Mike Smith:
In the studio with me is Jim Mason, HSLDA Senior Counsel, who worked on HSLDA’s brief for the California case In re Rachel L. Jim, can you explain why this case took us and homeschoolers around the country by surprise?

Jim Mason:
Mike, this case began when a teenage girl ran away from home and made accusations of child abuse and neglect unrelated to education. The juvenile court judge agreed that she had been neglected. The judge also ruled that he needed to supervise the girl’s two younger homeschooled siblings to make sure that they were safe.

But lawyers from the Children’s Law Center weren’t satisfied. They asked the judge to order the younger kids to attend public school—not for educational purposes, but so the kids would be monitored by teachers who are required to report suspected abuse and neglect. So the issue was safety, not education.

And here’s why the case became known as “the California Homeschooling Case.” The CLC lawyers also claimed that homeschooling was illegal in California anyway. The parents were represented by court-appointed appellate attorneys who were experts on most matters that come into juvenile court, but they simply didn’t know what HSLDA attorneys knew about California law regarding the legality of home education.

The first time that HSLDA or the homeschooling community in California heard about the case was when the Court of Appeal published its opinion on February 28.

Mike:
Well, that was a big surprise, Jim—and thanks for being with us today. And until next time, I’m Mike Smith.