New ruling on California case

[Ellie]

Court of Appeal Grants Petition for Re-hearing

 

On March 25, the California Court of Appeal granted a motion for rehearing in the ‘In re Rachel L.’ case--the controversial decision which purported to ban all homeschooling in that state unless the parents held a teaching license qualifying them to teach in public schools.

 

The automatic effect of granting this motion is that the prior opinion is vacated and is no longer binding on any one, including the parties in the case.

 

The Court of Appeal has solicited a number of public school establishment organizations to submit amicus briefs including the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, California Department of Education, the Los AngelesUnifiedSchool District, and three California teacher unions. The court also granted permission to SunlandChristianSchool to file an amicus brief. The order also indicates that it will consider amicus applications from other groups.

 

HomeSchool Legal Defense Association will seek permission to file such an amicus brief and will coordinate efforts with a number of organizations interesting in filing briefs to support the right of parents to homeschool their children in California.

 

“This is a great first step,†said Michael Farris, chairman of HSLDA. “We are very glad that this case will be reheard and that this opinion has been vacated, but there is no guarantee as to what the ultimate outcome will be. This case remains our top priority,†he added.

[sassenach]

That's great BUT... What the heck do the teacher's unions have to do with this case? I am severely annoyed with this court.

[JWSJ]

What the heck do the teacher's unions have to do with this case?

 

My thought exactly.

 

This case (and situation) is getting to be more of a joke the further it progresses.

[Fourmother]

And what of the abused children in the case? Are they a joke? It should really be all about them. How unfortunate that the plight of this family's mistreated kids is lost in the fight over homeschooling. There's a great deal of divisive rhetoric to be heard on all sides. It is my hope that California homeschoolers maintain our ability to educate our children while this one particular family is prevented from abusing their children any further.

[JWSJ]

And what of the abused children in the case? Are they a joke? It should really be all about them.

 

Yes, it should be. That's one of the reasons why it's a joke.

 

No one wins in this case (except maybe the government).

 

(And maybe some teacher unions...)

[pixelroper]

The ruling didn't mention any specific abuse. They give no specifics. I for one (and I think many) do not want any children abused, however based on the ruling's focus I do have to question the 'real' reason for this case to begin with. It seems to have been driven by an ulterior motive. Until I am aware of the details and actual accusations, along with a detailed description, I cannot assume the individuals who represented the dc had the dc best interests in mind. If some one can point me to the details I described please do so.

[Gretchen in NJ]

The ruling didn't mention any specific abuse. They give no specifics. I for one (and I think many) do not want any children abused, however based on the ruling's focus I do have to question the 'real' reason for this case to begin with. It seems to have been driven by an ulterior motive. Until I am aware of the details and actual accusations, along with a detailed description, I cannot assume the individuals who represented the dc had the dc best interests in mind. If some one can point me to the details I described please do so.

 

:iagree:

If I remember correctly, the court wanted the children in PS so that they may "see" if there is any abuse. The court stated that there was no such evidence. The court would have removed all of the children from the home if there was evidence of abuse. Everyone seems to be just assuming this family is abusive.

 

I remember reading somewhere that at least one of the daughters also had trouble listening to the foster care family. She ended up running away from the foster care family, too. This could be a case of a troubled teen. I will go a try to fined it right now.

 

Gretchen

[snickelfritz]

I thought there was one action on the abuse and this specific decision (the one the thread is about) only spoke to the homeschooling. Which is why it didn't make sense to begin with.

 

If the abuse allegations are correct (and there is such a long history of court problems that it really makes me wonder) they need to deal with this family and get the abuse stopped. That shouldn't apply to every other homeschooler in California.

[Gretchen in NJ]

If the abuse allegations are correct (and there is such a long history of court problems that it really makes me wonder) they need to deal with this family and get the abuse stopped. That shouldn't apply to every other homeschooler in California.

 

True. Should the children be removed or put into PS?

 

Gretchen

[angela in ohio]

That's great BUT... What the heck do the teacher's unions have to do with this case? I am severely annoyed with this court.

 

Well, they run the schools. ;)

[Volty]

Well this is positive news since the absolute worst scenario is for the ruling to stand, so now that they're rehearing the case, we're back to where we were a month ago.

 

As I've stated all along, I've got no sympathy for these parents. This is about abuse, not us. Unfortuantly, since they're claiming rights as homeschoolers to justify what they're doing, they're dragging all of us down with them. This is the last family I want as the public face of HSing. :glare:

[Nestof3]

Thanks for the update!

[Kay in Cal]

If you search the past threads about this, you'll find a link to court documents for the previous allegations--there were fairly detailed records of this family's history with child protective services. Unfortunately, the judge's decision to state in his ruling that "all children must be in public school" affects everyone in the state. And so the court battle begins... even if the ruling is permanently vacated, we'll probably end up some new, and more restrictive, legislation as they try to "clarify" state rules.

[Ellie]

If you search the past threads about this, you'll find a link to court documents for the previous allegations--there were fairly detailed records of this family's history with child protective services. Unfortunately, the judge's decision to state in his ruling that "all children must be in public school" affects everyone in the state. And so the court battle begins... even if the ruling is permanently vacated, we'll probably end up some new, and more restrictive, legislation as they try to "clarify" state rules.

 

Oh, I don't think so. I think the legislature will either (1) wisely leave the law the way it is, because it does work; or (2) realize that there is a mighty big homeschooling population in the state, as they have seen many, many times over the last 20 years, and that any law must be a good one if they want to keep their jobs. They could (3) add something to the Education Code which specifies that homeschools are the equivalent of private schools and as such are unregulated by the state. Texas and Illinois had court cases which decided that; maybe the Calif legislature could be proactive and change the law right now.

[Plucky]

Yes, there was specific abuse of the older kids, two of which are in foster care. From the documentation I have read on this family I don't think they should homeschool. The father is dominating and abusive. The mother is a silent partner to it.

[pixelroper]

I've been searching and searching, I can't find anything specific. I guess my point is the ruling had nothing to do with the abuse. Where the parents convicted? children removed? why the younger two not the older ones? I had read their oldest was 28 apparently this sibling reported?? A court already ruled- why the readdress? doesn't this point to the uselessness of our court system more than anything? a specific abuse listed is the "abuse of discretion" or the parents decision to hs. I realize this has already been discussed here & elsewhere, my intent is not to argue, no one need answer these questions. I just can't find the exact nature of the abuse. "The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services investigated the situation and discovered, among other things, that all eight of the children in the family had been home schooled by the mother rather than educated in a public or private school." all this tells me is they consider hs an abuse...???

 

So agree with Fourmother -"How unfortunate that the plight of this family's mistreated kids is lost in the fight over homeschooling." I would add bizarre.

[Plucky]

They wanted the kids in public school so that any abuse could be documented. Yes, two of the older kids are in foster care. There are only 2 kids at home that are school age. I'd link the court documentation of the abuse but it looks like CA pulled it. I wish I had copied it to show you. I am extremely pro-homeschooling but if I were the judge I wouldn't let these people homeschool based on court records of abuse. BTW, the father isn't living at home. He's not allowed.

[Laura in VA]

:iagree:

[pixelroper]

I see...but then.... I've heard first hand how flawed the system is. CPS doesn't "have the time" to deal with many cases or even to look into potential cases.

[Fourmother]

I am extremely pro-homeschooling but if I were the judge I wouldn't let these people homeschool based on court records of abuse.

 

 

My sentiments exactly. Homeschooling is a beautiful thing, but it's not for everyone. This family forfeited the right and privilege to homeschool when they chose to neglect and abuse their children.