麻豆影视

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

The Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday over whether two single mothers should have been sentenced to jail time because their children missed more days of school than the local district allowed.

The case centers on , which states that a parent must ensure their child attends 鈥渢he academic program on a regular basis.鈥�

Assistant Attorney General Shaun Mackelprang, representing the state, argued that the definition of 鈥渁 regular basis鈥� means attending school every day on the district鈥檚 schedule.

鈥淒o I have to go to school everyday? The answer is yes,鈥� he told six Supreme Court judges Wednesday morning. 鈥淵ou have to go to school every day that the school is in session.鈥�

Ellen Flottman, a public defender representing Caitlyn Williams and Tamarae LaRue, argued the law is unconstitutionally vague and inconsistently applied.

鈥淭he state鈥檚 position is anti-parent. Most of the school districts are not prosecuting these parents,鈥� Flottman said Wednesday. 鈥淪chools have to work with parents; they have to have policies because they want the kids to go to school.鈥�

鈥淏ut this is a kindergartener and a first grader. Is missing one day in November and one day in December going to hurt this kindergartener鈥檚 education that much?鈥�

Case Background

Williams and LaRue鈥檚 children attended school in the Lebanon R-III School District, about an hour outside of Springfield.

The district has a 16.1% poverty rate, , compared to Missouri鈥檚 12.7% poverty rate.

During the 2021-2022 school year, Williams鈥� six-year-old daughter missed 16 days of school before the district filed a probable cause statement. A Laclede County Circuit Court judge sentenced Williams to seven days in jail and added a misdemeanor to her record.

Williams called her daughter out from school sick for six of the absences, but the school counts these as 鈥渧erified鈥� but not 鈥渆xcused鈥� and tallies the hours and minutes of missed instructional time toward her percentage.

The district鈥檚 handbook, which parents check a box that they have read when they register online, says parents must notify the school of absences but it does not clarify the difference between 鈥渧erified鈥� and 鈥渆xcused鈥� absences, such as those with a doctor鈥檚 note.

鈥淢y clients were not acting knowingly鈥�. They鈥檙e being misled by the school handbook and the school administrators,鈥� Flottman said Wednesday.

The handbook also says: 鈥淭he state mandates that students maintain 90% or higher attendance each year in school and that continued and valuable learning cannot take place without regular attendance.鈥�

State statute does not mandate a 90% attendance rate, though students who maintain this level of attendance contribute greater to school accreditation, Mackelprang said Wednesday.

Mackelprang argued in a filing in the case that high attendance contributes toward a school鈥檚 funding.

鈥淒aily attendance, even down to the hour, has important consequences for schools and, by extension, all of the students at a given school,鈥� Mackelprang wrote.

LaRue鈥檚 six-year-old son was absent 13 days, according to Flottman, and LaRue called the school with explanation for six of those absences. The district says his attendance, based on the number of hours present, is just under 80%.

Court documents say LaRue gave the following reasons for her son鈥檚 absence: Doctor appointment, fever, at dad鈥檚 in Iowa, another appointment, overslept and sick. Documents mention siblings and that the family contracted COVID-19 during the school year.

LaRue was sentenced to 15 days in jail by a different Laclede County Circuit Court judge than Williams, but the sentence was changed to two years of probation.

Arguments

Flottman鈥檚 argument was three-pronged: The parents didn鈥檛 know that they were violating the rules because the handbook didn鈥檛 state that absences without doctor鈥檚 notes are unexcused; the circuit court failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the children鈥檚 absences were beyond regular attendance; and the state statute is 鈥渦nconstitutionally vague鈥� by failing to define what 鈥渞egular鈥� attendance means.

She opened the arguments by saying she attends church 鈥渙n a regular basis,鈥� although she missed a service recently and has a vacation planned.

鈥淭he state has argued that regular means every day,鈥� she said as Judge W. Brent Powell interrupted her.

Powell said he liked her church analogy but asked if the nonattendance rules were like the speed limit, where not everyone that gets caught breaking the law gets a ticket but officers have discretion on what is too far.

Flottman responded by using an example introduced in Mackelprang鈥檚 brief, the Wisconsin compulsory school attendance law which says children should attend school 鈥渞egularly.鈥� The Wisconsin Court of Appeals defined 鈥渞egularly鈥� as 鈥渃onstantly and uniformly,鈥� Mackelprang wrote.

Flottman said the state鈥檚 argument also helped her clients, for Wisconsin鈥檚 law has a 鈥渟pecific schema,鈥� she said Wednesday.

鈥淢issouri doesn鈥檛 give that kind of guidance to parents,鈥� she said.

Judge Mary R. Russell inquired Mackelprang about why Missouri lawmakers didn鈥檛 include more specificity in the attendance law.

鈥淲hy would the legislature choose to write it this way instead of in a way that is more articulate?鈥� she asked.

鈥淭hey just have to write it in a way that is adequate,鈥� Mackelprang said.

鈥淪o, is the legislature leaving it up to local school districts how to enforce this word?鈥� Russell asked, inquiring about the definition of 鈥渞egular attendance.鈥� 鈥淗ow to interpret this word?鈥�

鈥淭here probably is some discretion of when they are going to go to the prosecutor with it,鈥� Mackelprang said.

Flottman said she was worried about this leniency allowing schools to apply different standards to students.

鈥淭he students that take a day off to go deer hunting or their parents who take their children out of school for a week to go to Disney World are not being prosecuted for this. So there鈥檚 a difference between prosecutorial discretion and arbitrary enforcement,鈥� she said.

Judge Robin Ransom asked if she would make the same argument if it were not a criminal case.

鈥淚 do think the criminalization of this certainly has to do with it. We鈥檙e talking about the liberty of people who are just trying to do the best they can,鈥� Flottman said.

She said she would argue that the state should get involved to provide services to get the children to school.

Mackelprang said the statute is not 鈥渁nti-parent.鈥� He said parents are in control of young children and have options to homeschool or enroll them in private school.

鈥淲omen make the decision to enroll them in a public school, like the parents did in this case,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e subject to the terms of this statute.鈥�

The judges can鈥檛 base their decision on violations of the school handbook, for the state鈥檚 case is that Williams and LaRue broke state law.

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com. Follow Missouri Independent on and .

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter