"Is This Tyranny?"
by Bruce and Kim Sickler
Our family had been home educating for three years when a law was
passed to regulate homeschooling in Pennsylvania. In addition to the
state regulations, our local school board made its own home school
policy. Despite our apprehension about following this law, we
reluctantly accepted unwise counsel from Home School Legal Defense
Association (HSLDA) to submit the newly required affidavit in August,
1989. They claimed they understood our misgivings and agreed to be
aggressive should problems arise. We had full commitment that HSLDA
would stand behind us. The problem was, they did not tell us _how
far_ behind us they were going to stand and we slipped through the
cracks several times.
Superintendent Kent Kresge was never satisfied. He continually
demanded things that were not required in the law, and tried his best
to execute his judgment by the tactics of threats and intimidation to
get what he wanted.
After losing the school board's "appropriate education" hearing in
March, 1993, we read the Pennsylvania statute very carefully; we
learned that homeschools are classified _only_ as public schools.
Given our experiences with the Tunkhannock Area School District, we
could not, in good conscience, continue to honor such a law. So,
rather than appeal the results of the "impartial" hearing, we served a
legal notice to all Tunkhannock Area School Board members,
Superintendent Kresge, the Secretary of th Department of Education,
and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in July, 1993, and a final notice
August 4, 1993. In these notices, we stated that we were reclaiming
our God given freedoms based on the Constitutions of the United States
and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We received no response to
either notice from any of the parties.
Two of our pastors also wrote letters defending our positions to the
school board members and Superintendent Kresge. They went unanswered
as well. The result was a legal standstill. It was known by all
involved that we had been documenting and collecting evidence for a
possible civil rights suit against the school district and Mr. Kresge.
During this time we received several harassing phone calls from
unknown callers. Then blank summons papers were delivered from the
magistrate's office! On Sept. 27, 1993, someone attempted to break
and enter our home when Kim, Nathan, and Sherri were alone. We later
learned it was Kim's mother from Arizona - what was she doing in
Pennsylvania unannounced, and why was she trying to break into our
home? Time quickly revealed.
Our extended family relationships were, for the most part, estranged.
For reasons unknown to us, three grandparents oppose our Christian
faith, oppose the practice of educating Nathan and Sherri at home, and
will do anything to try to gain control of things. Although Bruce's
parents (friends of Superintendent Kresge) live only 10 miles away,
there was very little contact, except on our part, and they rarely, if
ever, phoned. Kim's parents are divorced; her mother lives in Arizona
and we have only seen her four times in the past twelve years.
Happily, Kim's father has been very supportive to our family and has
encouraged us in the difficult times. The children enjoy spending
time in his company.
Without warning or notice, on Saturday, October 2, 1993, we were
served papers by the county sheriff. An oral motion of counsel for
the Wyoming County Human Services Agency (WCHSA) was made and we were
ordered to appear with Nathan and Sherri for an emergency detention
hearing on Tuesday, October 5, at 9:00 am. Curiously engouh, the
court order did not reveal the reason for the emergency or the
detention. The timing of this hearing was devised so that we would
have no legal counsel by Tuesday. Monday, October 4, Bruce learned
the WCHSA made this a juvenile case and denied us, the parents,
access to the information in our children's file. They would not
divulge the charges on the petition filed against us, a denial of our
due process right. As a result, we had no way of knowing how to
prepare for the next day.
Upon entering the courtroom that day, we were surprised to see over
forty people there to support us. Since the oral motion was made by
the WCHSA we wondered why Superintendent Kresge, Bruce's parents, and
Kim's mother were present. Everyone witnessed Kim tell Mr. Kresge and
her mother that she forgave them for the pain they were causing us,
and hoped they never had to go through anything like this. Mr. Kresge
smirked; Kim's mother verbally attacked her. Everyone turned and
looked in astonishment.
When Judge Brendon Vanston brought the gavel down everyone had to
clear the courtroom except "blood relatives." That should have
disqualifgied Bruce's parents - Bruce was adopted. Bruce's brother
had traveled three hours to be with us and to testify on our behalf,
yet even he was made to leave. The workers of darkness certainly did
not want the public to view what was about to take place.
When the proceedings began, Bruce asked the judge, "Why are we here?"
The judge informed us that the petition filed by WCHSA on behalf of
Kim's mother and Bruce's father was alleging child abuse! And another
petition had been filed by the Tunkhannock Area School District (TASD)
for child dependency - this petition had been filed that very morning!
Nathan and Sherri discovered they had a court-appointed attorney. She
was to represent their interests but not the interest of the family.
Nathan and Sherri wanted nothing to do with her. The court-appointed
attorney told the judge the children wanted to hire an attorney of
their choice; the judge ordered the attorney to stay. Bruce also
requested the right to counsel according to the Pa. Juvenile Act 42
Pa. C.S.A. Statute 6337. Judge Vanston ignored our request and went
right on with the proceedings. These actions violated our family's
right to counsel and due process. Last but not least, we discovered
that the Tunkhannock Area School District lawyer, Ms. Steele, was also
the lawyer for the Wyoming County Human Services Agency - need we say
more?
Although child abuse was supposedly the reason for the court order,
the subject of child abuse was never mentioned in the court testimony
that day. The grandparents responded to the programmed questions with
the typical programmed answers about socialization and all of the
other home education myths. They now felt they needed time alone with
Nathan and Sherri. Why now? The grandparents had never made any
attempts over the years to have contact with our son and daughter,
even on holidays and birthdays. Ironically, they had no idea of what
Nathan and Sherri learn, where they go, who they see, their interests...
Of course, there was no evidence of abuse or educational neglect of any
kind presented. Nathan and Sherri listened to their grandparents and
the superintendent repeatedly tell what they knew to be untrue while
under oath. Throughout the hearing Judge Vanston berated us and
continually threatened to remove Nathan and Sherri from our home.
Even though they did not get a chance to testify, our son and daughter
expressed their convictions and their negative opinions about their
grandparents. The judge said the children were too young to have such
opinions of their own and that we must be "directly teaching" these
opinions to them (at the time Nathan was nearly 15 and Sherri was 12).
What hypocrisy: Twelve-year-olds can legally obtain abortions, decide
which divorced parent to live with, and a nine-year-old can divorce
his biological parents! But the judge wanted us to subject Nathan and
Sherri to psychological testing at WCHSA because the children were
"being taught in the home." Bruce refused the testing.
We were denied any opportunity to call any witnesses or to present any
evidence. Judge Vanston chastised us for the negative relationships
between Nathan and Sherri and their grandparents. We were willing to
meet the grandparents halfway and wanted counseling with a minister of
our choice and a counselor of their choice. They refused; we asked
the judge what could be done. He ordered Nathan and SHerri to be
enrolled in school.
Untold thousand of people have family problems and estrangements but
are never accused of child abuse simply because they home educate
their children. Estrangement in the family is not in itself child
abuse, and the court did not legally have the power to move against us
just because of the grandparents' squabbles, misunderstandings, and
differing opinions. Filing charge of child abuse when there is no
evidence is totally irresponsible and may even be criminal on the
part of the grandparents. But he judge construed "being taught in the
home" as abuse and threatened to remove the children from us and
ordered Nathan and Sherri to be enrolled in an approved school within
thirty days. It now appears this entire action was drummed up because
Mr. Kresge was continuing his power play; he used the grandparents to
further his agenda.
It appears that the courts, laws, and lawyers cannot be relied upon to
protect the rights to families against the dictates of the state (or
federal?) governments. We have reason to be concerned about a
judiciary that has the _power_ - not necessarily the _authority_ - to
enforce the interests of the state. The intent of the law can be
twisted. This has made us wary of the abuse of authority and the
potential misuse of laws that some claim give us the "freedom" to
homeschool.
There were only two options available to us in order to fulfill the
court order. We could give our children over to an institution that
goes against every thing in which we believe, or we could leave the
only home our son and daughter have ever known. Our family chose to
move out of Pennsylvania.
Home Education Magazine - November-December 1994
reprinted with permission