Something new in the CA Homeschooling Situation...

[Kate CA]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58577

Not sure if the resolution is good or bad!

[True Blue]

Why in the world does WND allow the Long's to come off so innocently when they have a long history with the courts and have 2 kids in foster care that claim abuse from the father?

[Kate CA]

Why in the world does WND allow the Long's to come off so innocently when they have a long history with the courts and have 2 kids in foster care that claim abuse from the father?

I have wondered the same thing.

[Amy in Orlando]

I'm not getting it - I thought the original case was about child abuse?

[True Blue]

It is, but the younger two kids apparently have not been found to be unsafe. I think that's why the judges wanted the kids in school. I don't disagree with the Long family having oversight by authorities to make sure the kids are safe. I think that's a no-brainer. I think those judges took their ruling way too far by not applying it to the Longs only.

I've also wondered why the father hasn't been convicted of abuse considering the evidence that is against him. I don't get it either.

[FlockOfSillies]

The assemblyman's a homeschool dad! :D

http://republican.assembly.ca.gov/members/a77/Index.aspx?page=PR&pr=4470

[Volty]

If it works, Assemblyman Anderson's got the best approach, getting the California Supreme Court to reverse the ruling. Then the law goes back to the way it was. The way it was, of course, was very HS friendly.

Allowing the legislature to put it's fingerprints all over HSing is inviting all sorts of new oversights and regulations, better not go there if possible. you don't know what they'll do then.

[GothicGyrl]

Why people consider WND a viable news source is totally not understandable by me.... but, Assemblyman Anderson's idea is good and hopefully he succeeds.

I, like you all, simply don't understand why they are not focusing on the abuse--the abuse was reported by an older child, not the homeschooling.. why do they believe the abuse will be easier to notice if they are in public school? Why aren't these kids being removed from their care and that father strung up by his %$#@@$%%^%%^$^%$^%^%$%$$^$%^%^$$^%.......

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[strider]

It is, but the younger two kids apparently have not been found to be unsafe. I think that's why the judges wanted the kids in school. I don't disagree with the Long family having oversight by authorities to make sure the kids are safe. I think that's a no-brainer. I think those judges took their ruling way too far by not applying it to the Longs only.

I've also wondered why the father hasn't been convicted of abuse considering the evidence that is against him. I don't get it either.

When evaluating a case, each child in a family is considered separately. When abuse is proven against one child, the courts must then determine future "risk of harm" both to that child and to the other children in the home. The courts may prescribe counseling or some such, but will not necessarily remove either the abused child or the other children. If they do choose to take protective custody, it is very common to take only the abused child and leave the others if they do not deem the risk of harm to be great enough. In layman's terms what that means is that unless someone is killed or maimed the court might not take protective custody.

It is also a commonly accepted thing for the courts to rule that if there is risk of harm that is not great enough to warrant protective custody, then the courts can enforce some sort of protective oversight in the form of professional counseling or school or daycare attendance.

Finally, showing that abuse occurred in the juvenile courts and proving it occurred in a criminal case are two very different things. The standard of proof in a criminal case is very, very high. Only a small percentage of juvenile cases are also prosecuted in criminal court. It is more common for an abusive situation to be monitored by juvenile courts and never prosecuted criminally.

[Kate CA]

Why people consider WND a viable news source is totally not understandable by me....

It was a link that was sent to me. I don't choose their site for news, but they have been the earliest ones to provide any information on the bill. :)