Western Branch Diesel Charleston Wv
Rainbow Inn, Inc. v. Clayton Nat. In State v. Peterman, supra, the court stated: "The law was made for the parent, who does not educate his child, and not for the parent * * * [who] places within the reach of the child the opportunity and means of acquiring an education equal to that obtainable in the public schools of the state. " Mr. and Mrs. Massa appeared pro se. Mr. and mrs. vaughn both take a specialized subject. In view of the fact that defendants appeared pro se, the court suggests that the prosecutor draw an order in accordance herewith. It is made for the parent who fails or refuses to properly educate his child. "
And, has the State carried the required burden of proof to convict defendants? Had the Legislature intended such a requirement, it would have so provided. The California statute provided that parents must send their children to public school or a private school meeting certain prescribed conditions, or that the children be instructed by a private tutor or *389 other person possessing a valid state credential for the grade taught. The family consists of the parents, three sons (Marshall, age 16, and Michael, age 15, both attend high school; and William, age 6) and daughter Barbara. Her husband is an interior decorator. Mrs. Massa satisfied this court that she has an established program of teaching and studying. Massa, however, testified that these materials were used as an outline from which she taught her daughter and as a reference for her daughter to use in review not as a substitute for all source material. N. Mr. and mrs. vaughn both take a specialized test. 18:14-14 provides: "Every parent, guardian or other person having custody and control of a child between the ages of 6 and 16 years shall cause such child regularly to attend the public schools of the district or a day school in which there is given instruction equivalent to that provided in the public schools for children of similar grades and attainments or to receive equivalent instruction elsewhere than at school. " She also is taught art by her father, who has taught this subject in various schools. 90 N. 2d, at p. 215).
In any case, from my observation of her while testifying and during oral argument, I am satisfied that Mrs. Massa is self-educated and well qualified to teach her daughter the basic subjects from grades one through eight. 1893), dealt with a statute similar to New Jersey's. She testified basically that Barbara was bright, well behaved and not different from the average child her age except for some trouble adjusting socially. The court further said that the evidence of the state was to the effect that defendant maintained no school at his home. Barbara takes violin lessons and attends dancing school. Mr. and mrs. vaughn both take a specialized practice. As stated above, to hold that the statute requires equivalent social contact and development as well would emasculate this alternative and allow only group education, thereby eliminating private tutoring or home education. Bank, 86 N. 13 (App. Massa was certainly teaching Barbara something. Under the Knox rationale, in order for children to develop socially it would be necessary for them to be educated in a group. Five of these exhibits, in booklet form, are condensations of basic subjects, booklets are concise and seem to contain all the basic subject material for the respective subjects.
Under a more definite statute with sufficient guidelines or a lesser *392 burden of proof, this might not necessarily be the case. In Knox v. O'Brien, 7 N. 608 (1950), the County Court interpreted the word "equivalent" to include not only academic equivalency but also the equivalency of social development. Having determined the intent of the Legislature as requiring only equivalent academic instruction, the only remaining question is whether the defendants provided their daughter with an education equivalent to that available in *391 the public schools. The Washington statute, however, provided that parents must cause their child to attend public school or private school, or obtain an excuse from the superintendent for physical or mental reasons or if such child shall have attained a reasonable proficiency in the branches of learning required by law. N. 18:14-39 provides for the penalty for violation of N. 18:14-14: "A parent, guardian or other person having charge and control of a child between the ages of 6 and 16 years, who shall fail to comply with *387 any of the provisions of this article relating to his duties shall be deemed a disorderly person and shall be subject to a fine of not more than $5.
There is no indication of bad faith or improper motive on defendants' part. The behavior of the four Massa children in the courtroom evidenced an exemplary upbringing. In discussing the nature of schools the court said, "This provision of the law [concerning what constitutes a private school] is not to be determined by the place where the school is maintained, nor the individuality or number of pupils who attend it. " However, the State stipulated that a child may be taught at home and also that Mr. or Mrs. Massa need not be certified by the State of New Jersey to so teach. He also stressed specialization, since Pequannock schools have qualified teachers for certain specialized subjects. 665, 70 N. E. 550, 551 (Ind. He felt that Barbara was not participating in the learning process since she had not participated in the development of the material.
State v. MassaAnnotate this Case. Faced with exiguous precedent in New Jersey and having reviewed the above cited cases in other states, this court holds that the language of the New Jersey statute, N. 18:14-14, providing for "equivalent education elsewhere than at school, " requires only a showing of academic equivalence. 1948), where the Virginia law required certification of teachers in the home and specified the number of hours and days that the child was to be taught each year; Parr v. State, 117 Ohio St. 23, 157 N. 555 (Ohio Sup. The Massa family, all of whom were present at each of the hearings, appeared to be a normal, well-adjusted family.
124 P., at p. 912; emphasis added). His testimony, like that of MacMurray, dealt primarily with social development of the child and Mrs. Massa's qualifications. The majority of testimony of the State's witnesses dealt with the lack of social development. It is the opinion of this court that defendants' daughter has received and is receiving an education equivalent to that available in the Pequannock public schools. Mrs. Massa introduced English, spelling and mathematics tests taken by her daughter at the Pequannock School after she had been taught for two years at home. This court agrees with the above decisions that the number of students does not determine a school and, further, that a certain number of students need not be present to attain an equivalent education.
372, 34 N. 402 (Mass. The municipal magistrate imposed a fine of $2, 490 for both defendants. See People v. Levisen, 404 Ill. 574, 90 N. 2d 213, 14 A. L. 2d 1364 (Sup. Our statute provides that children may receive an equivalent education elsewhere than at school. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF, v. BARBARA MASSA AND FRANK MASSA, DEFENDANTS. After reviewing the evidence presented by both the State and the defendants, this court finds that the State has not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants failed to provide their daughter with an equivalent education. The Massachusetts statute permitted instruction in schools or academies in the same town or district, or instruction by a private tutor or governess, or by the parents themselves provided it is given in good faith and is sufficient in extent.
Even in this situation, home education has been upheld as constituting a private school. The purpose of the law is to insure the education of all children. 861, 263 P. 2d 685 (Cal. 1904), also commented on the nature of a school, stating, "We do not think that the number of persons, whether one or many, makes a place where instruction is imparted any less or more a school. " The State placed six exhibits in evidence.
It is in this sense that this court feels the present case should be decided. Barbara returned to school in September 1965, but began receiving her education at home again on April 25, 1966. The conviction was upheld because of the failure of the parents to obtain permission from the superintendent. The lowest mark on these tests was a B. If Barbara has not learned something which has been taught, Mrs. Massa then reviews that particular area. This case presents two questions on the issue of equivalency for determination. She evaluates Barbara's progress through testing. A different form of legislative intention is illustrated by the case of People v. Turner, 121 Cal. The evidence of the State which was actually directed toward the issue of equivalency in this case fell short of the required burden of proof. People v. Levisen also commented on the spirit of the relevant statute stating: "The law is not made to punish those who provide their children with instruction equal or superior to that obtainable in public schools. State v. Vaughn, 44 N. 142 (1965), interpreted the above statute to permit the parent having charge and control of the child to elect to substitute one of the alternatives for public school. Mrs. Massa called Margaret Cordasco as a witness. 383 Mr. Bertram Latzer, Assistant Prosecutor of Morris County, for plaintiff (Mr. Frank C. Scerbo, Prosecutor, attorney).
Other similar statutes are discussed in Rice v. Commonwealth, 188 Va. 224, 49 S. 2d 342 (Sup. 170 (N. 1929), and State v. Peterman, supra. A group of students being educated in the same manner and place would constitute a de facto school. What could have been intended by the Legislature by adding this alternative? They show that she is considerably higher than the national median except in arithmetic. COLLINS, J. C. C. This is a trial de novo on appeal from the Pequannock Township Municipal Court. Defendants were convicted for failure to have such state credentials.
What does the word "equivalent" mean in the context of N. 18:14-14? 1927), where the Ohio statute provided that a child would be exempted if he is being instructed at home by a qualified person in the subjects required by law. There are definite times each day for the various subjects and recreation. Have defendants provided their daughter with an education equivalent to that provided by the Pequannock Township School System? She also maintained that in school much time was wasted and that at home a student can make better use of her time.