The Missouri Supreme Court upheld legislation that makes parents who don’t send their children to school infractions.
After receiving sentences for the absence of their individual children, two single mothers from Lebanon, Missouri, filed legal challenges.
Tamarae Larue received a 15-day jail term after her son missed 13 days of kindergarten, and Caitlyn Williams received a one-week jail term after her daughter missed 16 days of first grade the previous academic year. Instead, Larue consented to a two-year probationary period.
Since the school administration was unable to establish that the parents were to responsible for the absences, the couple sued the state on the grounds that the law is too ambiguous. With one justice abstaining, the court decided against them 6-0.
The court’s ruling was written by Justice Robin Ransom and stated that “this nonattendance was not excused by any circumstance provided for in the statute.” “Evidence existed to support the inference that each parent knowingly failed to cause their child to attend school on a regular basis,” the court wrote. “Given the notice provided to each parent and the fact that each parent was in control of their young child.”
The wording of the statute, which mandates that kids maintain “regular” attendance, was the basis for the parents’ challenge, albeit they said it was ambiguous as to what “regular” actually meant. The school district’s attendance standards, which called for a 90 percent attendance rate, were deemed to be “regular” by the court.
The court ruled that excused absences—such as those brought on by illness—counted toward the 90 percent threshold. The parents of Williams and Larue claimed that their children’s attendance would have exceeded 90% if their sick days were not taken into account.
No Missouri parent would come to the conclusion that attendance “on a regular basis” meant anything less than making sure their child attends school on days when it is in session, Ransom wrote.
That number of absences would only be justified by a confirmed persistent illness or other long-standing ailment or circumstance that was disclosed to the school in advance, the court said.
The mothers’ counsel declined to provide more commentary when asked Reporter.
