State V. Massa :: 1967 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: Us Law :: Justia

July 3, 2024, 1:20 am

1950); State v. Hoyt, 84 N. H. 38, 146 A. Mrs. Barbara Massa and Mr. Frank Massa appeared pro se. Mrs. Massa called Margaret Cordasco as a witness. Mr. and mrs. vaughn both take a specialized job. 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. If group education is required by our statute, then these examples as well as all education at home would have to be eliminated.

Mr. And Mrs. Vaughn Both Take A Specialized Job

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. 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. 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. 1893), dealt with a statute similar to New Jersey's. 170 (N. Mr. and mrs. vaughn both take a specialized type. 1929), and State v. Peterman, supra.

The State called as a witness David MacMurray, the Assistant Superintendent of Pequannock Schools. His testimony, like that of MacMurray, dealt primarily with social development of the child and Mrs. Massa's qualifications. Have defendants provided their daughter with an education equivalent to that provided by the Pequannock Township School System? Perhaps the New Jersey Legislature intended the word "equivalent" to mean taught by a certified teacher elsewhere than at school. The Legislature must have contemplated that a child could be educated alone provided the education was equivalent to the public schools. Mr. and mrs. vaughn both take a specialized body. 00 for each subsequent offense, in the discretion of the court. 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. He also testified about extra-curricular activity, which is available but not required. He did not think the defendants had the specialization necessary *386 to teach all basic subjects. Conditions in today's society illustrate that such situations exist. This interpretation appears untenable in the face of the language of our own statute and also the decisions in other jurisdictions.

Mr. And Mrs. Vaughn Both Take A Specialized Body

Mrs. Massa is a high school graduate. Mrs. Massa conducted the case; Mr. Massa concurred. 861, 263 P. 2d 685 (Cal. 70 N. E., at p. 552). Even in this situation, home education has been upheld as constituting a private school. The results speak for themselves. 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. However, this court finds this testimony to be inapposite to the actual issue of equivalency under the New Jersey statute and the stipulations of the State. The sole issue in this case is one of equivalency. The court in State v. Peterman, 32 Ind. Most of his testimony dealt with Mrs. Massa's lack of certification and background for teaching and the lack of social development of Barbara because she is being taught alone. She had been Barbara's teacher from September 1965 to April 1966. Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County Court, Law Division. The other type of statute is that which allows only public school or private school education without additional alternatives.

665, 70 N. E. 550, 551 (Ind. A group of students being educated in the same manner and place would constitute a de facto school. 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. 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. 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. It is in this sense that this court feels the present case should be decided. A different form of legislative intention is illustrated by the case of People v. Turner, 121 Cal. She also maintained that in school much time was wasted and that at home a student can make better use of her time. The Massa family, all of whom were present at each of the hearings, appeared to be a normal, well-adjusted family. However, within the framework of the existing law and the nature of the stipulations by the State, this court finds the defendants not guilty and reverses the municipal court conviction. People v. Levisen and State v. Peterman, supra. Barbara returned to school in September 1965, but began receiving her education at home again on April 25, 1966. It is then incumbent upon the parent to introduce evidence showing one of the alternatives is being substituted.

Mr. And Mrs. Vaughn Both Take A Specialized Subject

The purpose of the law is to insure the education of all children. The statute subjects the defendants to conviction as a disorderly person, a quasi-criminal offense. Massa also introduced textbooks which are used as supplements to her own compilations as well as for test material and written problems. The conviction was upheld because of the failure of the parents to obtain permission from the superintendent. Mrs. Massa satisfied this court that she has an established program of teaching and studying. 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. The prosecutor stipulated, as stated above, that the State's position is that a child may be taught at home and that a person teaching at home is not required to be certified as a teacher by the State for the purpose of teaching his own children. They show that she is considerably higher than the national median except in arithmetic. He felt that Barbara was not participating in the learning process since she had not participated in the development of the material. The other point pressed by the State was Mrs. Massa's lack of teaching ability and techniques based upon her limited education and experience. She felt she wanted to be with her child when the child would be more alive and fresh.

124 P., at p. 912; emphasis added). See People v. Levisen, 404 Ill. 574, 90 N. 2d 213, 14 A. L. 2d 1364 (Sup. She also is taught art by her father, who has taught this subject in various schools. 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. 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. The case of Commonwealth v. Roberts, 159 Mass. He testified that the defendants were not giving Barbara an equivalent education. A statute is to be interpreted to uphold its validity in its entirety if possible.

Mr. And Mrs. Vaughn Both Take A Specialized Type

Defendants presented a great deal of evidence to support their position, not the least of which was their daughter's test papers taken in the Pequannock school after having been taught at home for two years. 90 N. 2d, at p. 215). Her husband is an interior decorator. She testified basically that Barbara was bright, well behaved and not different from the average child her age except for some trouble adjusting socially.

Mrs. Massa introduced into evidence 19 exhibits. The State placed six exhibits in evidence. 388 The court in State v. Counort, 69 Wash. 361, 124 P. 910, 41 L. R. A., N. 95 (Wash. Sup. Mrs. Massa said her motive was that she desired the pleasure of seeing her daughter's mind develop. 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. 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. "

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. 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 municipal magistrate imposed a fine of $2, 490 for both defendants. He outlined procedures which Pequannock teachers perform, such as evaluation sheets, lesson plans and use of visual aids. 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. 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. Massa was certainly teaching Barbara something. The State presented two witnesses who testified that Barbara had been registered in the Pequannock Township School but failed to attend the 6th grade class from April 25, 1966 to June 1966 and the following school year from September 8, 1966 to November 16, 1966 a total consecutive absence of 84 days. That case held that a child attending the home of a private tutor was attending a private school within the meaning of the Indiana statute. 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. 384 Mrs. Massa testified that she had taught Barbara at home for two years before September 1965. Bank, 86 N. 13 (App.

2 Vials Of Kybella Before And After