com [mailto:SCSandCHE@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 2:33 PM
To: SCSandCHE@aol.com
Subject: California Court of Appeal Homeschool Case

Hello, I am Terry Neven, Principal of Sunland Christian School (SCS).

Possibly by now you have heard about the bad decision for homeschoolers handed down by the California Court of Appeal on February 28, 2008, In re Rachel L.

I wanted to take a moment, introduce myself and make myself available to you for questions, support (both yours and mine), etc. The future of homeschooling (both public and private) in California requires the reversal of this decision.

Just as a point of history, I became involved in homeschooling in 1981. Johnathan Lindvall, Raymond and Dorothy Moore, and John Boston were among the few colleagues who were promoting homeschooling in California at that time. I remember meeting Michael Smith, Michael Farris, and Philip and Evella Trout at the first CHEA conference. It was then they decided to start HSLDA.

I was pastoring a local church when we began Sunland Christian School in 1986. At least 100 homeschooling families pressed me into organizing a homeschool program. Many resources and services for homeschooling began to surface at that time. We produced a radio broadcast “Educating Our Children” (on KFSG, Los Angeles) for over 9 years and allowed CHEA to use our high school manual as the basis for their wonderful publication, “The High School Handbook.”

Today as we face this challenge, we need to commit to work together, pray for one another and support each other in spite of any differences of our understanding, application and experience with homeschooling.

We have asked Pacific Justice Institute to represent us as we pursue appealing this case before the California Supreme Court. The support of all homeschool groups, schools, families and services are greatly needed. Everyone's help is important. Let’s pull together during this time and look to the Lord for His favor.

Following is a Press Release from Pacific Justice Institute.

Please feel free to forward this email to any and all homeschoolers, as we ask for their support.

Pacific Justice Institute

PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Release March 5, 2008

Contact: President Brad Dacus (916) 857-6900

Home Schooling Found Unlawful by California Court of Appeal

Los Angeles, CA – In a stunning decision affecting thousands of families in California, the California Court of Appeal has issued an opinion finding no legal right to home school. “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,” wrote Justice H. Walter Croskey whose opinion was joined by the other two members of the appellate panel. The opinion was issued February 28, 2008, in a case titled In re Rachel L., which reversed a Superior Court Judge, Stephen Marpet, who found that “parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home.”

The parents of Rachel L. enrolled her in Sunland Christian School, a private home schooling program. 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.” Despite this statement by the Court, it should be noted that Sunland Christian School has been in full compliance with the requirements of the law for more than twenty years. “We’ve never been given an opportunity to represent our case in the Court of Appeal,” said Terry Neven, the president of the school. “Consequently, we are excited that PJI will represent us before the California Supreme Court so that the rights of home schooling families are preserved,” he stated further.

In a section titled “Consequences of Parental Denial of a Legal Education,” the Court said that “parents are subject to being ordered to enroll their children in an appropriate school or education program and provide proof of enrollment to the court, and willful failure to comply with such an order may be punished by a fine for civil contempt.”

“The scope of this decision by the appellate court is 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,” stated Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute “If not reversed, the parents of the more than 166,000 students currently receiving an education at home will be subject to criminal sanctions,” he continued.


The Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties.

P.O. Box 276600 Sacramento, CA 95827-6600

Phone: (916) 857-6900 Fax: (916) 857-6902 Internet: www.pacificjustice.org



Sincerely,
Terry Neven
Sunland Christian School, Principal
13216 Leach St.
Sylmar, CA 91342
www.home-schooling.org
SCSandCHE@aol.com
818-523-6791
1-800-525-4419

[Mekanamom]

Yes, PJI is representing the private school rather than the family as the case has moved beyond what was originally a family issue and now a question of private and homeschooling throughout the state. Obviously people are really worried.

I have the latest worldnetdaily article linked in my blog which mentions a little more information.

Good... that helps separate the homeschooling issue from the family & abuse issue.

[islandmama]

from the LA Times...

Ruling Seen as a Threat... (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-homeschool6mar06,1,1647583.story?track=rss)

Parents who lack teaching credentials cannot educate their children at home, according to a state appellate court ruling that is sending waves of fear through California's home schooling families.If this ruling stands, then all of us in CA are illegally homeschooling??? I'm trying not to freak out! :confused:

[Ellie]

from the LA Times...

Ruling Seen as a Threat... (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-homeschool6mar06,1,1647583.story?track=rss)

If this ruling stands, then all of us in CA are illegally homeschooling??? I'm trying not to freak out! :confused:

There's no reason to freak out. The law has not changed, and any court's opinion can be challenged. Keep your HSLDA membership current, and just keep on.

FTR, Los Angeles County has ALWAYS been hostile to homeschoolers. Always. Almost any public school official the LA Times contacts will spout the anti-homeschooling stuff--the same stuff that has been spouted for over 30 years. That's probably why the Christian hsing pioneers started their cover-school, ISP concept (it's mostly Christian hsers who use them; I don't know why that is), because there were many of them in the LA area.

[Robin Hood]

Well, the LA Times has picked up the story and twisted it to make California sound like it lags behind 30 other states in hs policy and turning into a religious war of creation vs evolution style of teaching and the morals that come out of those ideas.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-homeschool6mar06,1,1647583.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true

[islandmama]

There's no reason to freak out. The law has not changed, and any court's opinion can be challenged. Keep your HSLDA membership current, and just keep on.


Thanks Ellie... I don't have time to spend reading into everything. My HSLDA membership is current. I'm gonna try to keep on for now...

[Kate CA]

Good grief....

For clarification, I was just offering more information - not telling you you were not allowed to think differently. :)

[Kate CA]

Well, up until last week, I would have have thought you had a good argument. But the court opinon itself seems to back my view.
Yes, sadly, you are right.
... I think that makes California parents and kids pretty vulnerable.

Yes, it does. As much as I don't want to situation to be challenged, it is being challenged and it is very distressing. Vulnerable is exactly how I feel.

[Mekanamom]

Well, the LA Times has picked up the story and twisted it to make California sound like it lags behind 30 other states in hs policy and turning into a religious war of creation vs evolution style of teaching and the morals that come out of those ideas.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-homeschool6mar06,1,1647583.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true

Yes, so far the reporters have focused on families who homeschool for religious reasons, and then they make it sound like those families are doing it specifically and primarily to keep their kids away from any outside/secular influences.

Which resonates with the court's use of the term "cloistered setting".

No one has yet mentioned anything about the state of CA public schools or where CA stands in the national school ratings. ;) I hope that's coming.

[Dawn]

Yes, sadly, you are right.


Yes, it does. As much as I don't want to situation to be challenged, it is being challenged and it is very distressing. Vulnerable is exactly how I feel.

Ditto. UGH.

The reality of it is starting to sink in for me. We're already talking about the what if scenarios and I'm trying not to let fear take over. :(

Our God is good.

[Kate CA]

... I'm trying not to let fear take over. :(
Our God is good.

Yes, Dawn, He is! I posted this today on my blog:

It is so easy to get upset or worried about the things happening today, but I want to offer what is real consolation and comfort to me. Our God is a mighty God!

Psalm 46
1 God is our refuge and strength,
a very present help in trouble.
2 Therefore we will not fear though the earth gives way,
though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea,
3 though its waters roar and foam,
though the mountains tremble at its swelling. Selah

4 There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,
the holy habitation of the Most High.
5 God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved;
God will help her when morning dawns.
6 The nations rage, the kingdoms totter;
he utters his voice, the earth melts.

7 The Lord of hosts is with us;
the God of Jacob is our fortress. Selah
8 Come, behold the works of the Lord,
how he has brought desolations on the earth.
9 He makes wars cease to the end of the earth;
he breaks the bow and shatters the spear;
he burns the chariots with fire.

10 “Be still, and know that I am God.
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth!”
11 The Lord of hosts is with us;
the God of Jacob is our fortress. Selah

[Robin Hood]

A friend of mine hooked me up with information from the Exodus movement in California. She thinks that the new "opinion" of the law is due to this movement starting up in response to the govenor signing SB 777 into law. So, the family currently being targeted is a reasonable choice to stop the Exodus. What do you think? Is there a connection between the two?

http://www.californiaexodus.org/

[Karin]

A friend of mine hooked me up with information from the Exodus movement in California. She thinks that the new "opinion" of the law is due to this movement starting up in response to the govenor signing SB 777 into law. So, the family currently being targeted is a reasonable choice to stop the Exodus. What do you think? Is there a connection between the two?

http://www.californiaexodus.org/

Interesting question.

I'm opposed to hating people, but I think that s*x**lity of any type should not be so openly taught in schools--that's not what they're for.

[Jodi-FL]

and do any of you other CA homeschoolers go under this same umbrella?

[Daisy]

Latest from HSLDA...

Response to California
Appeals Court Ruling:
‘Homeschooling is Illegal’
Dear HSLDA Members and Friends:

On February 28, 2008, the California Court of Appeals issued a ruling in a juvenile court proceeding that declared that almost all forms of homeschooling in California are in violation of state law. (Private tutoring by certified teachers remains an option.) Moreover, the court ruled that parents possess no constitutional right to homeschool their children.

This case involved a family with a 20-year history of litigation in the juvenile courts over the care of their children. Prior adverse decisions had been rendered by the courts.

This family was not a member of Home School Legal Defense Association. They were represented by court-appointed counsel throughout the proceeding. Since it was by law a confidential proceeding, to the best of our knowledge neither HSLDA nor any other legal advocacy organization had any knowledge that the right of all homeschoolers in California was depending upon the outcome of this family’s case.

There are two appellate options at this time.

First, we have been told that the family is appealing this decision to the California Supreme Court with their California counsel.

HSLDA will file an amicus brief on behalf of our 13,500 member families in California. We will argue that a proper interpretation of California statutes makes it clear that parents may legally teach their own children under the private-school exemption. However, if the court disagrees with our statutory argument, we will argue that the California statutes as interpreted by the Court of Appeal violate the constitutional rights of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children.

HSLDA welcomes other organizations and persons to assist with the amicus process so that a full defense of home education, religious freedom, and parental rights can be given to the California Supreme Court.

The second appellate option is to seek to have this particular decision “depublished.” Depublication is a decision that can only be made by the California Supreme Court. If the Court determines that the decision should stand, regarding this family, on the facts presented, but that the general pronouncements of law for all of homeschooling should not be determined by this case, then the Court has the option of “depublishing” the Court of Appeal’s decision. This would mean that the case is not binding precedent in California and has no effect on any other family.

HSLDA will take the lead in an effort to seek to have this case depublished.

Homeschooling has offered a great opportunity for families to give their children a quality education with a moral and philosophical approach that is consistent with each family’s beliefs.

The ability to homeschool freely in California should not depend upon one family in a closed-door proceeding. All families should have the right to be heard since the rights of all are clearly at stake.

Sincerely,

J. Michael Smith
HSLDA President

[sdWTMer]

Thanks for posting this Daisy.

[WagsWife]

I think it would be great to have good legislation, but that is not likely to happen in this lifetime.

I would be satisfied if there was a court decision, as there has been in Texas and Illinois, that homeschools were equivalent to private schools.

Neither a court case nor legislation is "better." Both are equally valid.

I don't understand why anyone would feel that complying with the private school law would was subverting the law somehow, but different strokes and all that.

I agree! I never have felt like I am "subverting" the law. The current State Superintendent has stated that filing an R-4 form IS a viable way to homeschool...in fact the last few years they have made it easier and easier to turn in the form. I remember when we had to file the form online, print out multiple copies, then send one copy certified mail to the state. Now you fill it out online, print a copy for yourself, and hit submit!

[Ellie]

Ditto. UGH.

The reality of it is starting to sink in for me. We're already talking about the what if scenarios and I'm trying not to let fear take over. :(

Our God is good.

The "what if" scenarios? You keep your HSLDA membership current, and you keep homeschooling. It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings, and even that don't mean a thing [*cheeky grin*].

What would you all be doing if the pioneers 25-30 years ago and turned all rubber-kneed with fear? Is there something intrinsically immoral about hsing? Don't you believe that it is your right as the parents to direct the education of your children? Then buck up! Put on your Xena Warrior Princess Armor! If you're a praying person, keep praying! Never give up! Never surrender! Make us pioneers proud of ya!

[neesek]

Thanks for keeping us updated on this case, Daisy. I have to say that joining HSLDA has been on my "to do" list for a while. This is what it took to push me over the edge. Although we seem safe here in Ohio for the time, I am hoping that my membership - even in a very small way - will help keep homeschooling legal in all 50 states. My prayers are with those of you homeschooling in CA.

[sdWTMer]

Thanks Denise. We certainly need your prayers!

[Kate CA]

Thanks for keeping us updated on this case, Daisy. I have to say that joining HSLDA has been on my "to do" list for a while. This is what it took to push me over the edge. Although we seem safe here in Ohio for the time, I am hoping that my membership - even in a very small way - will help keep homeschooling legal in all 50 states. My prayers are with those of you homeschooling in CA.

That is so encouraging. Thanks for standing and praying with us. We just rejoined again - better safe than sorry! :)

[Dawn]

The "what if" scenarios? You keep your HSLDA membership current, and you keep homeschooling. It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings, and even that don't mean a thing [*cheeky grin*].

What would you all be doing if the pioneers 25-30 years ago and turned all rubber-kneed with fear? Is there something intrinsically immoral about hsing? Don't you believe that it is your right as the parents to direct the education of your children? Then buck up! Put on your Xena Warrior Princess Armor! If you're a praying person, keep praying! Never give up! Never surrender! Make us pioneers proud of ya!


I agree 100% with you.

The what if scenarios are what we would need to do *IF* it became illegal.

Definately not giving up here!!! :)

[Dawn]

Here's the link to the petition to have the case depublished:

You can help stop this threat to homeschooling by signing an online petition to depublish the Court of Appeal opinion at
http://hslda.org/elink.asp?ID=4831

[Dawn]

Yes, Dawn, He is! I posted this today on my blog:

It is so easy to get upset or worried about the things happening today, but I want to offer what is real consolation and comfort to me. Our God is a mighty God!

Psalm 46
1 God is our refuge and strength,
a very present help in trouble.
2 Therefore we will not fear though the earth gives way,
though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea,
3 though its waters roar and foam,
though the mountains tremble at its swelling. Selah

4 There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,
the holy habitation of the Most High.
5 God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved;
God will help her when morning dawns.
6 The nations rage, the kingdoms totter;
he utters his voice, the earth melts.

7 The Lord of hosts is with us;
the God of Jacob is our fortress. Selah
8 Come, behold the works of the Lord,
how he has brought desolations on the earth.
9 He makes wars cease to the end of the earth;
he breaks the bow and shatters the spear;
he burns the chariots with fire.

10 “Be still, and know that I am God.
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth!”
11 The Lord of hosts is with us;
the God of Jacob is our fortress. Selah

AMEN.:)

[sdWTMer]

Not giving up here. I noticed that Michelle Malkin had an article about it as well. There will be tons of publicity. Although sometimes I don't know if it's good or bad. :confused:

[Daisy]

I hope you all will listen.

Dear HSLDA Members and Friends:

In what could be one of the most important homeschooling related
broadcasts in 25 years, James Dobson interviews HSLDA Chairman Michael
Farris on the developing situation in California.

We encourage all homeschoolers to listen to this broadcast, and ask
you to forward this information to anyone who is concerned about
homeschool freedom, parental rights and the direction of our courts.

Broadcast: Focus on the Family daily radio broadcast with Dr. James
Dobson.

Program Title: California's Threat to Homeschooling Families.

Airdate: Friday, March 7, 2008.

Since the broadcast is aired on stations across the country at
different times, please visit ----
http://listen.family.org/findastation/ and search for "Daily Focus on
the Family Broadcast" to find the station that covers your area.

You can help stop this threat to homeschooling by signing an online
petition to depublish the Court of Appeal opinion at
http://hslda.org/elink.asp?ID=4831

Sincerely,

Ian Slatter
Director of Media Relations

You are probably all getting sick of the updates but I thought it would be interesting to hear what Dobson of Focus on the Family has to say tomorrow. This will probably be my last post. I figure most of you are probably HSLDA members anyway and this info. is redundant.

[sdWTMer]

Do they have podcasts? I wish that they did.

[Frontier Mom]

I don't always want to listen when it is on but go online and listen later.

[sdWTMer]

Thanks!!

[sdWTMer]

Here's a link...ace of spades blog (http://ace.mu.nu)...cursor down the page to read the article that he writes...

This is just another opinion

[GothicGyrl]

Here's a link...ace of spades blog (http://ace.mu.nu)...cursor down the page to read the article that he writes...

This is just another opinion
I don't believe what he says is "another opinion" as I stated in the Petition thread. I believe what he says is true.. the newspaper DID jump the gun, WND DID jump the gun and HSLDA should not be involved in this as it does not apply to ALL homeschoolers and it never did. It applies ONLY to this family.

But worry yourselves into a tizzy if you wish, I can't stop you with that. I just hope that someday soon you will realize that you are really worrying over nothing (at least not right now)--as this case simply put, has nothing to do with ALL homeschoolers and never did.

[my4cowboys]

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF

After reading through the actual ruling published by the 2nd District Court of Appeals for California, I have to respectfully disagree with Gothic Girl - the attorney in me reads that the court has basically said that unless a child attends during the day a public or private school, or is tutored by someone with teaching credentials, they are in violation of California law. I'm not sure how homeschooling works in California, as far as umbrella schools, and the R-4 filing, but the way I read it is unless you have a California teaching credential, you can't be homeschooling your child. The Court of Appeals did send the case back to the trial court to determine what facts applied to this specific family and their children, but the underlying thing I see is that this court has basically said you can't homeschool unless you have a teaching credential.

[GothicGyrl]

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF

After reading through the actual ruling published by the 2nd District Court of Appeals for California, I have to respectfully disagree with Gothic Girl - the attorney in me reads that the court has basically said that unless a child attends during the day a public or private school, or is tutored by someone with teaching credentials, they are in violation of California law. I'm not sure how homeschooling works in California, as far as umbrella schools, and the R-4 filing, but the way I read it is unless you have a California teaching credential, you can't be homeschooling your child. The Court of Appeals did send the case back to the trial court to determine what facts applied to this specific family and their children, but the underlying thing I see is that this court has basically said you can't homeschool unless you have a teaching credential.
You are free to disagree. We are reading the same ruling and though I am no lawyer, in no way has the court ever said that. They've never said ALL homeschoolers must now possess teaching credentials or face.....

It is only in regard to this family and it always only ever was. But hey.. what do I know?

[Daisy]

Oh, never mind. I'm sure we are all grown ups and can read the necessary information.

[LizzyBee]

Does anyone know who Gabriel Malor (the ace of spades blogger) is?

He says that a federal court has never recognized a right to homeschool children. I guess he's not aware of Morse vs. Frederick, a US Supreme Court case in which Justice Clarence Thomas said, “If parents do not like the rules imposed by those schools, they can seek redress in school boards or legislatures; they can send their children to private schools or home school them; or they can simply move.” Granted, the case was not a homeschooling case, but it is significant that homeschooling was mentioned in the ruling.

I found it interesting, too, that he refers worried parents to the CA Dept of Education Private Schools FAQ page and says to pay attention to 12-14. The answer to #13 is: "California statutes do not explicitly authorize home schooling. Whether a home schooled child is attending a private school, and therefore is exempt from public school attendance, is a decision made by local school districts and law enforcement authorities." I don't think I'd find that comforting if I were in California.

[LizzyBee]

It is only in regard to this family and it always only ever was.

Court cases are never about only the people involved in the case. The US is a common law country, and common law is the law created by courts. Court rulings form precedent and are binding on lower courts in the same jurisdiction. On any issue not addressed by specific statutes, common law is the law of the land.

[Mrs Mungo]

Court cases are never about only the people involved in the case. The US is a common law country, and common law is the law created by courts. Court rulings form precedent and are binding on lower courts in the same jurisdiction. On any issue not addressed by specific statutes, common law is the law of the land.

Agreed. Judges don't make law but they interpret law and that law become binding for lower courts and a precedent for other court cases.

[LizzyBee]

Judges don't make law but they interpret law and that law become binding for lower courts and a precedent for other court cases.

Not to be difficult, but judges make law as well as interpret it. Here's a quote from wikipedia: "When there is no authoritative statement of the law, common law judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent."

This is my last post for the day. Have a great night.

[Karin]

The US is a common law country, and common law is the law created by courts.

Interesting. Coming originally from Canada my first familiarity with common law came from traditional practises by the government that weren't written down, such as the Canadian common law of the vote of no confidence (this may be used in the UK, too, but I'm not sure). I think Canada is starting to have more common law made by courts, too, but haven't followed it closely--someone else here is likely to know more on that, if any Canadians are following this thread.

[Ellie]

I found it interesting, too, that he refers worried parents to the CA Dept of Education Private Schools FAQ page and says to pay attention to 12-14. The answer to #13 is: "California statutes do not explicitly authorize home schooling. Whether a home schooled child is attending a private school, and therefore is exempt from public school attendance, is a decision made by local school districts and law enforcement authorities." I don't think I'd find that comforting if I were in California.

It has always been this way, and in most cases it isn't a problem at all. There are a few counties which have always been hostile--Los Angeles in the south, and Alameda in the S.F. Bay area--but even they have never been successful in getting a homeschooler into court. The last time it was tried in the Bay area, the district attorney refused to file charges, because he said the parents had complied with the law and the law was too vague for him to do anything.

There was a court case in San Mateo County in the 90s, involving a homeschooler who had enrolled her dc in a private school based in Southern California. The court did not question the legality of that; she was found guilty of allowing her children to be truant because she could not tell the judge what she was doing to cover the core curriculum. As a teacher who was supposed to be "capable of teaching," she should have been able to do that. The judge severely criticized the director of that school for doing a poor job of helping this woman.

[Melinda in VT]

and do any of you other CA homeschoolers go under this same umbrella?

There was a link somewhere to the other court case involving the other family issues, and if I read that right, the third minor child ran away from home and is no longer living with the parents. So the homeschooling issue is being raised for the only minor children still living at home.

[LizzyBee]

It has always been this way, and in most cases it isn't a problem at all.

I realize that, but in light of what's happened in the past week, I don't think the wording in the FAQ's would put me at ease. I do agree with your posts that said CA homeschoolers should just keep doing what they're doing and not panic.

[scsandche]

However, that "loophole" has been good to us for over 25 years. I'm thinking the court will have trouble with its interpretation (i.e., that private schools must have certified teachers), as that will affect *all* private schools in California. Many private schools, especially smaller church-run schools, do not hire certified teachers. The law specifically says that teachers must be "capable of teaching," not that they must be certified.

That has been part of the dispute over the years: School officials say we are tutoring our children, which requires the tutor to be credentialed, while we say we have a private school, which does not.

It is true that Sunland Christian School and Terry Neven parted ways from CHEA many years ago, and that parting was not amicable. Terry has his own defense organization, CHELD, but I'm thinking this group, if it is involved, has not given the accused parents very good advice or representation.

FTR, I could not find Sunland Christian School in CA's private school directory for this school year. I had not heard that he didn't file an affidavit, but it looks as if that may be the case.
Hi this is Terry Neven. Just to clear up a few points, Sunland Christian School has filed an affidavit for the 2007-2008 school year and has done so since 1986. The advice offered to the family sufficiently caused them to receive a favorable judgement from the judge. He dismissed the case. This only became an issue when the children's court appointed attorneys tried to press the appeals court to force them to go to public school. Since this was not a homeschool case, insuffiencent evidence became part of how the judges decided. As you may know, they have agreed to a rehearing. We have filed our brief with the court and trust for a more reasonalbe judgement when they rule again on this case (possible mid to late September). If you have questions, comments or would like to be on our email update list, go to www.home-schooling.org (http://www.home-schooling.org)

[Ellie]

Hi this is Terry Neven. Just to clear up a few points, Sunland Christian School has filed an affidavit for the 2007-2008 school year and has done so since 1986.

Thanks for clearing up that point. I didn't find your school listed on the state's directory for this year. Wonder what's up with that??