WND is reporting:
Homeschoolers’ fate hangs on hearing results
Court’s earlier opinion said parents don’t have right to teach children
——————————————————————————–
Posted: June 20, 2008
6:11 pm Eastern

“The 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles is scheduled to hear oral arguments Monday in the Rachel L. case, the startling ruling released in February in which the judges concluded there was no constitutional or statutory provision for parents to homeschool their children.

The case immediately sparked nationwide outrage, up to the White House and Congress, which approved a resolution calling for a rehearing, and the court panel’s judges eventually scheduled new arguments in the dispute, effectively overturning their own earlier ruling.

Kevin Snider, chief counsel for the Pacific Justice Institute, is to argue the legality of homeschooling under both state law and constitutional law as a representative of the private Christian school that provided the overarching program in which the family participated.

An estimated 166,000 children are being homeschooled in California, and their future also will be argued by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, who represents the father in the case, along with the Alliance Defense Fund.

Jenny Hatch

The Home School Legal Defense Association, the nation’s premiere homeschooling advocacy organization, also has been assisting in preparation of the arguments, which will be in addition to the arguments from the various components of California’s education industry, education agencies and teachers’ unions.

“We are looking forward to this opportunity to defend the thousands of families who are making sacrifices to teach their children at home. The state should be applauding, not threatening, these families,” said Brad Dacus, president of PJI.

“We hope that the court reverses its decision and restores homeschool freedom to California,” said Michael Farris, chairman of the HSLDA.

In 1925, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the rights of parents to oversee the education of their children, stating, “The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations,” according to Liberty Counsel, which also is working on the case.

The court’s earlier opinion originated with a juvenile case, but concluded that parents without mandatory credentials from state agencies and teachers’ unions do not have the right to school their children at home.

Liberty Counsel filed a brief on behalf of 19 members of Congress providing an overview of education laws in all 50 states.

In another brief, filed on behalf of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. argued that there’s no need to dig into state constitutional issues regarding homeschooling since state laws already provide for that choice for parents.

“Here, this court need not reach any constitutional issues because this petition can be decided entirely on statutory grounds,” the brief said. “The Education Code provides a broad statutory basis for homeschooling in California, setting forth three different avenues through which parents may legally homeschool their children.”

The brief said the trial court in the case at hand “addressed only the constitutional issues, it never considered the preliminary question of whether the parents had met the statutory requirements for homeschooling under the Education Act.”

WND broke the story in February when the original decision was released, and has reported on the various briefs as they have been filed.

Since the case originated with a juvenile court proceeding, some of the arguments and briefs have remained confidential, because of the standard for handling juvenile proceedings. Other briefs have been released publicly.

“HSLDA has also filed a friend-of-the-court brief in conjunction with Focus on the Family and Family Protection Ministries to show the benefits of a home education. These arguments draw on the extensive development of homeschooling and the successful track record of parents educating their children at home,” the organization said.

The original opinion was written by Appeals Court Judge H. Walt Croskey and said: “We find no reason to strike down the Legislature’s evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the ‘general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence. … We agree … ‘the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'”

Homeschool advocates immediately expressed concern the original ruling would leave parents who educate their children at home liable criminally as well as open to civil charges for child neglect that could create the potential for fines, court-ordered counseling or even loss of custody.

The original California opinion arose from a dependency case brought in juvenile court. In the process, attorneys assigned by the court to the family’s two younger children sought a court order for them to be enrolled in a public or qualifying private school.

The district court denied the request citing parental rights, but the appellate court overturned the decision and granted the attorneys’ request. The appeals court concluded the parents held neither a statutory right nor a constitutional right to provide homeschooling to their own children.