Child Endangerment for failing to file Home School LESSON PLANS??
Greegor
What are they doing severely overcharging so they can
con people into thinking that a ""lesser charge"" or
con parents into "stipulating" to a SERVICE PLAN
as if it's a lesser charge? (It's NOT!)
Is this a tricky way to pull the ole' stipulation scam?
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=884776
Parents charged with not submitting lesson plans
By SCOTT WALDMAN, Staff writer Times-Union Albany NY
Last updated: 5:14 p.m., Monday, January 4, 2010
GLEN -- A couple was charged with child endangerment for allegedly
home schooling their four children for seven years without notifying
the local district, according to Montgomery County Sheriff's
deputies.
Richard Cressy, 47, and Margie Cressy, 41, were charged with four
misdemeanor counts of endangering the welfare of a child, deputies
said. The couple is accused of violating a state law that requires
parents who are home schooling their children to register their
curriculum with the local school district.
The superintendent of the Fonda-Fultonville Central School District
told authorities that curriculum for the four children, who range in
age from 8 to 14 years old, had not been approved. The arrests came
after a joint investigation by the Montgomery County Child Protective
Services and the sheriff's office.
The Cressys were issued appearance tickets and the case has been
turned over to the Montgomery County district attorney's office.
Deadrat
43a1df...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> How the HELL is this CHILD ENDANGERMENT??
By the definitions of the law, of course. In New York, the Family Court
Act requires parents who are home-schooling their children to be meet
specified standards. Failure to comply is called educational neglect, and
it's a violation of the New York Penal Code 260.10, endangering the welfare
of a child.
> What are they doing severely overcharging
No, they're not. The charge is a class A misdemeanor. Fortune telling and
issuing a bad check are class A misdemeanors in New York.
> so they can
> con people into thinking that a ""lesser charge"" or
> con parents into "stipulating" to a SERVICE PLAN
> as if it's a lesser charge? (It's NOT!)
>
> Is this a tricky way to pull the ole' stipulation scam?
Do you ever get tired of living in the world of your own opinion?
>
> http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=884776
>
<snip/>
Greegor
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/d6cf58d68bead618
> By the definitions of the law, of course. In New York, the Family Court
> Act requires parents who are home-schooling their children to be meet
> specified standards. Failure to comply is called educational neglect, and
> it's a violation of the New York Penal Code 260.10, endangering the welfare
> of a child.
G > What are they doing severely overcharging
DR > No, they're not.
It would never stick, so yes, they are overcharging.
I'm thinking that partly they wanted to terrorize
Home Schoolers, and partly they wanted to
con the target family into ""stipulation"".
The Child Protection INDUSTRY really
has an obsession with home schoolers.
> The charge is a class A misdemeanor. Fortune telling and
> issuing a bad check are class A misdemeanors in New York.
> > so they can
> > con people into thinking that a ""lesser charge"" or
> > con parents into "stipulating" to a SERVICE PLAN
> > as if it's a lesser charge? (It's NOT!)
G > Is this a tricky way to pull the ole' stipulation scam?
DR > Do you ever get tired of living in the world of your own opinion?
Anything but YOUR cult!
> >http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=884776
>
> <snip/>
Why do you keep trying to cut the cross post list
using the follow up tag?
What are you afraid of?
Deadrat
news:99860508-e9ff-4f1c...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> G > How the HELL is this CHILD ENDANGERMENT??
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/ms
> g/d6cf58d68bead618
>
>> By the definitions of the law, of course. �In New York, the Family
>> Cour
> t
>> Act requires parents who are home-schooling their children to be meet
>> specified standards. �Failure to comply is called educational
>> neglect,
> and
>> it's a violation of the New York Penal Code 260.10, endangering the
>> welfare of a child.
>
> G > What are they doing severely overcharging
>
> DR > No, they're not.
>
> It would never stick, so yes, they are overcharging.
Except for the newspaper article, I don't know the facts of the case, and
I'm unfamiliar with how Family Court in NY is disposed to treat such
cases, so I won't venture an opinion on whether the charge will "stick."
But in NY, endangering the welfare of a child means more (per statute)
than placing a child in physical harm's way. It includes things like
purposely failing to obtain an education for a child.
>
> I'm thinking that partly they wanted to terrorize Home Schoolers,
In NY, a class A misdemeanor on a first-time offense hardly fits the
definition of "terror."
> and partly they wanted to con the target family into ""stipulation"".
I expect that if the family simply obeys the law by filing their
curriculum with the state, then they're out of trouble.
>
> The Child Protection INDUSTRY really
> has an obsession with home schoolers.
As well they should. Many of these are nutcases.
>
>>�The charge is a class A misdemeanor. �Fortune telling and
>> issuing a bad check are class A misdemeanors in New York.
>
>> > so they can
>> > con people into thinking that a ""lesser charge"" or
>> > con parents into "stipulating" to a SERVICE PLAN
>> > as if it's a lesser charge? �(It's NOT!)
>
> G > Is this a tricky way to pull the ole' stipulation scam?
>
> DR > Do you ever get tired of living in the world of your own opinion?
>
> Anything but YOUR cult!
And which "cult" do you suppose that to be?
Whatever it is, it doesn't involve making things up, like "terrorizing"
homeschool nuts with class A misdemeanors.
>
>> >http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=884776
>>
>> <snip/>
>
> Why do you keep trying to cut the cross post list
> using the follow up tag?
>
> What are you afraid of?
>
I use Xnews. I generally leave its "Newsgroups" list alone. (But I cut
things that are clearly not germane, and that always includes
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.) Xnews restricts the FollowUp-To list to two.
I don't give a shit who sees my posts, nor do I care what they think of
them. If you can't talk to me because you're not reading misc.legal,
then I guess it just sucks to be you.