More on the California Court Saying “No Constitutional Right to Homeschool”
Posted by Pastor Kurt | Filed under Christianity In Crisis, The Moral Decline
Posted by: Rich Shipe” on March 11th, 2008
Less than two weeks ago, a California appeals court declared in Re Rachel L
that the vast majority of parents in California may only choose between
public and private school because they are unqualified to teach their
children. Tens of thousands of children in California are currently
homeschooled, but this fact was unconvincing for these three judges,
who boldly proclaimed that “parents do not have a constitutional right
to home school their children,” unless they are certified by the state
to teach.
In so ruling, the court declined to follow the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder and its 2000 ruling in Troxel v. Granville,
relying instead upon two antiquated lower-court decisions. The
California court refused to recognize parental rights as fundamental
rights (even though the Supreme Court did in Troxel), opting
instead for the more lenient, pro-government standard of
“reasonableness.” According to the court, homeschooling could not be a
legitimate educational option because it would place “an unreasonable
burden on the state to have to supervise each and every home in which a
child was being educated.”
How do you like that?
The danger of Rachel L. is it presumes that it is ultimately the state’s
duty to ensure that the child’s right to “adequate” information is
respected. It makes the dramatic shift from parents being presumed to
be doing what is best for their children to parents having to prove to
the state they are doing what is best for their children.
This presumption is evident from the language of Rachel L. itself as well as the two cases the California court relied upon. In 1929, the New Hampshire Supreme Court declared in State v. Hoyt
that because the state bears “the burden of reasonable supervision” of
education, parents must choose “educational facilities which do not
require unreasonable supervision” by the state. A California Appeals
Court used this same language in 1952, when it concluded that children
must be educated in traditional public or private schools, subject to
state standards and regulations: anything else would “take from the
state all-efficient authority to regulate the education of the prospective voting population.” (emphasis added)
Parents, not the state, have the knowledge and the
responsibility to decide whether their children would best benefit from
public schooling, a private school, or even learning at home. Unless
abuse has been proven, parents are presumed to be acting in the best interest of their children.
The Supreme Court affirmed this important idea in Parham v. J.R.
when it said: “The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption
that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and
capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions.
More important, historically it has recognized that natural bonds of
affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children.”
The anti-child, anti-parent statists certainly affirm the child’s
lack of “maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment” but they
solve that problem by inserting government to make those “difficult
decisions.” Who is the ultimate loser under this scenario? Ultimately
it will be children because children need their parents.
Rightly, everyone is up in arms over this case. The Home School Legal Defense Association is working to drive a petition
to get this decision “depublished” in California. James Dobson used his
radio program on Friday to alert his listeners. Governor Schwarzenegger
declared that “parents should have the right to decide what’s best for their children.”
While the issue is homeschooling, the heart of this case goes to the
statement the Governor made. Who decides? Mom and Dad or the state? Do
parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education
of their children or does the state get to determine what they think is
in the child’s best interest?
While the SCOTUS has consistently ruled in this question on the side of children and parents, there are reasons to worry that this would not be the case with today’s court.
Troxel was the last parental rights case from the court and
it was decided in favor of the parental rights doctrine. The four
justice plurality decision included Chief Justice Rhenquist, and
justices O’Connor, Breyer, and Ginsberg. Surprisingly, Scalia rejected
the parental rights doctrine because it is not explicitly enumerated in
the Constitution. If Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito both hold
to Scalia’s view than the parental rights doctrine is in trouble. And
can we really count on Breyer and Ginsberg to remain on the side of
children and parents?
If Rachel L. were to eventually make it to the Supreme
Court of the United States there is a high chance that parental rights
would lose and nearly 80 years of good decisions would be undone. It
would be open season for the It Takes a Village crowd (call them The Village People if you like) and their armies of state sponsored super-nannies.
Bottom line is we should not be surprised by a lower court decision like Rachel L. and
we should expect more decisions against the role of parents in the
lives of their children because The Village People are on the march. We need to do what Scalia all but explicitly invited us to do in Troxel.
We need to move the time honored Constitutional parental rights
doctrine from an unenumerated right to an explicitly enumerated
fundamental right.
We need a Parental Rights Amendment. We need it not because we love parents but because we love our children and our children need their parents.
Tags: California Homeschool Ruling, Education
