Tag: connecticut

National Parental Rights Group Founder: Homeschooling ‘One Of The Last Remaining Spaces Where Parents Maintain Full Autonomy Over Children’s Education

Connecticut Democrats’ attempt to gain control of homeschooling reveals a desire to “force homeschoolers into alignment with the same ideological materials and standardized assessments that have already sparked controversy in government schools,” Sheri Few, founder and president of United States Parents Involved in Education, wrote in an op-ed at The Hill last week.

The national parental rights leader observed that Connecticut’s HB 5468 represents “a troubling pattern emerging whereby government agencies fail in their most basic responsibilities and lawmakers find someone else to blame.”

Few referred to state Democrats’ attempt to regulate homeschooling after their own government systems failed to attend to “repeated warnings in tragic child-abuse cases.”

“It is hard not to see this as a political sleight of hand,” she asserted. “A crisis exposes government negligence, yet instead of holding those agencies accountable, lawmakers pivot to regulate an entirely unrelated group.”

Rather than celebrate the Connecticut parents who choose to homeschool, sacrificing, for their children, their time and perhaps an opportunity for additional employment income, Democrat lawmakers want to require them to notify the government of their curriculum and be subjected to screening by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and the Department of Education.

Keep reading

Home Education Must Be “Equivalent” to Public School: Lawmakers

Home educators in Connecticut are officially in the government’s crosshairs. In fact, under a new bill moving through the legislature, parents will need approval from child protection services to homeschool. And they will have to prove to bureaucrats that they are providing “equivalent instruction” to that offered by the government-school system.  Only about a third of children in the state’s public schools are even “proficient” in reading or math, federal data show. Suicide, mental problems, and other issues are off the charts and rising among government-educated children, too. So, it was not immediately clear why anyone would want homeschoolers to be subjected to “equivalent instruction.” 

The bill purports to require that every parent must send their child to a government school. The only exception is if the parent or guardian can “show that the child is elsewhere receiving equivalent instruction in the studies taught in the public schools,” the text of the Connecticut legislation declares. 

Lawmakers lambasted the provision. “What is equivalent instruction? Is it equivalent to Prospect’s education, Bridgeport, Waterbury, Greenwich, Darien, East Haddam? I don’t know,” argued Ranking Member Rep. Lezlye Zupkus, a Republican. Democrats on the committee dismissed the concerns.

To prove that parents are giving their children “equivalent instruction,” the statute purports to require that they keep records for three years. They are also required to provide a demonstration of their child’s work to government. Ultimately, the state Department of Education will provide “guidance” regarding what all of it means. 

Senator Heather Somers, also a Republican, warned this was a scheme to force homeschool families to do the same thing as government schools. “By homeschooling being evaluated and really being pushed to public school standards, this bill is pressuring families to mirror the public school system,” she explained, echoing other critics. 

The demands are especially ironic considering how well homeschoolers tend to do compared to their government-schooled peers. “Every single homeschooler that I’ve had the privilege of meeting, their kids are smarter,” Sen. Somers said. “They’re graduating early from high school. Some of them are taking college courses or actually getting two years of college before they even turn 18.”

The elephant in the room — the fact that the government is horrifically failing the children already in its school system — did not escape notice. “People are withdrawing their kids, they’re quitting their jobs, because they don’t feel their kids are safe in public school,” observed Representative Tina Courpas, a Republican. “To me, that is so basic.” 

Lawmakers should focus on fixing the government’s schools. “If this committee did nothing else for the next two years other than make our public school safe, that would be a big win,” the lawmaker continued. “But this bill doesn’t address that problem. Instead, it cuts off people’s options to solve a problem that this state has created for them.”

Under the new legislation that has already cleared several important hurdles, the homeschooling community in the state would also need to be cleared by Child Protective Services (CPS) to obtain permission to homeschool. The Home School Legal Defense Association says this is a major change.

“One of the most troubling aspects of the proposal is the idea that parents could need permission from a child welfare agency before teaching their own children at home,” noted Ralph Rodriguez, associate attorney for HSLDA. “That represents a significant shift in how homeschooling families are treated under the law.”

Lawmakers, too, were perplexed by the decision to get the CPS involved in approving homeschooling. “The child advocate … stated publicly yesterday to me in a hearing that she agrees the real cause of these tragic events is a catastrophic failure of the Department of Children and Families,” said Education Committee Ranking Member Sen. Eric Berthel, referring to two tragic cases in which children died despite child-welfare officials being involved.

“All of this begs the question: Why would we want DCF to be involved at all in the monitoring or regulation of homeschoolers when the agency has demonstrated they cannot handle the cases they are already monitoring?” added Sen. Berthel. Other critics suggested the bill against homeschoolers was an effort to blame innocent people for the failures of government.  

Keep reading

Ghost Funding Scandal: Connecticut Homeschoolers Push Audit Before Regulatory Showdown

Connecticut’s children’s agency failed to protect 11 year old Jacqueline “Mimi” Torres García, then helped turn her death into the emotional engine for a bill to regulate families who homeschool instead of fixing its own system.

AbleChild submitted emergency testimony to defeat the bill based on Mimi.  It laid out that DCF already had extensive involvement with Mimi’s family, the courts, and mandated reporters, and still allowed a faked Zoom “welfare check” to stand in for real protection. Now, as lawmakers head into a Thursday floor debate on HB 5468, homeschoolers have gone on offense, backed by a formal legal demand to follow the money.

Attorney Deborah G. Stevenson, on behalf of National Home Education Legal Defense, LLC (NHELD) and Connecticut taxpayers, has filed a complaint and request for an immediate investigation and audit of the State’s “School Fund” and Education Cost Sharing (ECS) monies. She explains that NHELD has “reason to believe that certain monies in the ‘School Fund’ have been used to pay public school districts per pupil funding for students who are no longer enrolled in the public school system,” a practice “euphemistically called ‘double funding’.” In plain language, districts may be receiving ghost per pupil funding, money for children who have already left public school, at the same time the state is trying to build a system to track and report those very families once they’re gone.

Stevenson’s filing links this practice directly to the pending legislation. She notes that double funding has been happening in the past, “is going on currently, and is planned to continue in the future, as well, due to pending legislation in at least two bills about which we are aware – SB6 and HB5468.” Fiscal notes on those bills show that hundreds of thousands of dollars per year would not go to classroom instruction, but to hiring new staff and building a regulatory framework to process withdrawal forms, contact families no longer enrolled in public schools, report them to various state agencies, track their data, and run records checks on them with DCF. The audit request asks a simple question, how much of that money is coming from funds that, under the Connecticut Constitution, are supposed to be “inviolably” used only to support public schools, not to finance a tracking regime aimed at families who have left.

The constitutional stakes are explicit. The Connecticut Constitution’s “School Fund” provisions say that the fund must remain perpetual, that its interest “shall be inviolably appropriated to the support and encouragement of the public schools,” and that “no law shall ever be made” that diverts that fund to any other use. Stevenson’s complaint asks the State Auditors to determine, among other things, whether there is a clearly identifiable School Fund, how much is in it, how its interest is handled, whether ECS per pupil payments come from that interest, whether public schools are being paid for students who are no longer enrolled “in case” they return, and whether money from that fund or ECS is being used to hire staff and build systems that identify, process, report to DCF, correspond with, and data track families who are no longer in the public school system. If misuse is found, the filing calls for all responsible parties to be held fully accountable, civilly or criminally, so that public funds are truly safeguarded.

Keep reading

DOJ Sues Connecticut, City of New Haven Over Sanctuary Policies

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Connecticut and the City of New Haven on April 13 over policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

The DOJ challenged Connecticut’s Trust Act and an executive order issued by New Haven’s mayor, arguing that they conflicted with federal immigration law and the Constitution. Specifically, the DOJ alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which says federal law takes precedence over state and local laws.

“For years, Connecticut communities have paid the price of these misguided sanctuary policies,” Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate of the DOJ’s Civil Division said in an emailed statement. “This lawsuit seeks to end such open defiance of federal law.”

The department named Connecticut, Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, Connecticut Attorney General Tong, the City of New Haven, and New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker as defendants.

The Trust Act, which was amended in 2025, limits when law enforcement officers can detain individuals based on civil immigration detainers. It directs officers not to hold someone solely on such a detainer unless certain conditions are met, such as the existence of a judicial warrant or a prior conviction for specific serious offenses, including certain crimes including murder, manslaughter, burglary, or sexual assault. The law also applies in cases where an individual has been flagged in federal security databases.

That has hindered cooperation between state and local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities in enforcing immigration laws, the DOJ argued.The DOJ also stated that the law prohibits law enforcement officers from using resources to communicate with federal immigration authorities regarding the custody or release of an individual targeted by a civil immigration detainer.

The law also forbids law enforcement officers from arresting or detaining an individual based on an administrative warrant, according to the lawsuit.

Another issue that the DOJ raised was a 2020 executive order issued by New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker. That order limited the disclosure of personal information—including immigration status—without an individual’s consent and restricts local officials from inquiring about a person’s immigration status in most situations. The DOJ claimed those provisions obstruct federal enforcement efforts.Connecticut and New Haven’s sanctuary policies “threaten and harm the United States’ sovereign interest in the supremacy and enforcement of federal law,” especially the Immigration and Nationality Act, according to the Justice Department.

The lawsuit stated that the sanctuary policies are “an active and deliberate effort to obstruct federal immigration enforcement by, among other things, impeding the communication between federal, state, and local law enforcement officials, and the safe apprehension and detention of [those] unlawfully present.”

Keep reading

BEYOND PARODY: Connecticut Democrats Pass Bill Requiring Photo ID to RECYCLE CANS But Won’t Support the SAVE America Act

Democrats in the state of Connecticut oppose the SAVE America Act because they don’t support the idea of having to show a photo ID in order to vote, but they recently passed a law in the state that requires photo ID to recycle aluminum cans.

You could not make this up.

Like some other states, Connecticut gives a ten cent return on empty containers instead of five cents, so people have been crossing into the state to recycle there and cash in on the higher return. The fix for this was photo ID.

But they won’t do this for voting.

FOX News reports:

Connecticut Dems demand IDs to recycle cans but reject GOP efforts to verify citizenship at polls

Connecticut Democrats recently rushed through an emergency anti-fraud law requiring bottle redemption centers to collect a copy of a person’s driver’s license when they cash in more than 1,000 cans or bottles in a day — a document demand that Republicans say undercuts the party’s attacks on voter-ID rules.

Earlier this month, an emergency certification bill, SB 299, was introduced by top Democratic leaders in the state’s legislature. It was later passed in both chambers in late February and was signed by Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat, on March 3.

It requires people wishing to recycle cans for money to present a copy of their driver’s license, put in place because the state has had issues with non-residents crossing its border to take advantage of its higher return rate of 10 cents a can instead of five cents. The issue was reportedly causing the state to lose significant revenue…

“In Connecticut, it seems that they are committed to securing recycling, but not to securing elections,” said Anna Pingel, America First Policy Institute’s Campaign Director for Secure Elections. “Requiring photo ID to collect cash from recycling but opposing photo ID to cast a vote tells you everything you need to know about the hypocrisy of politicians fighting against commonsense legislation like the SAVE Act. What is more important to safeguard—bottles or ballots?”

Both of Connecticut’s senators voted against the SAVE America Act.

Keep reading

Homeschooling Families Push Back on Proposed Regulations in Connecticut

When Gina Stewart began homeschooling her oldest child 30 years ago, there were no regulations requiring her to notify the state if, how, or what she was teaching her son in their house.

Stewart, in the years that followed, informed her local district annually, as a courtesy, that her boys wouldn’t be enrolled in public schools.

One son later became a plumber, one enrolled in community college before he was even old enough to drive, and one will attend a police academy after he turns 21.

The youngest, 15, is still completing his high school curriculum, including pre-calculus.

Stewart recently began homeschooling her grandchild, but she said she fears that the educational freedom her family enjoyed for decades is under threat.

A proposed Connecticut state law would require homeschooling parents to provide their local school districts with proof of “equivalent” instruction annually.

It also requires school districts to notify the Department of Children and Families if a child is removed from public schools.

“I don’t want their curriculum,” Stewart, who attended Connecticut public schools and previously taught at a Catholic school, told The Epoch Times.

“I never originally intended to homeschool my kids. But I don’t think the schools are preparing kids to become productive citizens.”

Stewart was among hundreds of concerned parents who attended a legislative committee hearing last week on the proposed legislation.

The hearing went for about 19 hours, during which more than 300 people testified and 3,000-plus provided written opinions, a vast majority against the bill.

“I’d say it’s about 99-to-one against the bill,” Ralph Rodriguez, an attorney with the Home School Legal Defense Association, who also attended the hearing, told The Epoch Times.

“No regulation is acceptable. Today’s check-in can very easily encroach on other freedoms.”

The check-in and notification to the Department of Children and Families regulations are in response to the recent murder of an 11-year-old girl whose mother attempted to cover up the death by telling the local district that she was homeschooling her daughter.

Keep reading

Connecticut Citizens Break the State: Midnight Revolt on Guns, Vaccines, and Homeschooling Sends Public Health Committee Scrambling to Lawyers

In the early hours of Thursday, March 12, 2026, the Public Health Committee paused after midnight as members left their seats to consult with lawyers regarding the earlier rule requiring hearings to close at 12:15 a.m as more citizens lined up to testify. Despite the consultation, the attorneys could not seem to unwind the earlier vote that ended public testimony at that time. A point of order was called to request an extension, but the vote had already run out the clock for the public. Those who remained sat quietly to hear the final outcome, as the discussion turned back to the attorneys. In effect, the public broke them.  A public filibuster!

An electric revolt hit the Connecticut Capitol as 6,000+ parents, homeschoolers, and citizens packed the building and forced lawmakers to sit until midnight, unleashing hours of blistering testimony on guns, vaccines, homeschooling, and state overreach. At the center was the Public Health Committee, overwhelmed by citizens demanding informed consent, the right to refuse vaccines, and the right not to feed their children into a failed Department of Children and Families that has already shattered too many families.

Parents and homeschoolers warned that proposals tying homeschooling to DCF oversight presume guilt and hand more power to an agency with a long record of missed abuse and wrongful interference. They described homeschooling as a lifeline from failing schools, bullying, and ideological agendas, not an evasion of responsibility, and asked why families seeking to educate their children at home should be treated as suspects instead of partners. AbleChild submitted testimony highlighting the horrific murder of a child under DCF care and a mother who was herself a product of the same system—as a stark warning of what this failed agency is already producing.

Again and again, ordinary people invoked God and the Constitution, insisting that children belong first to their families, not the state, and that medical decisions and education are matters of conscience, not government coercion. Many tied gun rights into the same struggle, arguing that a government that cannot safeguard children in its own systems has no moral authority to disarm responsible citizens or force medical interventions on unwilling families.

By midnight it was clear this was no routine hearing but a public vote of no confidence in Connecticut’s Democrat‑run system. Whether the bills advance or not, lawmakers were put on notice: families are done being managed from above, and they are willing to show up, stay late, and speak out to defend their children and their God‑given rights. AbleChild was thrilled to see parents finally stand up to the Democrat supermajority and refuse to surrender their children, their conscience, or their God‑given rights. At the same time, Republican Party Chairman Ben Proto must be held accountable for failing to secure any real balance in Connecticut’s elections, helping entrench a political class now openly at war with the families it is supposed to serve.

Keep reading

Another Connecticut Climate Plan — Another Charge On Your Bill 

Connecticut lawmakers have a habit of raising taxes by calling them something else. 

The latest example is S.B. 453, a proposal that would impose a five-percent surcharge on certain insurance policies tied to fossil-fuel infrastructure in the state. 

The revenue would flow into a new “climate resilience account.” According to the bill, the fund would support projects such as flood-risk data collection, public awareness efforts in high-risk communities, and grants for infrastructure designed to mitigate flooding. 

On paper, the plan sounds straightforward: apply a surcharge to fossil-fuel infrastructure and use the proceeds for climate-related programs. 

In practice, costs introduced into complex systems rarely stay where they start. 

They move. 

How the Surcharge Works 

The bill applies to insurance policies covering infrastructure involved in the processing, export, or transportation of oil, natural gas, or coal. It specifically references pipelines, refineries, terminals, and utility-scale generation facilities. 

That last category is significant. 

New England continues to rely heavily on natural-gas for electricity generation. When the cost of operating those facilities rises — whether from fuel, regulations, or insurance — those increases do not simply vanish. They are incorporated into wholesale electricity markets, which influence the supply rates paid by customers of utilities like Eversource and United Illuminating. 

A surcharge introduced upstream can work its way, step by step, into ratepayer bills. 

It is also important to note that the surcharge is not imposed directly on fossil-fuel companies themselves. It is added to the insurance policies that cover them. Insurers collect the surcharge and remit it to the state, but the insured entities ultimately bear the cost — and costs in the energy sector tend to ripple outward. 

Keep reading

Of Course: Cannibal Axe Murderer Released Back Into Society Despite Sick Crimes

A Connecticut man who hacked a homeless victim to death with an axe and devoured parts of his brain and eyeball is now being unleashed back into the community, thanks to a psychiatric board’s twisted notion of “progress.” 

Tyree Smith’s release exposes the glaring failures in a criminal justice apparatus that’s more concerned with coddling the criminally insane than protecting everyday Americans from repeat horrors.

Smith was arrested in 2012 after murdering Angel Gonzalez in a vacant Bridgeport apartment. Prosecutors said he used an axe to mutilate the victim, then consumed portions of the body. 

Found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity due to schizophrenia and substance abuse issues, he was committed to a maximum-security psychiatric hospital for 60 years.

But now, after just over a decade, the Connecticut Psychiatric Security Review Board has granted him conditional release. Officials claim a “careful review of his clinical progress” shows stability through medication and treatment. He’s already been enjoying temporary leaves, including overnight passes into the community.

This move has sparked outrage, with state GOP leaders slamming it as “outrageous and mind-boggling.” They point out the victim’s family vehemently objected, arguing it endangers public safety and mocks victims of violent crime.

Keep reading

U.S. lawmakers propose legislation to allow citizens to sue ICE. A CT senator is leading the way

As U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations are spreading across the nation, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal is proposing legislation to allow people to sue ICE agents for violating their civil and constitutional rights.

The proposal comes amid the fatal shooting of a 37-year-old mother in Minneapolis and widespread protests against ICE operations under President Donald Trump’s administration. Under Blumenthal’s proposal, the legislation would allow cases to be heard in civil court.

Under current law, federal law enforcement officers have qualified immunity from civil cases, shielding them from lawsuits. But federal law enforcement are not shielded from prosecution for committing crimes, he said.

The Accountability for Federal Law Enforcement Act, co-introduced by Blumenthal and U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-California) in December, would authorize states to bring civil actions against federal agencies whose violations of the law pose an imminent and substantial risk to public safety or constitutional rights. Blumenthal said he introduced the legislation before the controversial killing of Renee Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross on Jan. 7 in Minneapolis.

“Individual victims of excessive force should have recourse also. They do against local and state law enforcement, but not against federal officers,” Blumenthal said at a press conference on Friday. “I’m introducing legislation that will give everyday Americans recourse. A remedy in court when their rights our violated. In amends the 1983 statute to provide rights in court for people when they are abused by violation of the law by federal officers. Just like they can sue local and state officers when they are abused.”

The Connecticut Democrat called the legislation “overdue” and said that there is precedent in a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case. In Webster Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the court held that some lawsuits against federal officers can be warranted. Since the case 50 years ago, recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have narrowed that ruling, leaving many victims of federal misconduct without meaningful recourse.

“It has been narrowed and cut back by successive Supreme Court decisions. We need to make it real and provide recourse and remedies so that rights can be vindicated. When people are shot or dragged out of cars and injured or denied a lawyer when they are retained often result in trauma and injury. These violations must be addressed,” Blumenthal said.

The Accountability for Federal Law Enforcement Act is co-sponsored by U.S. Sens. Cory Booker (D-New Jersey), Edward J. Markey (D-Massachusetts), Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island), and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon).

Blumenthal said that some Republicans may also support the legislation.

Keep reading