Here are copies of two proposed amendment to HB 595. Please look them over before Tuesday's hearing so you can include them in your testimony if you think they're of any value.
Changes to the submitted bill are highlighted in yellow (added text; [deleted text]). The differences between the amendments are underlined so you can find them more easily.
The two amendments are very similar. Both eliminate any problem or concern over "neglect." There is only one non-criminal outcome when a parent is found to have failed to "instruct" or " his child to be instructed." The parent will be asked to choose another method of instruction for his child, either public or private school, to satisfy the compulsory attendance law.
Rep. Jones's Amendment underscores that any charge made against a parent will be "civil" not "criminal."
Rep. Manuse proposes "three strikes and your out" language to the bill and reiterates that the state that DCYF prosecution is not allowed.
Rep. L. Jones, Strafford 1
Amendment to HB 595
Parent-Directed Instruction
Amend the bill by replacing section 6 with the following:
6 New Paragraph; School Attendance; Limitations on State Action. Amend RSA 193:1 by inserting after paragraph 1 the following new paragraph:
I-a. Notwithstanding the neglect provisions of RSA 169-C and RSA 169-D, the following procedure shall apply to a parent involved in a parent-directed instruction program:
(a) The state shall not interfere with the natural right of a parent to instruct his or her child unless the state has probable cause to believe that a parent involved in a parent-directed instruction program has failed to instruct or cause the child to be instructed [is found to have neglected his or her child’s instruction].
(b) If there is probable cause to believe that a parent involved in a parent-directed instruction program has failed to instruct or cause the child to be instructed, the state may investigate, after prior notice to the parent, to determine if there is sufficient evidence to proceed against the parent.
(c) The state shall only proceed against a parent in accordance with the Constitutional provisions for due process and a fair trial, during which the parent shall be considered innocent until proven guilty.
(d) The state shall not compel a parent to submit evidence to prove his or her innocence, nor shall the state presume such parent has failed to instruct or cause the child to be instructed based on the parent's failure to submit such evidence.
(e) In any state action relating to a parent involved in a parent-directed instruction program, no finding or opinion that a parent has failed to instruct or cause the child to be instructed shall issue except upon evidence beyond a reasonable doubt [neglected the instruction of his or her child shall issue except upon evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a child will suffer severe educational harm].
(f) A parent involved in a parent-directed instruction program who has failed to instruct or cause the child to be instructed may be found guilty of a civil violation only. Under no circumstances shall the state remove a child from a parent's custody based on an allegation or finding of failure to instruct or cause the child to be instructed or for any other allegation or finding pertaining to a parent-directed instruction program. Only when the court finds that the parent is not providing any [under extreme cases of neglect of a child’s] instruction may the court order the child to be returned to a public or nonpublic school, as may be determined by the parent.
(g) Original jurisdiction of any action brought against a parent engaged in a parent-directed instruction program shall be in the superior court in the county of the parent's residence.
(h) All laws or rules adopted to regulate instruction [education] shall be consistent with the equal protection provisions of the United States Constitution and the New Hampshire Constitution.
Rep. A. Manuse, Rock 5
Amendment to HB 595
Parent-Directed Instruction
Amend the bill by replacing section 6 with the following:
6 New Paragraph; School Attendance; Limitations on State Action. Amend RSA 193:1 by inserting after paragraph 1 the following new paragraph:
I-a. Notwithstanding the neglect provisions of RSA 169-C and RSA 169-D, the following procedure shall apply to a parent involved in a parent-directed instruction program:
(a) The state shall not interfere with the natural right of a parent to instruct his or her child unless the state has probable cause to believe that a parent involved in a parent-directed instruction program has failed to instruct or cause the child to be instructed [is found to have neglected his or her child’s instruction].
(b) If there is probable cause to believe that a parent involved in a parent-directed instruction program has failed to instruct or cause the child to be instructed, the state may investigate, after prior notice to the parent, to determine if there is sufficient evidence to proceed against the parent.
(c) The state shall only proceed against a parent in accordance with the Constitutional provisions for due process and a fair trial, during which the parent shall be considered innocent until proven guilty.
(d) The state shall not compel a parent to submit evidence to prove his or her innocence, nor shall the state presume such parent has failed to instruct or cause the child to be instructed based on the parent's failure to submit such evidence.
(e) In any state action relating to a parent involved in a parent-directed instruction program, no finding or opinion that a parent has failed to instruct or cause the child to be instructed shall issue except upon evidence beyond a reasonable doubt [neglected the instruction of his or her child shall issue except upon evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a child will suffer severe educational harm].
(f) A parent involved in a parent-directed instruction program who has failed to instruct or cause the child to be instructed may be found guilty of a violation. Under no circumstances shall the state remove a child from a parent's custody based on an allegation or finding of failure to instruct or cause the child to be instructed or for any other allegation or finding pertaining to a parent-directed instruction program. Only when the court finds that the parent is not providing any instruction on three separate occasions [under extreme cases of neglect of a child’s instruction] may the court order the child to be returned to a public or nonpublic school, as may be determined by the parent.
(g) If a parent involved in a parent-directed instruction program is found to have failed to instruct or cause the child to be instructed, the court shall issue written findings supporting its ruling and shall include recommendations advising the parent and the state agency conducting the investigation on how to avoid similar proceedings in the future. The Division of Children, Youth and Families shall not investigate cases of failure to instruct.
(h) Original jurisdiction of any action brought against a parent engaged in a parent-directed instruction program shall be in the superior court in the county of the parent's residence.
(i) All laws or rules adopted to regulate instruction [education] shall be consistent with the equal protection provisions of the United States Constitution and the New Hampshire Constitution.
