Law and Justice

Posts Tagged ‘Litigants’

William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

Professor

PUBLIC SCHOOL LAW

 EDUCATIONAL LAWS & POLICIES

PARENT’S RIGHTS

 INTRODUCTION

             Parents are an essential partner in the education of their children.  While constitutional law does not necessarily outline parental rights regarding education, Texas statutory law does.  In fact, in 1995 the Texas Legislature amended the Texas Education Code to include parent rights and responsibilities.  According to Chapter 26 of the Texas Education Code §4.001, “Parents will be full partners with educators in the education of their children (Walsh, Kemerer, & Maniotis, 2007).  The state cannot require all students to attend public schools, thus enabling the parents to right to choose where their children will be educated.  Parents may send their children to public, private, or home schools. 

            For the purpose of this report, we will present the case that relates to granting parents the right to choose which institution of learning their children will attend.  The findings are intended to be informative and beneficial in understanding the precedent set forth for parent rights and responsibilities regarding the education of their wards.

Case One

United States Supreme Court

PIERCE

 v.

SOCIETY OF SISTERS

268 U.S. 510

LITIGANTS

Plaintiffs-Appellants: Walter Pierce, Governor of Oregon

                                    Isaac H. Van Winkle, Attorney General of Oregon

Defendant-Appellee: Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary

                                    Hill Military Academy

BACKGROUND

            On November 7, 1922, the voters in Oregon passed an initiative to amend the Compulsory Education Act.  The amendment was aimed at creating a common American culture by eliminating any dogmas that may negatively influence the established norms of American society.  All children between the ages of eight and sixteen were required to attend public school.  Children who were mentally disabled, lived three miles from the nearest road and had already completed the eighth grade were excluded from attending school.  To enforce the law parents who did not send their children to public school were fined and faced 30 days in jail.   The initiative also targeted parochial schools, specifically Catholic schools, because the thought was that such parochial schools hindered assimilation.  Since the Society of Sisters worked with mainly orphaned and disadvantaged children they challenged the fairness of the Act.

FACTS

            The Society of Sisters was an Oregon corporation, organized in 1880, with power to care for orphans, educate and instruct the youth, establish and maintain academies or schools, and acquire necessary real and personal property. The Society’s bill alleges that the enactment conflicts with the right of parents to choose schools where their children will receive appropriate mental and religious training, the right of the child to influence the parents’ choice of a school, the right of schools and teachers therein to engage in a useful business or profession, and is accordingly repugnant to the Constitution and void. And, further, that, unless enforcement of the measure is enjoined the corporation’s business and property will suffer irreparable injury.

DECISION

 JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The challenged Act, effective September 1, 1926, requires every parent, guardian or other person having control or charge or custody of a child between eight and sixteen years to send him “to a public school for the period of time a public school shall be held during the current year” in the district where the child resides, and failure so to do is declared a misdemeanor. The manifest purpose is to compel general attendance at public schools by normal children, between eight and sixteen, who have not completed the eighth grade. And without doubt enforcement of the statute would seriously impair, perhaps destroy, the profitable features of appellees’ business and greatly diminish the value of their property.

The Society’s bill alleges that the enactment conflicts with the right of parents to choose schools where their children will receive appropriate mental and religious training, the right of the child to influence the parents’ choice of a school, the right of schools and teachers therein to engage in a useful business or profession, and is accordingly repugnant to the Constitution and void. And, further, that, unless enforcement of the measure is enjoined the corporation’s business and property will suffer irreparable injury.

No question is raised concerning the power of the State reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare.

DICTA

Under the doctrine of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, we think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control: as often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.

IMPLICATIONS

            The Society’s suit against Pierce was successful in establishing that the parents and guardians of students had a right to choose their children’s educational setting.  The ruling set the precedent for parents’ right to choose privately run schools and relieved parents from being forced, through penalties, to have their children educated in public schools.

Incoming search terms:

Courts make determinations in law and in equity. By ‘in law’ is meant following a specific law – constitutional law, state law, etc. By ‘in equity’ is meant determining what is ‘fair’ to do where now law specifically rules. An example is determining how to distribute the assets in a divorce among the husband and wife.

Common law refers to the myriad of decisions made by judges and appeals courts. Maxims of Common Law are ‘guiding truths’. Adhering to them helps judges make fairer decisions. They’re ignored in family court determinations since fairness is a wholly secondary issue. This article overviews what these maxims are.

Maxims are absolutely essential to the preservation of rights and fair treatment to all litigants. Maxims:

* represent ‘self-evident’ truth – as mentioned in our Declaration of Independence when it referred to ‘all men’ as being created equal.

* serve to guide judicial determinations in the same way that ‘axioms’ guide the analysis of mathematical determinations

* promotes fair dealing and unbiased justice – a clearly essential issue in the purpose of courts

Courts, primarily established to enforce the principles of common law, are bound by common law rules of equity that should be grounded in the never-changing maxims. This grounding serves to restrain the court’s wanton discretion in equity law determinations.

Examples of Maxims:

Let’s take a look at some examples to see the nature of maxims -as self-evidently fair. Here’s an important one:

*The certainty of a thing arises only from making a thing certain.

This implies that the court should seek clear proof of allegations made against someone and not rule on just the allegations or weakly supported ones. Family court ignores these maxims all the time.

*The safety of the people cannot be judged but by the safety of every individual.

Laws which supposedly protect the safety of some people at the expense of other people’s rights violate this maxim. A clear example of such a violation is present day domestic restraining order laws which are rampantly and unjustly imposed upon so many fathers.

*Law is unjust where it is uncertain or vague in its meaning.

Laws should be clear so that one knows precisely when he’s breaking such a law. Remember the violation of laws brings consequences on those who violate them. Vague laws are considered unconstitutional. An example of vague standard of law is the ‘best interest of the child’ standard – used to unjustly deny fit fathers custody of their children.

*The Burden of Proof lies on him who asserts the fact -not on him who denies it.

This is based on the fact that you can’t prove a negative. Courts that force people to prove a negative are examples of kangaroo courts. Family courts jail fathers when they can’t prove that they don’t have money to pay!

*No one should be believed except upon his oath.

This simply means that anyone who will give testimony must be sworn in. That way he can be charged with perjury – which is a felony (a serious crime) – if he can be found to be intentionally lying. No ‘swearing in’ means no perjury and no penalty for lying.

*Perjured witnesses should be punished for perjury and for the crimes they falsely accuse against him.

This is the bottom line of enforcing honesty in court testimony. Unfortunately perjury is almost never punished -allowing the degradation of court integrity – so obvious in family court.

*Every home is a castle; though the winds of heaven blow through it, officers of the state cannot enter.

This is from English common law which made a man’s home sacrosanct. It should still be true. It requires officers to have warrants to enter a home. A warrant is permission from a judge based on good cause to enter a home.

*No man should profit by his own wrong or, He who does not have clean hands, cannot benefit from the law

This is self-evident. An extreme case is the child that pleads mercy because he’s an orphan – but only because he murdered his parents.

*He who uses his legal rights harms no one.

But, fathers are routinely punished by seeking their rights in family court.

*No one is punished unless for some wrong act or fault.

But forced into the noncustodial status for doing no wrong would be considered punishment by any reasonable person.

*It’s natural that he who bears the charge of a thing, should receive the profits.

If you have all the obligations for something but none of the benefits, then you are a slave.

Fathers who go to family court observe clear violations of these maxims all the time. Such violations mean that there is a tyranny taking place.

Incoming search terms: