Missouri District Judge R. Craig Carter rescinded an order for a homeschool family to appear in his “truancy court” after the international advocacy organization Home School Legal Defense Association challenged his authority in a petition to the state Supreme Court.
WND reported Tiffany and Anthony Swearengin received a document styled to look like a court order, informing them that their children could be taken away if they didn’t appear in “truancy court.” But no such court legally exists. HSLDA intervened and took the dispute to the state Supreme Court, pointing out that while informal, voluntary proceedings have been established to keep kids in school, there are no “truancy courts.”
Later, Carter insisted it was all the fault of a clerk in the juvenile office, claiming he had nothing to do with the order.
HSLDA says Carter now has quashed the summons.
The 44th Circuit of Missouri Juvenile Office has been ordered to dismiss any actions against any member of the Swearengin family, HSLDA said.
“By quashing the summons,” said HSLDA Chairman Michael Farris, “the judge has as much as said that it never should have been issued in the first place.”
A commentary posted Friday by Jim Mason, the organization’s vice president for litigation, said it was an important dispute to resolve.
“The children had no unexcused absences while in public school, and the parents followed all of the legal requirements to withdraw them and begin homeschooling,” he wrote. “There was no legitimate cause to summon them to any court, and Missouri law explicitly forbids commencing an investigation simply because a child is withdrawn from public school to be homeschooled.
“In other words, the family had done nothing wrong.”
He cited the court’s own language, which threatened the parents: “Attendance in Truancy Court is mandatory and failure to comply with this notice can result in the judge ordering the juvenile office to file a petition requesting that the above named juvenile be placed in the legal custody of the Missouri Children’s Division.”
“It is a formal court document that looks just like a case in juvenile court,” Mason explained.
He said while voluntary programs to address student attendance are fine, “We are convinced … that Judge Carter was in error when he said that the local program he created is a real court, or a legitimate court, when at most it is a voluntary program with no judicial authority to take official action.
“It is important to note that before the Supreme Court could rule on our petition, Judge Carter quashed the original summons. If the summons had been a legitimate command to appear before a real court for valid legal reasons, it would have been improper for the Circuit Court to quash it. Quashing the summons is a tacit admission that it never should have been issued in the first place,” he explained.
He said he was disappointed the state’s high court did not clarify further, and he said his organization is reviewing steps that could be taken to make sure “this doesn’t happen again.”
The March 18 notice came to the Swearingens after they told the public school attended by their 6- and 8-year old children that they planned to begin homeschooling.
Carter’s lawyer, George Reinbold, had insisted in a brief filed with the state Supreme Court before Carter killed the summons that there was “no indication anywhere in the record” that Carter sent the notice to the parents “or was in any way involved with sending the notice.”
In a response, HSLDA said he judge cannot credibly deny responsibility.
“It is unseemly for respondent now to disavow all knowledge and responsibility for the summons’ content and appearance,” the brief said. “That is especially so because the juvenile officer, Jerry Connor, told counsel that it was ‘all done according to Judge Carter’s guidelines.’”
Carter had a hearing scheduled April 4 for the Swearingens when he was contacted by the Supreme Court and ordered to respond to the parents’ complaint.
In a subsequent filing, Carter’s lawyer claimed Carter had nothing to do with the notice sent to the Swearingens.
Reinbold noted the parents allege Carter “acted in excess of his authority and jurisdiction by sending the notice to relators to require their attendance in the Truancy Court program on April 4, 2016, and by engaging in ‘unlawful intimidation of a homeschooling family.’”
“However, there is no indication anywhere in the record that respondent sent the notice to relators, or was in any way involved with drafting or sending the notice,” the lawyer argued.
“He likewise has no involvement in determining who receives a notice to attend Truancy Court. Respondent did not exercise any authority or jurisdiction over relators in this matter, nor does he exercise any authority or jurisdiction in any other Truacy Court matter,” the lawyer claimed.
Carter office has declined to respond to a WND request for comment.
The HSLDA brief had told the Supreme Court: “A circuit court judge has created what he believes to be a ‘real court.’ He has directed his juvenile officer to ‘summon’ parents and children to this real court to decide their ‘case.’ When this court phoned the respondent just before relators were scheduled to appear, he ‘continued’ the matter.
“But no such statutory court exists. Respondent has no jurisdiction to either create a new court or command a parent’s presence before it. No appeal is possible,” the HSLDA argued.
WND previously reported the letter to the Swearengins was from Rose Pursell, the chief deputy juvenile officer in the Douglas County, Missouri.
HLSDA’s court filings explained the boy’s first grade teacher had wanted the parents to medicate their son because he was “hyper” in class, even though the boy’s physician had said no such action was needed.
The family decided enough was enough and started homeschooling.
Almost immediately, the mother was summoned to Assistant Superintendent Mike Henry’s office, and he “asked if there was anything the public school could have done to keep them from withdrawing their children to homeschool, since now the school would be receiving less money from the state.”
Henry warned that Carter’s “policy” would require an investigation and a caseworker visit.
“Mrs. Swearengin stated, ‘it was not illegal to withdraw her children from public school to homeschool them and that it seemed like he and Judge Carter were treating the Swearengins like criminals,’” the filing states.
No caseworker ever came, but the “notice” did.
The couple was “frightened by the notice, which they believed was a legitimate summons to appear in juvenile court.”
“Their daughter read the notice and asked her parents if it meant that she would be taken away from her parents,” HSLDA reported.
from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/04/23/phony-truancy-court-order-against-homeschoolers-nixed/
from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/04/22/phony-truancy-court-order-against-homeschoolers-nixed/
No comments:
Post a Comment