Today’s blog is a brief I wrote for an educational neglect case in February of 2012. You can clearly see that I was assisting the defense attorney representing the parents in this matter.

For complete clarification, I am a fierce supporter of eliminating the school to prison pipeline and that has led me to be an advocate for better truancy laws, this does not mean (especially if you are my child) that I do not feel children should attend school. Further, any child of mine who chooses to attempt to cite this brief in an effort to get out of a consequence for being late to school will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of my motherly powers. 

(I’m just saying! Most of my kids have tried to use this brief against me lol)

About a year later LB 464 was introduced and ultimately passed giving schools more discretion as to whether or not truancy cases should be sent on to the Douglas County Attorney’s Office. Let’s not forget we need to continue to destroy the pipeline from schools to the legal system. 

Claiming educational neglect on behalf of a parent whose child is absent for 20 days is an abstract generality as detailed in Neb. Rev. Stat §43-247(3)(a). The requirement does not take into account excused absences, parents who ensure that assignments are made-up, students who maintain adequate grades and/or students who are absent in order to partake in other learning opportunities.

Furthermore, it robs parents of their fundamental right to raise their children how they see fit as provided by Persons Entitled in General Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57,120 S. Ct. 2054, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000) and protected by U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. Leebaert v. Harrington, 332 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2003). “In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the ‘liberty’ specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the righ[t] … to direct the education and upbringing of one’s children” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57,66,120 S. Ct. 2054, 2060, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000) ((Meyer and Pierce)).

A parent is given this right upon the birth of their child; however, this 20 day reporting requirement strips parents in Nebraska of this basic, fundamental right. This right is obliterated from parents who are supervising their children’s education during times of frequent absences regardless of any further contributing factor other than they have a child between the ages of seven and 16 and they are Nebraska residents.

This appears to be a direct infringement upon the Parent and Child Relationship as the “Due Process Clause does not permit state to infringe on fundamental rights of parents to make child-rearing decisions simply because state judge believes a “better” decision could be made.” U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. (Per Justice O’Connor, with the Chief Justice and two Justices concurring, and with two Justices concurring in result.) Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed. 2d 49 (2000) Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972).

Moreover, by establishing a concrete number that school districts must abide by, the students are subsequently deduced to one entity. This concrete number leaves no flexibility for the school districts to treat juveniles as the individuals that they are and directly contradicts Omaha Public Schools Mission Statement, specifically 4. Partnerships and 5. Effective and Efficient use of District Resources.

Parents are one of the district’s greatest resources and the district’s relationship with parents is one of the most important partnerships. The clear intention of this requirement has been to improve test scores among Nebraska students. While increased testing performance should definitely be a priority, it is absurd to put the brunt of this burden on the court system with such rigid specification. Additionally it is narrow-minded to assume that low academic performance is a result of excessive truancies and not to consider the contrary, low academic performance could just as well be a cause of excessive truancies.

Unfortunately that clear intention has contributed to 266 Neglect cases filed in Douglas County Juvenile Court in 2011 and 200 in the first month and a half of 2012, according to JUSTICE. These juvenile cases can have extreme repercussions for students and parents with respect to employment, subsequent judicial matters, housing and ironically – education. In addition, these cases are affecting more than just 266 students as a significant amount of cases regarding truancies involve more than one child.

With the eminent threat of adjudication parents are left with options such as allowing their 16 year-olds to drop out or move to a more amenable school district. Forcing parents to make these types of decisions seems to disagree with Omaha Public School Districts Mission regarding Educational Equity, which states:

• Aligned with the mission of the Omaha Public Schools is the commitment to educational equity for all students, staff, and patrons of the school system. In all places and in all activities of the Omaha Public Schools, it is expected that every individual will be treated in a fair and equitable manner. All conduct will reflect a belief in the dignity and value of each person regardless of the individual’s race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, age, marital status, citizenship status, or economic status. 

Other states such as Iowa and Minnesota also recognize the importance of truancy prevention and have created solutions that deal with students as individuals through mediation. The mediation process provides for students specific circumstances to be dealt with holistically before petitions alleging neglect are brought to court. Such as students who incur absences for family bereavement purposes, to spend time with a parent who has recently returned home from deployment, to avoid bullying, to take advantage of other enrichment opportunities that are not offered through their school or to deal with illnesses that are not easily documented such as unusual illnesses or mental health issues.

Mediation allows a student’s parent to be an integral part of the solution, acknowledging that most parents know their children better than court officials thus giving them the tools to weigh in as a well-informed contributor to the solution.

Ultimately it is clear that Neb. Rev. Stat §43-247(3)(a) should not be an applicable standard in this case. In addition to the previously cited reasons, the parents abided by the elementary handbook’s own policy on absences and none of the absences were unexcused.