ANOTHER IDIOT RULES...

Well, for the second time in a few days a ruling by a California Judge has stirred a turd. I am starting to wonder if some terrorist put loco-weed in some of these "judges" (cough cough) granola.

If you follow the news, you know that a California court has ruled that "homeschooling" violates school enrollment laws. There is a pretty good post at WorldNetDaily right here.

A few quotes:

A "breathtaking" ruling from a California appeals court that could subject the parents of 166,000 students in the state to criminal sanctions will be taken to the state Supreme Court.

The announcement comes today from the Pacific Justice Institute, whose president, Brad Dacus, described the impact of the decision as "stunning."

"The scope of this decision by the appellate court is breathtaking," he said. "It not only attacks traditional homeschooling, but also calls into question homeschooling through charter schools and teaching children at home via independent study through public and private school."

"If not reversed, the parents of the more than 166,000 students currently receiving an education at home will be subject to criminal sanctions," he said.

Come on Brad! There's nothing "breathtaking," or "dramatic" about this ruling. It's stinkin' California for heavens sake! Don't tell me you were shocked by anything a California Court decided.

And:

Justice H. Walt Croskey, whose opinion was joined by two other judges, then ordered: "Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program."

The determination reversed a decision from Superior Court Judge Stephen Marpet, who ruled "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home."

Okay H. Walt, how many homeschooled children did you see in your early days as a judge before you were an appellate judge? How many of the rapists, murderers, drug dealers, thieves, or vandals did you see "in the trenches" of the judiciary that were homeschoolers?

Obviously, it must have been an overwhelming number if you feel that the parents of homeschoolers need "parent education and counseling programs."

And:

But Croskey, without hearing arguments from the school, opined that the situation was a "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

The ruling, on which WND previously reported, also issued a further warning of potential penalties for parents, this time in civil court.

It said under a section titled "Consequences of Parental Denial of a Legal Education" that "parents are subject to being ordered to enroll their children in an appropriate school or education program and provide proof of enrollment to the court, and willful failure to comply with such an order may be punished by a fine for civil contempt."

Yea Judge H. Walt...the case involves a Los Angeles family. Do you know what a kid has to go through to be in an "appropriate school or education program" in Los Angeles? Shame on you!

And:

"Normally in a dependency court action, they simply make a ruling that will affect that family. It accomplishes the same thing, meaning they would force [the family] to place their minor children into school," he said.

Such rulings on a variety of issues always are "done in the best interests of the child" and are not unusual, he said.

But in this case, the court said went much further, essentially concluding the state provided no circumstance that allowed parents to school their own children at home.

Specifically, the appeals court affirmed, the trial court had found that "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting."

Further, the appeals ruling said, California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions allowed only for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

"Interact with people outside the family"? Give me a stinkin' break!

"Provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives" I'll give you some grace on that one. There is the rare case that children are kept home from school for devilish reasons.

"Develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting." Dang it H. Walt, are you so stupid that you don't understand that kids are exposed to way too much, way too early in their lives? You're a judge. You must have seen cases of children having sex at 11, or cursing you artfully at age 9, or a 12-year-old murdering some old lady in a robbery.

Come on H. Walt! You know how wrong you are! Why is it that almost every time we see some kid that aces the ACT, or SAT, it is a homeschooler? Why is it that at least every other year the winner of the National Science Fair, or the National Spelling Bee is a homeschooler? How is it that so many of the highest achieving young people in the US are schooled at home by "uncertified" parents?

Us Rednecks have an expression: "If you find a turtle on a fence post, there's a good chance that it didn't get there on its own." Some Momma and Daddy poured a whole lot of love and effort into these children. They should be commended, not slapped by some idiot in a black robe.

Dear Judge H. Walt, you are an idiot! You are a hazard to the welfare of the children of California. Shame on you! I got the reds over your ruling, but I prayed it through. I don't hate you...but you are an idiot!