Mike Smith:
Today, HSLDA Senior Counsel Jim Mason joins me to discuss the recent California appeals court decision. Jim, can you explain how we were uniquely prepared to fight this case?

Jim Mason:
Mike, a few years ago, a predecessor to the current superintendent of public instruction sent a letter to every legislator in the state, claiming that it was illegal for parents to teach their kids at home. Her letter relied on the same old 1953 case and left out the same key statutes that became the basis for the court of appeal’s original bad decision. We responded to the legislature with a letter of our own, basically making the same argument that we made in this case—and the legislature agreed with us.

But that letter claiming that homeschooling was illegal continued to circulate around public agencies. Several times over the last five years, local welfare offices denied public benefits to homeschoolers, because the benefits depended in part on the children being enrolled in school. In every case, they relied on the letter from the previous superintendent of public instruction claiming that homeschooling was illegal.

We represented those homeschoolers in obscure administrative offices in Ventura, Modesto, Sacramento, and Eureka, and other places. In every case, we filed an extensive brief discussing the missing statutes, and in every case, the administrative law judge agreed with us.

When the Rachel L. opinion came out, we knew without a doubt that there was a winning argument that had not been made. And we were able to put it in the petition for rehearing almost overnight.

Mike:
Thank you, Jim, and the rest of the HSLDA attorneys that worked on these briefs. And until next time, I’m Mike Smith.