This case, In Re: Rachel L., centers on whether or not a family in California has the constitution right and the legislative statutes to homeschool their children through a private school, namely Sunland Christian School, administrated by Terry Neven.

Sunland Christian School provided the court with evidence to verify its legal status as a private school in California and supported the constitutionality of homeschooling and legality of their educational program.

The majority of arguments, including the children's attorneys, felt the court did not need to make this a constitutional or homeschool case, but needed to address any concern over safety of the children.

Originally, the court had handed down a ruling on Feb. 28, 2008, which declared homeschooling as illegal in the State of California and Sunland Christian School as a ruse. In March, as a result of the family and Sunland Christian School's motion for rehearing, the court vacated its ruling and granted today's rehearing.

Twelve of the more than 50 lawyers present gave oral arguments lasting anywhere fromtwo and a half minutes to 22 minutes.

Oral arguments began with the defense taking the first hour and 20 minutes - County counsel, public advocates, California Department of Education, Los Angeles Unified School District and the Children's Law Center of Los Angeles.

Arguments included accusing the lower court judge of misjudgment and support that dependency court should deny parent's rights of deciding their children's education.

The second round of oral arguments went to the Long family, Sunland Christian School and lawyers who support homeschooling:

These arguments took up the next hour and10 minutes -Alliance Defense Fund (Long family), Pacific Justice Institute (Sunland Christian School), California Attorney General (Gov. Schwarzenegger) and homeschool advocates.

Arguments included supporting the lower court judge's belief the family has a constitutional right to homeschool, thus dismissing the lower case, that there is no basis or evidence of risk to the children, Sunland Christians School's compliance to the private school statutes, and the fact the parents are capable to teach.

While seven government organizations were invited to file amicus briefs, only four of them responded: California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, California Department of Education, Los Angeles Unified School District and the California Teachers Association.

Those who did not respond were: California Federation of Teachers, Los Angeles County Board of Education, and United Teachers of Los Angeles. In addition, fourteen other groups filed briefs, including the Governor of the State of California, Attorney General of the State of California, and members of the United States Congress. Homeschool organizations and Christian liberties groups filed the remaining briefs. (See the information below, summarizing the contents of the key briefs)

Court of Appeal judges H. Walter Croskey, Joan D. Klein and Patti S. Kitching, after listening to legal presentations and asking questions of the lawyers, will now decide, from the new information provided, on a new ruling.

They could possible remand the case back to the juvenile court for further evidential findings, or hand down a new ruling, with different positions on each of the items facing the court.

The judges expressed their concern that the legislators may have been derelict in their duty to provide clarity in the statutes concerning homeschooling.

The issues facing the court were clearly listed by the court's motion for rehearing:

1. Do California statutes permit home-schooling by the means of enrolling the children in a private school which exists to enable parents to home-school?
2. Do California statutes permit home-schooling by means of parents creating their own home-based private school?
3. Does the California legislative scheme violate the US Constitution, with respect to the free exercise of religion and parental control rights of parents who desire to home-school their children?
4. Does a dependency court have the ability to limit a parent's right to make educational decisions for a child in order to protect the child?

While the court has 90 days to hand down its decision, a ruling could be handed down at any time.

Points of Key Amicus Briefs:

Children's Law Center of Los Angeles

1.Parents do not have a constitutional or statutory right to home school.

2.Even if in general parents in California have a right to home school their children, the parents in this case forfeited that right.

Governor of the State of California & Attorney General of the State of California -

1. Current California Law Provides Several Home Schooling Options for Children.
   1. Children May be Lawfully Home-Schooled By a Parent or Other Tutor Who Possesses a Valid California Teaching Credential.
   2. Children May be Lawfully Home-Schooled As a Part of a Public School Independent Study Program of a Standard School District or Charter School.
   3. Children may be Lawfully Home-Schooled as Part of a Private Home-Based School.
2. This court should remand this Case for a Determination of Whether the Parents have met the statutory home-school requirements.
3. The court need not decide any constitutional questions at this time.

Members of the United States Congress -

1. Homeschooling has been recognized in fifty states and the district of Columbia as a valid form of education and should continue to be recognized as such in this state.
2. The initial Appellate Panel incorrectly interpreted California law when it questioned this family's participation in an Independent Study Program.

Sunland Christian School / Pacific Justice Institute