To the Editor:
Dr. Jonah Stewart’s March 24 op-ed published by CT Mirror, “CT homeschool abuse case not an isolated incident,” reads less like a call for child safety and more like a blueprint for dismantling parental rights.
CT Mirror casts the op-ed in its “CT Viewpoints” series, but Stewart does not represent Connecticut parents or homeschool students. I’m willing to bet Stewart has never put boots on the ground and visited our homeschool communities. Based in Massachusetts, the Coalition for Responsible Home Education, which pays Stewart’s salary, is a non-profit dedicated to imposing nationwide restrictions on homeschooling.
The author’s questionable credentials aside, the op-ed itself is a blatant strong-arm attempt to influence lawmakers in Connecticut to impose unnecessary and ultimately harmful regulations on their constituents.
Worse, Stewart exploits the tragic stories of Connecticut children who have suffered abuse in their homes and who have been failed by the state’s Department of Children and Families.
By blaming “lax homeschool laws” for these incidents, Stewart dangles an easy scapegoat for Connecticut lawmakers: Parental freedom. If the state had more oversight, the argument goes, the state could prevent abuse cases.
To which I respond: Show me the evidence that the state is better than parents at preventing child abuse.
The recent, Grimm’s fairy-tale quality case of a middle-aged man escaping from a Waterbury home after years of imprisonment at the hands of his stepmother could, on the surface, provide evidence that Connecticut needs to strictly regulate and track children withdrawn from public school to be homeschooled.
There is no evidence that introducing more mandated reporters into this child’s life – or the lives of the other children Stewart cites – would have prevented these terrible crimes from taking place. In fact, the state has a terrible record when it comes to protecting children.
Who could have prevented these terrible crimes? The myriad of mandated reporters already in their lives doing their jobs or being given the freedom to protect them.
There is a common thread in the Waterbury case, as well as the case of Matthew Tirado (whose parents, Stewart admits, were “the subject of many social services reports”), and in each of the case studies in Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate’s recent report on homeschooled children in homes with DCF report histories. The children in question had multiple points of contact with concerned adults both before and after being withdrawn from school. In fact, in each case, reports from teachers, principals, physicians, church communities, and/or neighbors are described as offering continued “visibility” for these children. Some of these adults – also documented in the OCA report – also contacted DCF, making reports that went nowhere.
The fault, then, lies not in the freedom of parents to withdraw their children but the state’s manifest inability to protect children in spite of robust resources. The criminal lack of accountability for Connecticut’s mandated reporters and those vetting the reports would be a better target of Stewart’s indignation.
The way to improve safety for all Connecticut children is to enforce the regulations and processes already in place. Adding more laws and regulations to any system is never the solution. Instead, it is a sign of a lack of political will or confidence in good laws and thoughtful processes already in place.
For the Connecticut lawmakers: Connecticut parents and children don’t need well-heeled activists from California exploiting our life stories to further an agenda. We want you to represent us and make sure Connecticut remains a state where responsible citizens work together to protect children.
Erika Ahern
Hamden, CT
—
Editor’s note: This letter has been corrected to reflect that the organization is based in Stoughton, Mass., rather than in California as originally claimed.