Does the concept of Case Law or Common Law apply to the CA Homeschool decision...?

Question

Over the past several days, I have seen people refer to the CA HS decision as a "law" that effectively makes homeschooling illegal in CA (in many cases anyway).

Other people have said / responded: The law(s) have not changed - it is still perfectly legal to homeschool in CA.

Some have been accused by others of ignorance because of their wording or understanding / lack of understanding in this matter.

Thus my Q: Does the concept of Case / Common law apply to this decision?

Definition:

Part of common law, consisting of judgments given by higher (appellate) courts in interpreting statutes (or provisions of a constitution) applicable in cases brought before them. Called precedents, they are binding on all courts (within the same jurisdiction) to be followed AS THE LAW in similar cases. Over time, these precedents are recognized, affirmed, and enforced...

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/case-law.html

http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/tutorials/definitions/common_law.html

Answer 1

I think the concern is that it would make case law - meaning it could be used as a precedent in other cases for futher infringement on homeschooling rights.

Answer 2

Case law does set a precedent, however, it does not mean that all homeschooling in California is now de facto outlawed. Case law can still be argued on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, it does mean that lawyers could bring parents on an individual basis to the courts and start trials under that case-law. It does take a lot of time, for those precedents to be affirmed and enforced.

Answer 3

Well, I have no clue as to your question :-), but my friend's dad, who is a CA state judge, had the following to say when asked by my friend (who's HS'ed for 7 yrs in CA).

"My quick take on scanning this decision is that it is not that

critical. As I see it, the decision is a remand back to the lower court to do some additional fact finding. My interpretation (although not my area of expertise) was that the appellate level simply didn't like the Juvenile Court simply taking a hands off approach by saying that home schooling was a constitutional right.

"In my opinion the court in this decision is simply saying that it is within the jurisdictional ability of the Juvenile Court to disallow home schooling under certain circumstances. I will admit it seems to give broad brush to the case authority but procedurally it is also a result of a Writ. Although some sentences are troubling I think that the best way to read this is that the lower court said "we can not decide this case as a matter of law" and the Appellate court is sending it back saying "yes you can decide this as a matter of law".

Just my thoughts."

EDIT for NJRoadie - I went to the HSLDA site today to pull the state laws on HS'ing for someone here.  They re-did their home page so that it's a huge window about the petition they have going.  Then when you enter the site, you get another pop up window about it.  They are continuing to do their "Chicken Little" fear mongering and getting sooooo many people worked up.  They do it to look like the heroes in the case and yes, to increase membership.  It only makes me NOT want to join.  Have you seen this site?...

http://hsislegal.com/

I did write Gov. Swartzenagger and told him "thanks" for his statement.  I rec'd a message back thanking me.

Answer 4

I'm part of a Yahoo! Group for KONOS (a homeschooling cirriculum) and a major topic lately has been the recent California ruling.

From what I understand, the law itself has not changed -- yet.  The recent ruling made it possible for homeschooling to be outlawed by the state supreme court, but for now, it's safe to homeschool your children.

In some ways, the panic is worse because of a lack of knowledge about the individual circumstances.  The case started out in a juvinile court, so details were not public.  It was based on a single incident, and should never have made it this far.

There was a radio broadcast a day or two afterwards from a man who was supposedly an expert, but who had not testified in the court, and who had no first-hand knowledge of the case, who overdramatized a bit.  Basically, he insinuated that homeschoolers would have to go into hiding in a way, not going out in public during school hours, etc.  He also mentioned that CPS would pick children up on Fridays so that they had time to question them in-depth over the weekend.  This is not true.

IF it becomes actual law, there will be a transition time to allow parents to enroll their children in an accredited school.

However, it's unlikely it would ever hold up in the supreme court.

Also, if the supreme court does not act quickly enough, Governor Schwartzenegger (never could spell that name) has stated that he would push legislature to prevent the parental right to home school from being taken away. (GO ARNIE!)

There is an online petition you can sign, as well, to fight this ruling.  https://www2.hslda.org/Registrations/Dep...

Answer 5

The reason I keep telling people to get the facts straight by checking with the http://www.hsc.org/Appellatedecision  people closest to it is the sense I get that HSLDA likes to use these things to increase membership.  

I think it is much more valuable to have individuals gain knowledge for themselves.