Posted on 03/04/2008 2:50:27 PM PST by Sopater
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.
Homeschool ping...
The California Teachers Union holds this state in a vise-like grip, to the disgust of most of its residents, and to the delight of our Democrat-weighted Assembly and Senate.
No, but they should have at least some years of college level education.
Tyranny.
That's no guarantee of competence. Or do you start from the premise that children belong to the almighty state?
I will have to withhold judgment until I’ve read everything I can about this case, and I do have some questions (like: iirc, it only applies to their youngest 2 children, and I’d like to know why that is?), but generally speaking, I doubt that the courts in California can even imagine what a can of worms they have opened with this.
This will quickly become a mess of epic proportions.
Does anyone have an answer to my question, btw? Why does the ruling only apply to the youngest 2 children in the family? Weren’t 3 children originally the focus?
Why?
What does "some years" of college promise or guarantee?
The wife of my brother has a teaching credential in California. She is one of the most ignorant, unenlightened people I have ever met.
And keep me out of your family problems.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
My my........what a bad attitude you have.
My point is that NOT EVERYONE WITH A FEW YEARS OF COLLEGE IS NECESSARILY SMART.
No to CA ping
Now that is bad news. Leave it to California to make bad legal decisions (constantly).
I don't have a bad attitude, I just don't think much of people who talk bad about their relatives behind their backs.
If you met her you’d say the same thing.
Grow up.
From another thread - the family has a history of abuse allegations. Sexual and physical. Two of the older girls ran away from home and were living on the streets at some point. I think the two younger ones are all thats left - the older ones being about 16 & 17 and out of the home.
You know what they say: If you don’t have something nice to say - come sit by me ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.