Anybody posted about the 13 siblings found chained in California home?

[gardenmom5]

apparently they've pulled two perfectly healthy maltese dogs out of the house. . . .

these parents knew they were torturing and starving the kids.

[scoutingmom]

Absolutely right. Some of my kids are SMALL. My mother in law is like 4'10" and wears a size 6 shoe, the same size as my 11yo. Elizabeth was diagnosed failure to thrive as a baby and we were so worried they had her do tests (like two colonoscopies and biopsies) and had her supplement with a special formula as a toddler.

 

When your kids are tiny and not round and squishy like other people's kids, no matter how healthy you eat, you DO get them checked on, you just do. And who has NEVER had to see a pediatrician? Because, I have to tell you, unless you've had 2 or 3 daughters that fall under the tenth percentile, pediatricians and other doctors TOTALLY freak out about the size of them. (After the first 2 or 3 and they stay on the growth chart and you keep the same ped., she just says this is how guys grow them.) BUT, even with the acceptance of an extremely slender and thin child, they don't look 10. My MIL was 90 pounds when she got married. My sil was 98. They still looked like young adults.

I realize that these adults looked very young, so not arguing something wrong....

 

But I have looked about 10 years younger than I am for ages. Nothing wrong at all.... but when I was 26 most people thought I was 15 or 16. I was asked if I had permission to use my Mom's (mine) credit card. I owned my own house, but people thought I was a teen. I remember being downtown returning to my office after lunch and overhearing some old guy muttering (about me) about teenagers skipping school. So I think a person can be i their 20's and look like a minor and nothing is 'wrong'.

 

I don't think this was the case here...

[scoutingmom]

 

 

We put radar everywhere. That's what most of us in favor of radar are suggesting. Those on this board shouldn't have problems at all. Even if they get reported, reporters will investigate and close the case noting all is well - unless - it isn't.

 

 

Says a person that I suspect has never been reported on. Do you have a clue the type of stress being investigated causes? My family was reported on, both to the homeschool office and to cfs. Yes it was unfounded. But it was a nightmare. The initial cfs intake worker was anti-homeschool, and it showed in their questions. The search of the house is invasive. It affects the kids. And the case remained open for about a year. Fortunately for us the worker assigned to us was not against homeschooling but many in our cfs office is. Living knowing that they can drop in on any day. And the homeschool office.... with our new liason who has been trying to add requirements that aren't legal. Having to drop my planning (it was about 2 weeks before school was to restart) and regather up the stuff I had put away from the year before. Have my kids go and be questioned (after being questioned by the cfs people not long before). And this expert had no real concept of dysgraphia, which my son has.

 

Oh, yes, we were found to be fine and the cases closed. But it still was a very stressful experience on the whole family, for a prolonged period. And, as I said - we were lucky, because although there are some fantastic case workers, there are bad ones too. And many that figure that if you are homeschooling yoj must have something to hide. No, I don't wish that on any innocent person.

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[Carrie12345]

the daughter was at the girls house, and the mom/shellie asked her name.  she said "i can't tell you, but if you listen carefully you might hear it."   the younger sister said something about how they weren't supposed to tell anyone.  the next day when the daughter went over to see if they could come outside to play - the mom/louise told her the children were no longer allowed to play with her.  after that, they never played in the front yard again.  only in the back behind a fence, and only with each other.

 

the 17 yo found a cell phone in the house and managed to escape and called authorties.   supposedly they'd been plotting an escape for two years.   she managed to get out through a window, another child came with her but was frightened and went back.

when the police arrived - three of the children were hogtied.  the parents managed to untie two of them before the police got inside.

 

and the bail is $13M each. - $1M for each child.

 

Oh my goodness, I knew this.  I shouldn't be allowed to post in the middle of insomnia.  :scared:

[OneStepAtATime]

I realize that these adults looked very young, so not arguing something wrong....

 

But I have looked about 10 years younger than I am for ages. Nothing wrong at all.... but when I was 26 most people thought I was 15 or 16. I was asked if I had permission to use my Mom's (mine) credit card. I owned my own house, but people thought I was a teen. I remember being downtown returning to my office after lunch and overhearing some old guy muttering (about me) about teenagers skipping school. So I think a person can be i their 20's and look like a minor and nothing is 'wrong'.

 

I don't think this was the case here...

 

FWIW, when I was in 5th grade my mom came to pick me up early from school for a dental appointment.  She is very young looking and tiny.  A teacher tried to make her go back to class.  The highest grade in that school was 5th grade.  Mom looked young enough to pass for a 5th grader and she must have been in her 30's.

 

I got married in my 30s.  I had hired a hairdresser to help me play around with how to style my hair for the wedding.  She thought I was a teen, maybe 18 at the most, and tried to talk me out of marrying so young.  

 

Both of the above incidents were funny, not serious (well, Mom was annoyed not amused) but what if someone thought we had been abused and that was why we looked the way we did? 

 

I am not saying these kids were not abused (they obviously were from the horrific reports we are reading) but I agree with scoutingmom that just because someone looks young and small for their age does not automatically mean they were mistreated/malnourished/abused.  A physical exam by a doctor would have shown that Mom and I were very healthy.  We just looked young and small for our ages (very young and small).

 

How often were these kids examined by a doctor?  Long term malnutrition should have shown up in physical examinations even if it might have been exceedingly hard for a neighbor to know something was truly off.  I am assuming they must not have been seen by doctors in recent years?

Edited January 19, 2018 by OneStepAtATime

[....]

Says a person that I suspect has never been reported on. Do you have a clue the type of stress being investigated causes? My family was reported on, both to the homeschool office and to cfs. Yes it was unfounded. But it was a nightmare. The initial cfs intake worker was anti-homeschool, and it showed in their questions. The search of the house is invasive. It affects the kids. And the case remained open for about a year. Fortunately for us the worker assigned to us was not against homeschooling but many in our cfs office is. Living knowing that they can drop in on any day. And the homeschool office.... with our new liason who has been trying to add requirements that aren't legal. Having to drop my planning (it was about 2 weeks before school was to restart) and regather up the stuff I had put away from the year before. Have my kids go and be questioned (after being questioned by the cfs people not long before). And this expert had no real concept of dysgraphia, which my son has.

 

Oh, yes, we were found to be fine and the cases closed. But it still was a very stressful experience on the whole family, for a prolonged period. And, as I said - we were lucky, because although there are some fantastic case workers, there are bad ones too. And many that figure that if you are homeschooling yoj must have something to hide. No, I don't wish that on any innocent person.

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

 

Ugh.   :grouphug:   Something like this happened to my homeschooling neighbor recently.  I don't want to go into details online, but the parents were really traumatized.  Our school district reported them to CPS for educational neglect.  The kid was going to school and couldn't read (this was a 9 year-old).  Parents got worried, pulled kid out of school to homeschool for 6 months, worked with her and taught her to read, put her back in same school...school called CPS because she was "behind" academically.  Jerks.

[Garga]

no one is advocating ignoring it. what some of us are saying is - no matter what laws and regulations you have in place, no matter how onerous and repressive, there will be people who slip through the cracks. unless you give the state 100% control (which I'm not), there are people who will find a way. and then you're dealing with workers who are tired, overworked, angry, see so much bad- they start jumping at shadows because they can come to think every thing is bad.

I met a friend at a club. One of the first times I met him, another member of the club was asking me, “So, why do people homeschool?†This friend (who wasn’t a friend with me yet—it was one of the first times I met him), cut in to answer, “They do it so they don’t have to try to get the kids to school because the kids won’t go and they’re getting truancy charges.†I thought that was an odd answer, but then I answered for myself with the real reasons why people homeschool.

 

After a couple of months of being in the club I found out that my friend worked for CPS. I got to know him well and he was lots of fun and would come to our house for hours at a time. Great sense of humor.

 

But slowly, I started to notice that he always (always) took in new situations in the most negative light possible. We were at the grocery store once and there was a meat sale so it was crazy busy. Packed with people. The friend asked the clerk, “How’re you handling up? Busy, huh?†(Because he was extroverted and the sort to chat with clerks all the time). She said, “Oh goodness. I was a nurse in the ER. This is nothing.â€

 

As we walked out, he turned serious and cynical and said to me, “I wonder what she did to have to leave the ER. No one leaves being an ER nurse to be a cashier in a grocery store.â€

 

He always was “seeing†the bad things people did. Only they didn’t do them. It started melting over into the friendship. One day we were all going to watch a movie at home on a DVD. They didn’t pick the one I had wanted to see. At the end of the movie I was just sitting there feeling a little droopy and he gave me a sneer and said, “So now you’re pouting because we didn’t watch *your* movie.†Um, what?! No, I was a mother of two small boys and watching a movie on the couch in the afternoon makes me tired!

 

I cut off the friendship by not inviting him to anything anymore. I still see this person in social situations, but I stay away.

 

I have no idea how he did his job. He said often, “Nothing surprises me,†about people who seem to be nice by might be bad. Basically, the job made him so jaded that he sees evil or negativity in everything. I wouldn’t want someone so jaded coming to my house for a homeschool in-home check-up by the government.

 

He said he never, ever had a good day at work, because it was always dealing with horrible situations. He talked once about the day when a child was being adopted by a good family and I said, “Would that be a good day, then?†He said, “No. Because if a child has to be adopted, it means they’ve come from something horrible.â€

 

He just could never see anything good anymore. I feel sorry for him, but I couldn’t be around the non-stop negativity anymore once it started being directed toward me. (The pouty comment, and that was just one example.)

Edited January 19, 2018 by Garga

[creekland]

You're not suggesting anything specific, you're relying on subtext when you say "put radar everywhere." That's a metaphor.  What will you do when people choose not to register as homeschoolers even though state laws require them to and to have someone enter their home?  What are you suggesting people do about that?  The not registering. Please, be every specific.  Mr. and Mrs. Jones have never sent their kids to an institutional school. They have never registered as homeschoolers in their state.  They are abusing their kids behind closed doors. They don't go out in public.  You are aware that's the situation we're talking about, right?  Now what do you think should be done to address that specific scenario?

 

As has been written many times, if homeschoolers have to register and do some basic things most of us do, like periodic medical/dental visits, etc, then it's easier to go after those who don't.  It also stops some folks from pulling their kids from ps just to quit being annoyed with having to get them there, etc.

 

On this board and most of us IRL only see the perfectly fine aspects of homeschooling - the best part that make it my ideal education for most students - an education tailored to them with their needs, their speed, etc.  At the ps we can see the worst aspects of homeschooling - the parents who think their lad/lass can teach themselves from a workbook purchased at Wally World, if that.  I'm not even talking about purposeful unschooling.  I'm talking about "no" schooling.  If there are no regs requiring anything, there's absolutely nothing that can be done when things can be "minor" vs having to wait until it's super obvious and everyone wonders why something wasn't done.

 

IME, many parents just need some parenting classes.  Some need help buying food or finding shelter.  In our area, taking the kids from the parents is the last thing they want to do because it's never a good answer (for the kids).  Sometimes it's just a better answer than the alternative.  The goal is to help the parents and by doing so helping the kids.  Unfortunately, some kids are left in the home too long because they try their darndest to fix the situation there - longer than they should - but that's what's legal or the judgment made.

 

I think the vast majority on this board don't see that side of life.  I know I never had until I started teaching in public school.  Once one has seen it, I suspect most want to do all they can to prevent it.

 

But that out of a sample size of 38 families. That's not statistically significant.

 

Really?  Show me how it isn't statistically - which means you can't just say the population is so much larger because that's not how stats work.  One doesn't look at "everyone" (or even a majority out there) to get stats.  One picks a small sample size and determines if it's significant or likely to be random based upon significance scores.

 

I tried to find a basic tutorial - not sure it's the greatest, but didn't care to spend a ton of time searching TBH.

 

http://www.conceptstew.co.uk/pages/nsamplesize.html

 

I have not done the actual calculations, but it would surprise me greatly if that large a variance (14 - 1) is not significant with an n = 38 number.

 

If you, or anyone, wants to do the stats and it ends up not being significant, please post your calculations.  I'd like to be lazy and just look at them rather than doing the math with all I need to do this morning.

 

 

An abused, neglected, malnourished, undersized young adult in regular contact with a professional educator?  I thought that was supposed to be the solution?

 

Though, I don't think I've seen anything about who alerted authorities... (I wasn't home much yesterday.)

 

If it was the oldest, then the student was 29.  Even if the educator suspected something, they wouldn't have said anything for the past 9 years in our state.  Adults don't get reported by educators.  I don't know what class they were taking, but I can see the age of all of my students on paper.  I don't have to ask.

 

 

Says a person that I suspect has never been reported on. Do you have a clue the type of stress being investigated causes? My family was reported on, both to the homeschool office and to cfs. Yes it was unfounded. But it was a nightmare. The initial cfs intake worker was anti-homeschool, and it showed in their questions. The search of the house is invasive. It affects the kids. And the case remained open for about a year. Fortunately for us the worker assigned to us was not against homeschooling but many in our cfs office is. Living knowing that they can drop in on any day. And the homeschool office.... with our new liason who has been trying to add requirements that aren't legal. Having to drop my planning (it was about 2 weeks before school was to restart) and regather up the stuff I had put away from the year before. Have my kids go and be questioned (after being questioned by the cfs people not long before). And this expert had no real concept of dysgraphia, which my son has.

 

Oh, yes, we were found to be fine and the cases closed. But it still was a very stressful experience on the whole family, for a prolonged period. And, as I said - we were lucky, because although there are some fantastic case workers, there are bad ones too. And many that figure that if you are homeschooling yoj must have something to hide. No, I don't wish that on any innocent person.

 

I don't wish that on any innocent person either, but you and your kids will be fine even if it was a major frustration.  When the mistake goes the other way, can you say the same thing about those kids?  If you consider what your kids endured traumatic, what about those kids facing actual abuse?

[creekland]

Basically, the job made him so jaded that he sees evil or negativity in everything.

 

I know oodles of people like this and not a single one is a CPS worker.  It's a personality trait. The one I'd list as the worst that I know extremely well IRL is a Fed Ex driver.  Like you, there's only a certain amount we want folks with this personality in our lives.  It's a bit of a downer and not one we want our kids to copy - though it's good if they know it's out there.

 

However, I can relate to what he said he's seen in his job and how he feels about a youngster being adopted.  That part is real even if many on this board don't see it or want to believe it's out there.  I admire folks who can deal with these situations day in and day out.  It's a very stressful job.

[BlsdMama]

No, see, I have a real ground level problem with the government coming into my home without cause. I really do. That is a boundary line for darn good reason, so their cause for crossing it needs to be explicitly defined. I don't think a home visit every year is consistent (like others have said, the most at risk children are toddlers!) and abusive families will just move and not register.

 

More regulations can't be knee jerkily applied, they need to be evidence based and practical.

 

 

This.

 

And I hear it (or like it) repeated, "If it would save this family, these kids, I'd be willing to..."

 

But, see, that's precisely the point.  It won't.  None of the slightly invasive regulations we're talking about here would have prevented this exact scenario nor will it in cases like it.  These people would not have complied.  They were breaking the law ALREADY because they were horribly negligent and abusive parents who didn't give one whit about what the government thought or regulated and believed they had the right to abuse, beyond all levels of sane comprehension, their children and keep them locked away indefinitely.

 

We want to look for a reason.  It's what healthy people do - they think, "Oh, there must have been mental defects, or an evil mentor, or some book..."  No.  People are capable of evil and some people choose evil so reprehensible that they keep real live humans locked away in their own excrement chained to a bed.  People who are that hell bent are doing evil are not thwarted by the rest of us who would NEVER dream of doing this to our precious children by a few tweaks of the homeschooling regulations.

 

 

Bottom line?

 

Homeschoolers are rocking this education thing.

We love our children and choose to homeschool to nurture their academics, their creativity, and their physical and emotional well-being.

We actively seek ways to stimulate their minds and bodies, to engage their ability to think and discuss, and to keep them active and healthy.

We succeed largely over the public and private sectors.

 

So, we want to invite people, presumably public school teachers who cannot fathom how we homeschool in a few hours a day and very non-traditionally at that, into our homes so that they can what?

Check our fridges? Um, no.  I would presume this is an appointment.  What's to stop me from stocking my fridge and cupboards with $800 worth of groceries the day before?

So that they can see I scrub the floor and change the kitty litter?  Again, same scenario.

To ADVISE me on how to best educate my children?  I love (LOVE) public educators.  But most of them have never heard of the education philosophies we discuss on this board, let alone researched them, tried them, discussed them, and intentionally chosen a lifestyle of education.

 

No thank you madam.  I'll pass.  

 

IF these regulations could actually PREVENT children from being abused?  We could discuss it.  But it can't.

 

And I point to the Natalie Finn story from Iowa again.  She WAS in school for a long time before she was locked away at home.  It WAS reported. It was investigated!! Heck, those girls were adopted out of the foster care system.

[caedmyn]

If we're going to say that it's really no big deal to traumatize innocent families so *maybe* a very few abusers can be caught (remember that someone upthread posted about a study on multiple cases of serious abuse and a significant number of the kids had been in contact with mandated reporters and the abuse still continued)...that's a pretty slippery slope to go down. Do we suspend the right of heabeas corpus for a while for certain crimes because sometimes someone who's guilty gets released and commit another murder or rape? How far do we really want to go with that line of thinking?

 

As far as mandated yearly well-child checkups...who is going to pay for this? Our kids go to the doctor when they are sick and need to, which is very, very rarely. A well-child check for our school-age kids (4 next year) would be something like $800 out of pocket (we have Samaritan healthcare sharing, which has worked very well for us, but it doesn't cover routine visits). That's a lot of money.

[creekland]

If we're going to say that it's really no big deal to traumatize innocent families so *maybe* a very few abusers can be caught (remember that someone upthread posted about a study on multiple cases of serious abuse and a significant number of the kids had been in contact with mandated reporters and the abuse still continued)...that's a pretty slippery slope to go down. Do we suspend the right of heabeas corpus for a while for certain crimes because sometimes someone who's guilty gets released and commit another murder or rape? How far do we really want to go with that line of thinking?

 

As far as mandated yearly well-child checkups...who is going to pay for this? Our kids go to the doctor when they are sick and need to, which is very, very rarely. A well-child check for our school-age kids (4 next year) would be something like $800 out of pocket (we have Samaritan healthcare sharing, which has worked very well for us, but it doesn't cover routine visits). That's a lot of money.

 

If you're using Samaritan "properly" the money you are saving by not having to buy insurance (for us this exceeds 5K per year) is supposed to pay for the typical annual things like check ups...  If you didn't have the option for health share and went with insurance, the annual check up is free.  (albeit paid for in those higher rates)

 

But back on topic.  Abuse definitely still continues when folks know about what is going on because our country errs on the side of keeping kids with their parents.  The goal, esp at first, is to try to change the parents - teach them parenting, see that they are signed up for benefits - even get kids into counseling should there be thoughts that the kids aren't helping with their behavior (or whatever).

 

Kids rarely want to leave their parents. It's a biological drive.  Pulling them from situations is a last resort and only done when it's felt to be absolutely necessary (or the parents don't want the kids, of course).  Pulling them for a short period to check on a situation is even limited to when there's a solid reason for it.

 

Honestly, I read what's reported on this thread and it shows me how little (US) folks know about how the system works.  (I can't speak for other countries.)  I don't blame anyone.  I knew very little myself before I encountered a bit of it at school.

 

And FWIW, I certainly don't think all homeschoolers need a home visit!  That crosses the line as too far for me.  I think registering and some checks along the way (not necessarily annually) similar to what PA does is the best middle ground.

 

I think we all agree that nothing will make our world an ideal one vs the real one, but improvements can certainly be made.  Improvements have been made.

[Homebody2]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-house-horrors-13-siblings-205635011.html

 

A California congressman is considering introducing legislation to mandate an annual walk through of the homes of homeschooling families. Abuse is mentioned in the article, so be aware if you'd rather not read it. The part about the congressman is fairly small.

Again I will ask, if the point of new regulations is to protect children, then shouldn't there be talk about regulations for families who don't enroll their kids in preschool? And what about kids who are home with a parent/caregiver until preschool? When I start to think about it in these terms, it doesn't sit well with me.

 

If the goal is to protect kids, then this really should be about more than just regulating homeschoolers. Everyone who doesn't send a child to a daycare or preschool should be subjected to these new regulations, and I think this sounds very unreasonable for many reasons.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Homebody2

[Guinevere]

Again I will ask, if the point of new regulations is to protect children, then shouldn't there be talk about regulations for families who don't enroll their kids in preschool? And what about kids who are home with a parent/caregiver until preschool? When I start to think about it in these terms, it doesn't sit well with me.

 

If the goal is to protect kids, then this really should be about more than just regulating homeschoolers. Everyone who doesn't send a child to a daycare or preschool should be subjected to these new regulations, and I think this sounds very unreasonable for many reasons.

I agree with you. I just shared the link because a lawmaker is actually beginning to discuss the same things we are.

[VaKim]

This.

 

And I hear it (or like it) repeated, "If it would save this family, these kids, I'd be willing to..."

 

But, see, that's precisely the point.  It won't.  None of the slightly invasive regulations we're talking about here would have prevented this exact scenario nor will it in cases like it.  These people would not have complied.  They were breaking the law ALREADY because they were horribly negligent and abusive parents who didn't give one whit about what the government thought or regulated and believed they had the right to abuse, beyond all levels of sane comprehension, their children and keep them locked away indefinitely.

 

We want to look for a reason.  It's what healthy people do - they think, "Oh, there must have been mental defects, or an evil mentor, or some book..."  No.  People are capable of evil and some people choose evil so reprehensible that they keep real live humans locked away in their own excrement chained to a bed.  People who are that hell bent are doing evil are not thwarted by the rest of us who would NEVER dream of doing this to our precious children by a few tweaks of the homeschooling regulations.

 

 

Bottom line?

 

Homeschoolers are rocking this education thing.

We love our children and choose to homeschool to nurture their academics, their creativity, and their physical and emotional well-being.

We actively seek ways to stimulate their minds and bodies, to engage their ability to think and discuss, and to keep them active and healthy.

We succeed largely over the public and private sectors.

 

So, we want to invite people, presumably public school teachers who cannot fathom how we homeschool in a few hours a day and very non-traditionally at that, into our homes so that they can what?

Check our fridges? Um, no.  I would presume this is an appointment.  What's to stop me from stocking my fridge and cupboards with $800 worth of groceries the day before?

So that they can see I scrub the floor and change the kitty litter?  Again, same scenario.

To ADVISE me on how to best educate my children?  I love (LOVE) public educators.  But most of them have never heard of the education philosophies we discuss on this board, let alone researched them, tried them, discussed them, and intentionally chosen a lifestyle of education.

 

No thank you madam.  I'll pass.  

 

IF these regulations could actually PREVENT children from being abused?  We could discuss it.  But it can't.

 

And I point to the Natalie Finn story from Iowa again.  She WAS in school for a long time before she was locked away at home.  It WAS reported. It was investigated!! Heck, those girls were adopted out of the foster care system.

If I were more articulate, this is what I would have said in my post above about laws not stopping sin. Exactly.

[creekland]

If I were more articulate, this is what I would have said in my post above about laws not stopping sin. Exactly.

 

But many of us see cases where laws DO prevent situations.  They may not prevent all of them, but preventing some is still a win!

 

It's a total fallacy to say it would stop none of them.

[umsami]

Saw this on Free Jinger.   Corona Chamber of Commerce has info for donations, etc.

 

http://www.mychamber.org/events/details/donations-for-perris-abuse-victims-14222

 

 

[Paige]

 

 

I am not saying these kids were not abused (they obviously were from the horrific reports we are reading) but I agree with scoutingmom that just because someone looks young and small for their age does not automatically mean they were mistreated/malnourished/abused.  A physical exam by a doctor would have shown that Mom and I were very healthy.  We just looked young and small for our ages (very young and small).

 

How often were these kids examined by a doctor?  Long term malnutrition should have shown up in physical examinations even if it might have been exceedingly hard for a neighbor to know something was truly off.  I am assuming they must not have been seen by doctors in recent years?

 

Adding to this, if people look young for their age, most casual observers will assume they are young and not that they look young. If I saw that family at Disney, I wouldn't think, "Look at those malnourished, stunted adults!" I would think, "That family has a lot of kids." If the kids don't talk and the parents don't talk, no outsider would be able to figure out the ages. 

 

I'm not sure anything can be done to prevent people who are determined to hide and do evil acts. The best we can do is be aware and try to reach out to the community and our neighbors. The best time to help/prevent what happened to that family was way back when the mother was a child. I think as a PP pointed out, the old community safeguards of church and to some extent immediate, local family, are not as powerful. That doesn't mean that we give up and say community ties are over, but rather that we need to invest in new ways to nurture community support that work in our new and changing culture.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

But many of us see cases where laws DO prevent situations. They may not prevent all of them, but preventing some is still a win!

 

It's a total fallacy to say it would stop none of them.

Yes. And creekland, maybe you're right that people won't understand unless they can see homeschooling through different eyes - like from a public school teacher's or administrator's perspective.

 

A friend who is a third grade teacher asked me why homeschooling has changed so much in twenty years. (She's been teaching that long, I've been hsing that long.)

 

She said that back in the day, clean, responsible, and obviously competent parents would come to the school with their lesson plans, textbooks, and notes from doctors and pastors, to prove that their children would be fine. They'd give notice before withdrawing the children, write a nice letter to the teacher...

 

Now, illiterate and anti-social parents whose home life is not stable, will pull the child on a whim if they don't like the teacher, "homeschool" for two years, and then re-enroll in a higher grade, with the child two years behind academically and also in trouble socially.

 

This is NOT just bias. I know these families, too.

 

What she doesn't see is that the first type of parent usually doesn't enroll the child at all, anymore, and successfully homeschools through graduation.

 

The second type of parent is already legion - the social services already can't keep up with their children's welfare. But now the children aren't in school, either.

 

In some states, the homeschool laws are so lax that some parents have exactly what they want: Legal rights and protection for neglecting their child's welfare and education.

[maize]

Saw this on Free Jinger. Corona Chamber of Commerce has info for donations, etc.

 

http://www.mychamber.org/events/details/donations-for-perris-abuse-victims-14222

Thanks for posting!

[EmseB]

Yes. And creekland, maybe you're right that people won't understand unless they can see homeschooling through different eyes - like from a public school teacher's or administrator's perspective.

 

A friend who is a third grade teacher asked me why homeschooling has changed so much in twenty years. (She's been teaching that long, I've been hsing that long.)

 

She said that back in the day, clean, responsible, and obviously competent parents would come to the school with their lesson plans, textbooks, and notes from doctors and pastors, to prove that their children would be fine. They'd give notice before withdrawing the children, write a nice letter to the teacher...

 

Now, illiterate and anti-social parents whose home life is not stable, will pull the child on a whim if they don't like the teacher, "homeschool" for two years, and then re-enroll in a higher grade, with the child two years behind academically and also in trouble socially.

 

This is NOT just bias. I know these families, too.

 

What she doesn't see is that the first type of parent usually doesn't enroll the child at all, anymore, and successfully homeschools through graduation.

 

The second type of parent is already legion - the social services already can't keep up with their children's welfare. But now the children aren't in school, either.

 

In some states, the homeschool laws are so lax that some parents have exactly what they want: Legal rights and protection for neglecting their child's welfare and education.

 

So what are you advocating for?

 

Should every parent be required to prove to the state/school district that they can have their kids at home with them?  What about from birth to school age?  What you're ultimately talking about is a test for parenting at all. A test that parents aren't "illiterate" or "anti-social".  A test for a stable home life. A test that they aren't pulling their kids on a whim. A test that they are, according to a government official, clean, responsible, and competent. According to whom? And if they aren't?

[bolt.]

Again I will ask, if the point of new regulations is to protect children, then shouldn't there be talk about regulations for families who don't enroll their kids in preschool? And what about kids who are home with a parent/caregiver until preschool? When I start to think about it in these terms, it doesn't sit well with me.

 

If the goal is to protect kids, then this really should be about more than just regulating homeschoolers. Everyone who doesn't send a child to a daycare or preschool should be subjected to these new regulations, and I think this sounds very unreasonable for many reasons.

I think that a lot depends on context, and I don't want to be too Canadian in this situation of American national tragedy. Forgive me if I go too far.

 

For me, I'm used to some elements of my culture that make me reject the idea of "very unreasonable for many reasons" and say instead that it would be "probably unwieldy, but probably workable". I think that's just because it's a shorter step away form our current health and welfare systems.

 

In Canada, not everyone has a hospital birth. Many people who have a 'natural' type of values choose home birth, as would (I think) people with the fully formed intention of keeping their children away from any and all oversight -- premeditated abusers who knew their plans before the baby was born. However, by far the cheapest (free), easiest and least parent-involved way to have s baby is in a hospital.

 

We also have cash incentives for parents -- there is a government stipend for all kids under 5, and for low incomes beyond that. Therefore I think we start with fewer infants who aren't in the system in the first place.

 

Afterwards, healthcare for infants, toddlers and preschoolers involves whatever you do with your family doctor plus a schedule of immunizations. Again, it's s free country and no one will make you make these visits... but they do know if you don't.

 

Similarly they know if a child is not enrolled in any school at the right time... etc.

 

Currently there are tons of cracks. People move, people hide, people lie. We don't currently have a lot of regulation or radar that could prevent a 'captive children' severe abuse scenario. But, I think one could be integrated where a series of yearly medical check ins became mandatory around growth, wellbeing, current address, etc.

 

If people are acting normally in the system, the check-in would happen concurrently with normal appointments, immunization visits, school nurse days, or scheduled nurse visits at daycares. It would feel seamless for most parents.

 

For parents choosing greater freedom (no vax, doctor rarely, homeschool, etc) those parents would have to make an effort to drop by a public health clinic once a year (or make some other arrangement from a set of options?). If they did not -- I think that's when they should get their first miniature red flag, complete with phone calls, reminders, and offers of help. After that, with resistant parents (or parents who are home bound or isolated themselves) it may have to escalate to home visits (hopefully helpful ones) but child protection involvement if it becomes apparent that it is needed.

 

It would also allow concerned people to not exactly call child protection with an abuse allegation, but instead make an inquiry around ( a ) a child living at a certain address, and ( b ) whether they are up to date, recently seen, and believed to be well. Only if the child really is under the radar would anything arise from that kind of reporting, do people might not hesitate the way they do.

[vonfirmath]

Again, different country so I don't know how your authorities or processes work, etc.

 

But here, so many parents only change their behavior when they MUST.  That can include kids getting to eat, etc.

 

The vast majority of parents are just fine regardless of the parenting style they use.  It's not their style that matters TBH.  But without intervention, so many kids would suffer even more.  It's really sad when you see it in person.

 

THIS country we have medically complex children being pulled from their parents when they are at the hospital to deal with issues.

 

There was the famous case previously mentioned in this thread, where they only got it fixed because the dad broke the law and went to the press to hear his case. I've got a friend whose child was taken from her at a hospital because they decided her (multiple, serious) allergies were "All in her head" and wanted to put her in counseling and treat her like she was anorexic.  She was able to finally get her back but she's terrified everytime they go back to that hospital because she can't get the medical records changed to remove the incident even though it also has the girl's medical diagnosis in it. But that diagnosis does not have an easy cure so evidently some doctors, if they can't cure it, start thinking it is something in the mind instead!

 

I had a friend up in Washington lose their kid when they went to a doctor appointment and it took a LOT of court, money, and time to get them back. (With a final standing of basically "There was nothing to worry about")  We have ON THIS BOARD, a family where the judges have given the kids to a father that does not have their best interest at heart instead of the mother they were living with all the time.

 

So I'm not sure where the optimism comes from that kids will never be removed from the family unless there is something actually wrong.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

So what are you advocating for?

 

Should every parent be required to prove to the state/school district that they can have their kids at home with them?  What about from birth to school age?  What you're ultimately talking about is a test for parenting at all. A test that parents aren't "illiterate" or "anti-social".  A test for a stable home life. A test that they aren't pulling their kids on a whim. A test that they are, according to a government official, clean, responsible, and competent. According to whom? And if they aren't?

Other states do not have to allow schoolchildren to be removed to homeschooling settings wherein the parents have no educational materials, no lesson plans or goals, and inadequate basic education on the part of the teaching parent.

 

If my state would catch up to the longstanding, not onerous regulations of other states, and if all states would stop letting parents withdraw children from school when they are already under investigation for abuse or neglect, that would be better.

 

"I" am absolutely not talking about a fitness test for all parents. You made that up.

 

This is why homeschoolers will never submit to reasonable regulation, even the kind that slows you down for a week and makes you consider whether you're really up to the responsibility - this illogical, knee jerk reaction!

 

Someone says, "Some states are too lax, and here's what happens as a result," and the homeschool response is, "You want universal screening for parents!"

[vonfirmath]

I think it's interesting that they're now reporting that the 17-yr-old girl had been plotting this escape for 2 years. I wonder if there was a precipitating event. Isn't the baby about 2 yrs old?

 

That's what I thought "About the time the baby was born"

[Homebody2]

I think that a lot depends on context, and I don't want to be too Canadian in this situation of American national tragedy. Forgive me if I go too far.

 

For me, I'm used to some elements of my culture that make me reject the idea of "very unreasonable for many reasons" and say instead that it would be "probably unwieldy, but probably workable". I think that's just because it's a shorter step away form our current health and welfare systems.

 

In Canada, not everyone has a hospital birth. Many people who have a 'natural' type of values choose home birth, as would (I think) people with the fully formed intention of keeping their children away from any and all oversight -- premeditated abusers who knew their plans before the baby was born. However, by far the cheapest (free), easiest and least parent-involved way to have s baby is in a hospital.

 

We also have cash incentives for parents -- there is a government stipend for all kids under 5, and for low incomes beyond that. Therefore I think we start with fewer infants who aren't in the system in the first place.

 

Afterwards, healthcare for infants, toddlers and preschoolers involves whatever you do with your family doctor plus a schedule of immunizations. Again, it's s free country and no one will make you make these visits... but they do know if you don't.

 

Similarly they know if a child is not enrolled in any school at the right time... etc.

 

Currently there are tons of cracks. People move, people hide, people lie. We don't currently have a lot of regulation or radar that could prevent a 'captive children' severe abuse scenario. But, I think one could be integrated where a series of yearly medical check ins became mandatory around growth, wellbeing, current address, etc.

 

If people are acting normally in the system, the check-in would happen concurrently with normal appointments, immunization visits, school nurse days, or scheduled nurse visits at daycares. It would feel seamless for most parents.

 

For parents choosing greater freedom (no vax, doctor rarely, homeschool, etc) those parents would have to make an effort to drop by a public health clinic once a year (or make some other arrangement from a set of options?). If they did not -- I think that's when they should get their first miniature red flag, complete with phone calls, reminders, and offers of help. After that, with resistant parents (or parents who are home bound or isolated themselves) it may have to escalate to home visits (hopefully helpful ones) but child protection involvement if it becomes apparent that it is needed.

 

It would also allow concerned people to not exactly call child protection with an abuse allegation, but instead make an inquiry around ( a ) a child living at a certain address, and ( b ) whether they are up to date, recently seen, and believed to be well. Only if the child really is under the radar would anything arise from that kind of reporting, do people might not hesitate the way they do.

I think your ideas are unreasonable in a country where not everyone has health insurance and not every child is covered for visits to the doctor. Immunizations aren't free for all.

 

By the way, I am someone who really struggles with a person's individual rights vs the community good. For example, I think all children should be vaccinated, but I also get the argument of personal choice and freedom. But then I fall in favor of landing on the side of what's better for the common good and health of the community.

 

This issue is harder for me. The common good of having children free from abuse and neglect is important. But I'm not sure the regulations mentioned in this thread equate to creating a better common good. I don't know if the regulations will actually lead to fewer cases of severe abuse such as this or if the result is too much infringement on a person's rights. I don't mean to sound callous, just trying to realistically think through the results of suggested rules.

[caedmyn]

That's not quite what Samaritan says...they figure that small expensws like annual checkups can be saved for and paid for out of pocket. There's nothing said about "you're saving so much money vs regular insurance that you can afford those well-checks". And fyi, when I've looked at regular insurance, the cheapest, super high deductible policies which would be well over $1000/mo for our family, only cover annual well-checks through age 5, so we'd still be paying OOP for those for school age kids.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

So what are you advocating for?

 

Should every parent be required to prove to the state/school district that they can have their kids at home with them?  What about from birth to school age?  What you're ultimately talking about is a test for parenting at all. A test that parents aren't "illiterate" or "anti-social".  A test for a stable home life. A test that they aren't pulling their kids on a whim. A test that they are, according to a government official, clean, responsible, and competent. According to whom? And if they aren't?

What is "government?" It is us.

 

What about a third grade teacher who knows the child is reliant on the school feeding programs, breakfast and lunch, she knew his older siblings, she's known his mom for six years...this involved, caring teacher who has an actual relationship with the family and knows of mom's good intentions but also knows of cognitive problems and kids' special needs...

 

This teacher IS the government. She has to watch this family who obviously needs the support and safety net of school, convert to religious fundamentalism or get offended by the bus driver, and begin homeschooling. She can't say or do anything because the abuse or neglect hasn't happened or been proven yet, and there are no restrictions on hsing here...but she doesn't know how the child, who literally has lost teeth due to poor diet and lack of dentist, is going to gain either literacy or breakfast for the rest of the year.

[Junie]

That's what I thought "About the time the baby was born"

 

They say the baby was well fed.  I'm wondering if some of the older siblings were feeding the baby some of their own food.

 

This whole situation is tragic.

[pinkmint]

For what it's worth, as a child (age 8 and beyond when my parents split and the much less responsible party got main custody) I lived with a drug using adult who didn't bother to buy groceries and things like that.

 

I was in public school the whole time. I went to school almost every day and the teachers just thought I was willfully doing poorly when I was just hungry.

 

There's the idea that people care and want to get involved and that's so often not the case.

 

Not that we shouldn't do anything but one of the points I agree with in this thread is that homeschooling doesn't necessarily have a whole lot to do with this case.

[creekland]

Yes. And creekland, maybe you're right that people won't understand unless they can see homeschooling through different eyes - like from a public school teacher's or administrator's perspective.

 

A friend who is a third grade teacher asked me why homeschooling has changed so much in twenty years. (She's been teaching that long, I've been hsing that long.)

 

She said that back in the day, clean, responsible, and obviously competent parents would come to the school with their lesson plans, textbooks, and notes from doctors and pastors, to prove that their children would be fine. They'd give notice before withdrawing the children, write a nice letter to the teacher...

 

Now, illiterate and anti-social parents whose home life is not stable, will pull the child on a whim if they don't like the teacher, "homeschool" for two years, and then re-enroll in a higher grade, with the child two years behind academically and also in trouble socially.

 

This is NOT just bias. I know these families, too.

 

What she doesn't see is that the first type of parent usually doesn't enroll the child at all, anymore, and successfully homeschools through graduation.

 

The second type of parent is already legion - the social services already can't keep up with their children's welfare. But now the children aren't in school, either.

 

In some states, the homeschool laws are so lax that some parents have exactly what they want: Legal rights and protection for neglecting their child's welfare and education.

 

Sometimes I feel like I'm a bridge in the middle of this type of debate. When I'm at school I need to take the pro-homeschooling side because there most of the teachers only see the bad side (as kids come into school or from TV like this).  They saw my kids succeed and shifted to, "Well, you do things right!  Others do not."  I have to let them know my kids aren't unusual nor even the highest achievers out there.  We have an occasional few who come into high school from homeschooling earlier grades and if they are "normal" that's often overlooked because the expectation is they came from ps.  I can use them as examples too.  ;)

 

It's difficult to see what one isn't exposed to.  The best I feel I can try to do is share what I see.

 

 

That's not quite what Samaritan says...they figure that small expensws like annual checkups can be saved for and paid for out of pocket. There's nothing said about "you're saving so much money vs regular insurance that you can afford those well-checks". And fyi, when I've looked at regular insurance, the cheapest, super high deductible policies which would be well over $1000/mo for our family, only cover annual well-checks through age 5, so we'd still be paying OOP for those for school age kids.

 

What in the world is the difference between these two thoughts other than the word choice used?

 

And sorry I'm not up enough with insurance.  I seriously thought ACA said everyone gets one free checkup per year.  I thought the trouble came in if anything was wrong during that checkup because deductibles and similar came into play then as to whether treatment was actually affordable.  With Samaritans, we pay for the check up knowing if things are significantly wrong, that's covered.

[unsinkable]

That's not quite what Samaritan says...they figure that small expensws like annual checkups can be saved for and paid for out of pocket. There's nothing said about "you're saving so much money vs regular insurance that you can afford those well-checks". And fyi, when I've looked at regular insurance, the cheapest, super high deductible policies which would be well over $1000/mo for our family, only cover annual well-checks through age 5, so we'd still be paying OOP for those for school age kids.

That makes sense. My first thought is about the people that are in health shares bc they can't afford anything else. That the choice is health shares or no insurance...that there is no "saving the difference."

Edited January 19, 2018 by unsinkable

[MinivanMom]

So what are you advocating for?

 

Should every parent be required to prove to the state/school district that they can have their kids at home with them?  What about from birth to school age?  What you're ultimately talking about is a test for parenting at all. A test that parents aren't "illiterate" or "anti-social".  A test for a stable home life. A test that they aren't pulling their kids on a whim. A test that they are, according to a government official, clean, responsible, and competent. According to whom? And if they aren't?

 

In our state, parents register and submit a copy of their own diploma before they can withdraw their child to homeschool. That little step prevents parents from pulling kids out on a whim. It prevents parents without a basic education from homeschooling since the parent must provide either a high school or college diploma. I have personally seen multiple people change their mind about homeschooling after finding out that they had to register.

 

My experience, as a long-time homeschooler in this state, is that the simple step of requiring parents to register and submit a diploma does prevent bad situations. It can't prevent every situation. But I have seen it prevent many, many potentially bad situations.

 

Didn't the mother in this family leave home at 16 to get married? Does she have a high school diploma? 

[creekland]

That makes sense. My first thought is about the people that are in health shares bc they can't afford anything else. That the choice is health shares or no insurance...that there is no "saving the difference."

 

This is undoubtedly true for some, but definitely not for all.  With Samaritans many folks on the not-so-struggling side donate extra to help those with various needs.  It's one thing I really like about the group.

 

In our state, parents register and submit a copy of their own diploma before they can withdraw their child to homeschool. That little step prevents parents from pulling kids out on a whim. It prevents parents without a basic education from homeschooling since the parent must provide either a high school or college diploma. I have personally seen multiple people change their mind about homeschooling after finding out that they had to register.

 

My experience, as a long-time homeschooler in this state, is that the simple step of requiring parents to register and submit a diploma does prevent bad situations. It can't prevent every situation. But I have seen it prevent many, many potentially bad situations.

 

Didn't the mother in this family leave home at 16 to get married? Does she have a high school diploma? 

 

She might not, but if dad was an engineer like reported, he must have a college degree.

 

Otherwise, I agree with you that even simple steps get people to stop and think about whether they want to do what it takes or not.  It's easy to act on a whim.  It's not as easy to act when even basic steps are required.

[school17777]

I wonder what the 17yr girl said to 911 when she called and if she knew her address. I wonder if the 911 call will ever be released.

[creekland]

Is anyone else thinking of The Glass Castle, but to a much greater extreme?  I wonder how many others are out there, not yet discovered and if someone will be able to help the kids at some point or another.

[snowbeltmom]

For those of you in favor of requiring a yearly home inspection in order to homeschool, how would that work?

 

Would the visit have to be scheduled in advance, or could the authorities arrive at your door-step unannounced?

 

Who would conduct the inspection?

 

Under what circumstances would a family fail the home inspection?

 

What happens if the family fails? Do they have to stop homeschooling? Is there an appeal process?

[creekland]

For those of you in favor of requiring a yearly home inspection in order to homeschool, how would that work?

 

Would the visit have to be scheduled in advance, or could the authorities arrive at your door-step unannounced?

 

Who would conduct the inspection?

 

Under what circumstances would a family fail the home inspection?

 

What happens if the family fails? Do they have to stop homeschooling? Is there an appeal process?

 

I am NOT who you asked since I don't think yearly home inspections are the way to go, but just wanted to point out that the underlined is illegal if there isn't a valid reason to suspect something - approved by legal authorities.

 

We can't even go into our tenant's houses (houses we OWN) without giving them advanced notice - at least 24 hours. (or get their permission, of course, as would happen in a "we need this fixed NOW" situation)

[displace]

I must say that at our recent portfolio review, I felt grateful that I am required to do it.

[snowbeltmom]

I am NOT who you asked since I don't think yearly home inspections are the way to go, but just wanted to point out that the underlined is illegal if there isn't a valid reason to suspect something - approved by legal authorities.

 

We can't even go into our tenant's houses (houses we OWN) without giving them advanced notice - at least 24 hours. (or get their permission, of course, as would happen in a "we need this fixed NOW" situation)

I feel that both a scheduled and unscheduled visit would violate my constitutional rights because there would not be reasonable cause for search in either situation.

[creekland]

I feel that both a scheduled and unscheduled visit would violate my constitutional rights because there would not be reasonable cause for search in either situation.

 

Possible, but at least the unscheduled one is without a doubt illegal without cause and permission (from authorities).

[MinivanMom]

For those of you in favor of requiring a yearly home inspection in order to homeschool, how would that work?

 

Would the visit have to be scheduled in advance, or could the authorities arrive at your door-step unannounced?

 

Who would conduct the inspection?

 

Under what circumstances would a family fail the home inspection?

 

What happens if the family fails? Do they have to stop homeschooling? Is there an appeal process?

 

Our state already allows the state dept of educ to come examine school records at the home. This means someone from the dept of non-public educ (which oversees both private & homeschools) can come to your home unannounced and ask to see your homeschool records. You do not need to let them into your home. You do not need to produce your children. You just need to show them current immunization records, attendance records, and most recent standardized test scores for all of your homeschooling children. On the doorstep or on the front porch. 

 

In reality, I have never had anyone come to my home. I don't know anyone who has ever had anyone come to their home. They don't have the manpower to visit all the homeschoolers. They only come for a visit if there is a complaint, and the purpose is to be sure that the parents are following the law. They are not cps. They are not checking to see that your house is spotless or that there's food in the pantry. If your homeschool paperwork is in order, then awesome.

 

But education people are mandatory reporters, so if they could actually see emaciated children chained to the furniture or floors covered in urine & feces from the front door, then they would probably file a report with cps. And then cps would come out to see what's up.

 

It would be pretty easy to add "recent physical" or "proof of a physical within the last 2 years" to the list of required documents.

[homemommy83]

I am going to open up something about my childhood, that is quite saddening to me, but seems to be said to make a point on this topic. I grew up in a large (10 children in the home) blended family that was abusive in just about any way you can imagine.

 

We all went to public school, we all turned in the abuse once asked by the counselor (whom we were told that we could trust). They took pictures of our black bottoms and statements of the rest of the abuse. I weighed 80 pounds going into high school and didn't get my menustration until I was 17 due to low weight (I lived with my dad for a short time at 16 and gained weight quickly that year). I explain all of this to say- the school did nothing-NOTHING. The public school did nothing- except let our parents know that we were talked to so that we all got beat again when we got home, because we wouldn't tell them who turned them in.

 

I asked that same counselor why she didn't turn this all in, when I saw her a year after I graduated. She said that they couldn't find homes for 10 children and they didn't want to separate us. She asked how I was doing, and I told her that I was doing so much better since I removed myself from the abuse- and lived in my car my senior year. Children are afraid to turn in this abuse, and for good reason- it doesn't always turn out better for them to do so. They learn not to trust, and then the other adults in their lives prove that you cannot trust. It is a sad cycle.

 

I mention this as I wanted to point out that this happens in all "circles" of education. Abuse from mentally ill people happens in all walks of life, irrespective of homeschooling. I am sure some more affluent areas may have done something about this abuse, but we live in the poorest town in the state, and they see a lot of abuse from addicts and the mentally ill. Brenda

Edited January 19, 2018 by homemommy83

[maize]

I mention this as I wanted to point out that this happens in all "circles" of education. Abuse from mentally ill people happens in all walks of life, irrespective of homeschooling. I am sure some more affluent areas may have done something about this abuse, but we live in the poorest town in the state, and they see a lot of abuse from addicts and the mentally ill. Brenda

Thank you for sharing.

 

That is horrific and so discouraging.

[scoutingmom]

 

 

 

I don't wish that on any innocent person either, but you and your kids will be fine even if it was a major frustration. When the mistake goes the other way, can you say the same thing about those kids? If you consider what your kids endured traumatic, what about those kids facing actual abuse?

The point is that it could easily have gone very bad. I am not going to support routine investigations because I choose to homeschool. I am innocent and do not want to be treated as if I'm guilty of something,

 

And I doubt it would be effective against abusers like these m9st of the time.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

[pinkmint]

Homemommy83 that lines up with my non-religious, public school experience completely.

 

I am amazed when I look back with all the supposedly caring and responsible adults I came into contact each day, no one really ever did jack sh!t to intervene when I was going home every day to drugs, no food etc.

[aggie96]

HomeMommy83, I liked your post because I agree. My best friend in 9th grade was abused right under our noses. We knew her dad was insanely strict. We knew first hand how angry he could be because we witnessed it when we spent the night at her house. What we didn't know was that he beat her after we would leave for minor infractions leaving her black and blue and deeply bruised. She always wore alot of makeup (it was the 80s), and we just never knew that she was covering up the abuse. One day when she came to school with her face, neck, ears, and skull covered in deep bruises, me and our other BFF freaked out. She begged us not to tell anyone because he would do so much worse to her if anyone found out. But she was scared. It was really bad. So we came up with a plan to talk about it "inadvertently" in front of our English teacher. It worked. She "overheard" us. Friend got pulled out of class and sent to counselor/principal, etc. She never came back to school. I never saw her again. By the next week at school, the principal pulled me and the second BFF to his office to explain that the family had moved to another state, but we were brave and did the right thing blah, blah, blah. We were devastated and scared for our friend. I still wonder what became of her. :(

 

I think no one system can "police" every family with child whether they are coming to your home for inspection (and I can't imagine how that works in reality) or they see you at their place of business such as school. I am seriously flabbergasted that people are willing to give up their privacy and liberties in their home to try to catch a bad guy. Bad guys thwart the system. Period. Every system. There are always bad guys and always victims. There is no such thing as ensuring safety for every child without relinquishing ALL liberties. And even then you are at the mercy of the authorities who can abuse you at will. I am just shocked at the knee-jerk reaction to homeschooling because of this horrific incident. :(

Edited January 19, 2018 by aggie96

[EmseB]

What is "government?" It is us.

 

What about a third grade teacher who knows the child is reliant on the school feeding programs, breakfast and lunch, she knew his older siblings, she's known his mom for six years...this involved, caring teacher who has an actual relationship with the family and knows of mom's good intentions but also knows of cognitive problems and kids' special needs...

 

This teacher IS the government. She has to watch this family who obviously needs the support and safety net of school, convert to religious fundamentalism or get offended by the bus driver, and begin homeschooling. She can't say or do anything because the abuse or neglect hasn't happened or been proven yet, and there are no restrictions on hsing here...but she doesn't know how the child, who literally has lost teeth due to poor diet and lack of dentist, is going to gain either literacy or breakfast for the rest of the year.

Yes, the government is us, with the force of law behind us. The ability to take children away, the ability to put people in jail. It is us. It's the grandma who used to homeschool and loves to help hs'ing families. It's the fundamentalist dad who thinks girls don't need an education beyond 8th grade. It's the secular humanist who thinks all religious teaching is abusive. It's the ps teacher who thinks anyone who teaches should have an education degree. It's the super organized mom who thinks a dirty house indicates neglect. It is any number of individuals with their own set of biases might end up in positions of authority who ultimately can decide who can and cannot educate their kids, or even if the kids should live there at all. So, yeah, exactly, government is just us. That's the point.

 

What about that teacher? What should she be able to do to a family whom she thinks is unfit to homeschool? I had not one teacher in my entire ps life that knew really very much about my family at all. Heck, many of them barely knew me that well. I can't imagine them determining my parents fitness based on what they thought of my home life or my cognitive abilities.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Homemommy, thank you for sharing your story.

 

I told a high school teacher what was happening at home ONCE, the only time I ever told a teacher. She did not tell my parents, she hugged me and told me she cared, and she gave me a passing grade even though I was unable to complete the projects because of home. But nobody intervened, and it was definitely a situation where somebody should have.

 

But there are two more benefits to school for abuse and neglected children:

 

1. Respite, a meal, awareness of and access to basic education.

2. Probably figuring out that what you endure at home is not normal.

 

In my own experience, I cannot ever minimize those two benefits. They are the reason my children have had a normal life.

[EmseB]

And I have to lol a bit at the idea because a family looks clean and educated, responsible and has their stuff together...that those families are ok to homeschool...