So the California Court of Appeal holds, interpreting California statutes, and reversing its earlier statutory decision in the Rachel L. case.

The court also holds there's some sort of constitutional right to home-school — again, seemingly contrary to its conclusion in Rachel L. — but that this right may be limited in this case to protect against a specific threat to the children's health and safety, because the children "have already been found dependent due to abuse and neglect of a sibling." For more on the general constitutional question, see here.

On the road now, can't blog more, but thought I'd note this.