Conservative Donnybrook

I’m just glad they didn’t play in Tampa.

Share This

It is California after all.

Now, thanks to Justice Walter Croskey and two of his fellow appellate judges, California has made a serious bid to be recognized as the King of the Regulatory States (although such an appellation may be too patriarchal to be politically correct - perhaps Monarch of the Regulatory States would be better and less sexist). Last February 28, the California Court of Appeals ruled that it is illegal to instruct children without a certification from the state, effectively outlawing home schooling. According to Justice Croskey, “parents do not have the constitutional right to home school their children.” In fact, “[b]ecause parents have a legal duty to see to their children’s schooling within the provisions of these laws, parents who fail to do so may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction, and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program.”

Apparently the Court has been itching to placate the teachers’ union for some time, because the justification for this sweeping ruling, affecting 166,000 families, was a single incidence of child abuse of a homeschooled child. Repeatedly throughout the decision, the Court states that parents have no constitutional basis for opting out of the public school morass and that these cases do not present a federal question (at least in the Ninth Circuit). I know quite a few people who home school their children and generally they do it out of religious conviction. In fact, the family under California’s boot did assert their First Amendment right about which the Court stated:

The parents in the instant case have asserted in a declaration that it is because of their “sincerely held religious beliefs” that they home school their children and those religious beliefs “are based on Biblical teachings and principles.” Even if the parents’ declaration had been signed under penalty of perjury, which it was not, those assertions are not the quality of evidence that permits us to say that application of California’s compulsory public school education law to them violates their First Amendment rights. Their statements are conclusional, not factually specific. Moreover, such sparse representations are too easily asserted by any parent who wishes to home school his or her child.

Apparently, before a person’s religious rights may be recognized in California, the burden is on the person asserting them to prove their genuineness. This Court is telling parents that the regulatory power of the State is sufficiently powerful to countermand their right to their exercise of  religion and the rearing of their children in that religion. Especially if one simply asserts their right without justifying why the State should allow you to exercise it.

Let us hope that transfer is granted and this terrible decision is rectified at the California Supreme Court soon. If not through the courts, then the legislature. But, it would be nice to think that a court of law can still exercise some self-restraint.

Share This