2 of 2

The juvenile court's decision was an "error of law," Croskey wrote in last week's opinion.

The parents had argued that the 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder — a case in which an Amish family was permitted to homeschool their children — granted religious freedom grounds for homeschooling.

But the Wisconsin v. Yoder decision wasn't about personal beliefs, Croskey wrote. The Supreme Court "found that the Amish traditional way of life does not rest on personal preferences but rather on 'deep religious conviction, shared by an organized group, and intimately related to daily living.'"

The parents in the California case weren't the first to claim that the Yoder decision granted a broad religious exemption from mandatory schooling laws, said Haynes at the First Amendment Center. "But it just doesn't seem to work. The Amish were treated in an exotic way."

In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the free exercise clause in the Constitution's First Amendment doesn't allow individuals to break the law, so long as those laws don't specifically target religious activity. In that case, Employment Division v. Smith, the court said the state of Oregon could fire employees for using the drug peyote even if it was used for religious purposes.

"Since this case, it has been much more difficult [to argue a case] under the free exercise clause," Haynes said. "This case is a reminder that free exercise claims, religious freedom claims, are difficult to sustain in court."

Croskey's decision suggested that the homeschooling family had specific issues that precluded options used by many other homeschooling parents in California. In sending the case back to the lower court, the appellate court placed restrictions on the family.

"Given the history of this family, which we need not discuss here, permitting the parents to educate the children at home by means of a credentialed tutor would likely pose too many difficulties for the tutor," Croskey wrote. He also said the court should not permit the students to re-enroll in Sunland Christian School.

"That school was willing to participate in the deprivation of the children's right to a legal education," Croskey wrote.

Sunland Christian School posted a response on its website calling the appellate court's ruling "a bad decision."

"While this case could have negative implications for California homeschoolers, nothing has changed to your right to homeschool," the school said. "There is no need to panic or make any changes to your current situation."

The Pacific Justice Institute says it will represent Sunland Christian School in an appeal to the California Supreme Court.

"The scope of this decision by the appellate court is breathtaking," said Pacific Justice Institute president Brad Dacus. "If not reversed, the parents of the more than 166,000 students currently receiving an education at home will be subject to criminal sanctions."

Copyright © 2008 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

The decision is available online, as is some background on the family's other woes.

Other coverage includes:

Ruling seen as a threat to many home-schooling families | State appellate court says those who teach children in private must have a credential (Los Angeles Times)

Court: No Constitutional Right to Educate Children at Home (Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Los Angeles)

The HSLDA, PJI, and California Home Educators have statements about the decision on their websites.

first page |  2 of 2

share this page

March (Web-only) 2008, Vol. 52