WorldNetDaily's Downward Spiral

Unruh had written:

The judges ruled in the case involving the Longs the family failed to demonstrate "that mother has a teaching credential such that the children can be said to be receiving an education from a credentialed tutor," and that their involvement and supervision by Sunland Christian School's independent study programs was of no value.

Nor did the family's religious beliefs matter to the court.

But according to the court ruling, the parents claimed that Sunland Christian School was a "charter school" without any evidence that it was, as defined by state law. The ruling also pointed out that the parents were depriving their children "of an education in a public or private full-time day school setting, or by a credentialed tutor, through the ruse of enrolling them in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

Further, Sunland's "involvement and supervision" of the Long family's education appears to have been minimal at best. According to the ruling, the school's administrator said "he makes visits to the parents' home about four times a year," and "the children in the family reported to the Department of Children and Family Services social worker that they were given tests at the end of some school years and they took the tests at the Sunland Christian School." Such minimal supervision by Sunland would seem to render it as having "no value."

While Unruh stated that the family has homeschooled their children "because of various anti-Christian influences in California's public schools" -- he later added the father's assertion that "he won't allow the pro-homosexual, pro-bisexual, pro-transgender agenda of California's public schools ... to indoctrinate his children" -- the court ruling noted:

Over the years, the parents of the children have given various reasons for not sending the children to school. Although previously they have stated they do not believe in the policies of the public school system, more recently they have asserted that they home school because of their religious beliefs. The father also recently opined that educating children outside the home exposes them to "snitches."

The ruling concluded: "Given this history of this family, which we need not discuss here, permitting the parents to educate the children at home by means of a credentialed tutor would likely post too many difficulties for the tutor."

What is that history? According to the Dependency Court case supplied by AMPS, which details the California DCFS' dealings with the family, it involves allegations of abuse, unsanitary living conditions, and a disturbingly controlling father:

The family’s third contact with the juvenile court came when a petition was filed in November 1993 for the same five children plus minor Rachel. According to a Department report in the instant case and a Department report in a 2001 matter involving this family, the six minors were found to be persons coming within the provisions of section 300 on the basis of the following sustained allegations: the parents’ home was dangerous to the minors in that it included, but was not limited to, approximately 60 guns, rifles and/or assault weapons; black powder in an unsecured location; and live ammunition, shells, and magazines, all of which was within access of the minors, and the guns and ammunition were in close proximity to each other. Further, the minors’ home was found to be in [*9] an endangering filthy, unsanitary and unsafe condition, and the minors were chronically filthy, and unsupervised late at night. Additionally, the parents unlawfully concealed the whereabouts of the children from the Department and father willfully gave false information to the court concerning the whereabouts of the children. Eventually all of the minors were released to mother’s care.

[...]

The fifth and current involvement of the Department with this [*10] family came as the result of minor Rachel’s contact with the Los Angeles Police Department, Wilshire Division, on January 26, 2006, when she asked to be picked up because she was tired, hungry and had no place to live. She was fourteen years old at the time. She had run away from the family home on October 29, 2005. Rachel told the Department social worker that she was tired of living under father’s house rules. She stated father would hit her with a stick, hanger or shoe if she did not follow his rules. She said he will not let her wear pants at home and she had to wear skirts or dresses, not let her wear makeup, and not let her attend public school. Rachel also reported that Leonard C. repeatedly molested her when she was between the ages of four and nine. He repeatedly groped her and would come into her room when she was in bed and put his finger into her vagina. She said she told the parents about it when she was 12 years old but they did not believe her. She stated the man still comes to the house occasionally and she worries that he might begin molesting her sister Mary Grace. She stated she engages in selfmutilation (cutting herself with a razor blade) and has problems with [*11] depression, but her parents will not send her to therapy because father tells her that speaking with him is all the therapy she needs. She stated she would never be all right with father now because she has been sexually active. She stated she would continue to run away if she is forced to live at home. The social worker reported that Rachel’s situation was similar to her sister Elizabeth’s, who also ran away, wanted to attend public school, objected to father’s house rules, was removed from the home for physical and emotional abuse, and complained that father dominates everyone in the house, including mother.

[...]

In the meantime, on January 27, 2006, a visit to the parents' two-bedroom home in Lynwood revealed it was very cramped with the family's belongings, the hallway had a dresser and plastic boxes piled almost to the ceiling and they partially blocked the door to the children's bedroom, which had no door on it. The yard was laded with junk that presented a fire hazard and breeding ground for vermin.

[...]

By the [29*] time of the May 18, 2006, adjudication hearing, Rachel was living with her sister Elizabeth. The Department was having difficulty securing a clothing allowance for Rachel because a birth certificate for her was needed but the parents continued to assert there was no birth certificate. Because the parents were not willing to sign an affadavit stating where and when Rachel was born, the Department indicated Rachel would be required to have a bone test done to determine her age, and for that, a medical or court order was necessary.

[...]

[T]he record contains substantial evidence, both from statements made by the children and from mother's own actions, that  father dominates mother and dominates the children who live at home, two of whom have repeatedly run away from home because, in  part, of the home rules father imposes. There is also substantial evidence that he has been difficult to work with in dependency  matters--evasive, uncooperative, and belligerent. There is evidence that these character traits of father's have been consistent over the  years that this family has been in dependency court. He will not permit the children to attend school. He will not permit them to  receive childhood vaccinations. He will not permit the girls to wear pants at home. He will not permit birth certificates. There is  evidence that mother does not interfere with his discipline of the children and his rules. There is evidence she does not make even  tentative decisions in dependency matters but rather defers issues until father can make decisions on them. Several of the children gave answers  [*75] to the social worker, forensic evaluator, and the court that have all the appearance of reflecting what the children were told to say or believed father would want them to say or not say. 

The girl, Rachel, described the "education" she received at home:

Asked how much time she spent each day on being school at the parents' home, she stated "sometimes two hours. [*27] Sometimes half an hour. It depended on what homework it was." Only mother taught her, not father. She was provided with books. The books had reviews in them but not tests. Mother helped her with assignments if she  needed help. She could not recall mother being unable to help her. She would also ask [her sister] Charity but Charity "doesn't know it so she wasn't much help." Her subjects were citizenship, math, English and science. Once a year she took a test to see if she could pass to  another grade. The last test she took was at a church. The test was administered by Sunland Christian School and was a "test for that school." She passed the test but she did not remember her marks. During her schooling at home, her best subject was science and her worst was math. She was not taught geography or history. Asked if she can add, subtract, multiply and divide, Rachel stated she cannot. 

Only after AMPS published these rulings (and after they appeared on ConWebBlog) did Unruh return to the story. In a March 4 article, Unruh tried to change the focus of the story, portraying the ruling as a threat to homeschooling even though the judge merely affirmed state law, which states that "enrollment and attendance in a public full-time day school is required by California law for minor children," with certain exceptions, none of which the family met in the eyes of the court.

Related articles on ConWebWatch: WorldNetDaily's School Days Godwin's Waiting Room Rejecting Journalism WorldNetDaily: Officially Discredited WorldNetDaily's Sleaze Machine

And, for the first time, Unruh did address the background of the family -- while making an attempt to whitewash things. He went into some detail about what he called "unpublished court documents" -- even though they had, in fact, been published -- in "a dependency case stemming from accusations of abuse that resulted from the parents' decision to impose discipline on their children with spankings."

Unruh wrote that the "unpublished" documents note "allegations that a family acquaintance molested one of the children as well as claims regarding physical punishment relating to one child's decision to disobey household rules about being out at night," which he declared were "disputed by different people involved," but he didn't mention the numerous allegations of physical abuse by the father.

Unruh further wrote that "The current case was brought by two attorneys who had been appointed by the state to represent the family's minor children in a dependency case stemming from accusations of abuse that resulted from the parents' decision to impose discipline on their children with spankings." But in soft-pedaling the parents' "discipline," Unruh ignored statements in the dependency court case offering evidence that it went far beyond that:

Before we begin with our analysis of this issue, it is helpful to note the following. First, in two prior dependency matters, father was found to have inappropriately physically disciplined two of his children, Cam and Elizabeth. Indeed, in at least Cam's case, father's treatment of her was brutal. Both Cam and Elizabeth were children who challenged father's rules at home. Thus, there was proof of his willingness to physically abuse his children when they did not tow the mark.

[...]

Father has a long history of physically abusing the children and mother has a long history of not protecting them from father, with Rachel being the most recent victim.

[...]

Likewise, we find substantial evidence to support the subdivision b-3 allegation that Rachel and her older siblings are former dependent children of the juvenile court, prior dependency involvement failed to resolve the family's problems in that Rachel has been physically and emotionally abused by father and mother did not take steps to protect her, Rachel was sexually abused by [a friend of the family] and the parents did not protect her from him, and such conduct by the parents places the three minor children at risk of future serious harm. There is no need to repeat the supporting evidence here.

Unruh also didn't address one key issue mentioned by the court: the quality of the homeschool education being received by the Long children. And as he had in his previous article, Unruh uncritically repeated Phillip Long's claim that "he objects to the pro-homosexual, pro-bisexual, pro-transgender agenda of California's public schools," though Long has offered varying explanations to the court, and repeated the Nazi smear.

Unruh walked things back a little in a March 5 article. Unruh repeated the claim that the Long dependency court case "stemming from accusations of abuse that resulted from the parents' decision to impose discipline on their children with spankings" but didn't mention the allegations of sexual abuse (and, of course, again failed to mention the father's history of physical abuse or the filthy house).

A March 6 article, however, eliminated any mention of the dependency court and, thus, any hint of the family's dysfunction. Articles by Unruh on the case on March 7, March 10, and March 11, and March 12 are similarly silent about the abuse allegations.

Further, in none of these articles did Unruh offer a link to the PDF file of either the appeals court ruling or the dependency court case. Nor does Unruh seek out the views of anyone who is not a conservative activist or a pro-homeschooling advocate (aside from regurgitating a prepared statement by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger criticizing he ruling).Unruh's reporting for WND is littered with such one-sided reporting.

Meanwhile, Unruh has repeatedly proclaimed that, in the words of the March 6 article, "WND broke the story of the ruling against Phillip and Mary Long of Los Angeles."

Well, no. You're not breaking a story if you're only telling half of it.

WND has long been a cheerleader for homeschooling. Both Unruh and WND editor Joseph Farah have their children homeschooled. As ConWebWatch has noted, WND sells homeschooling materials in its stores and uses its "news" articles to boost homeschool and denigrate public education.

But in this case -- whitewashing the Long family in order to adhere to its pro-homeschooling agenda -- WND may very well be enabling the further abuse of the Long children.

Just as there are good public schools and bad public schools, there are good homeschoolers and bad homeschoolers. The court has found Phillip Long and his wife to be bad homeschoolers and the father to be an abusive parent. WND's failure to tell the truth about the Longs to its readers leads to the inescapable conclusion that it condones such behavior.

Do Unruh and Farah treat their homeschooled children the way Phillip Long is on record as treating his? Let's hope not; hopefully, they don't think that such poor homeschooling and such treatment of children is acceptable. But by staying silent about it, Unruh and Farah leave the impression that they do -- and thus implicitly encourage such behavior.

Shielding the Longs' dysfunctional family from public scrutiny in the name of protecting the homeschool movement, as Unruh and WND have done, will damage homeschooling in the long run because the Longs contribute to an image of homeschooling being the province of extremist wackos.

Would Unruh and WND be so silent about the allegations of abuse if the Longs were patrons of public schools? Probably not.

We can't imagine anyone who truly cares about education and homeschooling would subject their children to the substandard education the Longs are on record as providing to their children. So why won't anyone within the homeschooling community admit that bad education is bad education, even (and, perhaps, especially) when it happens at home?

Indeed, WND is not the only guilty party effectively condoning child abuse. Conservative and pro-homeschooling groups have been avoiding the issue as well:

• The Home School Legal Defense Association published a March 6 response to the decision that stated, “Homeschooling has offered a great opportunity for families to give their children a quality education with a moral and philosophical approach that is consistent with each family's beliefs.” But there’s no mention of the evidence showing that the Longs were not providing a “quality education” to their children. A March 12 “update” claimed that “there has been some confusion about the scope and nature of this ruling” and that “It’s premature to give a detailed legal analysis.” Again, there’s no mention of the family’s history. The HSLDA’s petition to urge the court to “depublish” the opinion (so “it cannot be used by other California courts and this threat to homeschool freedom will be neutralized for other California homeschoolers”) references “a confidential juvenile court proceeding” but is silent on the details, even though that proceeding has been published and represented as being about the Longs.
• A bulletin by the Campaign for Children and Families called the ruling “a new tool for Child Protective Services to harm good parents,” but there’s no mention of the dependency court case that offers evidence that the parents were not acting as “good parents.” A March 7 CCF press release does note that “The Feb. 28 order is limited to one family in Los Angeles which has a 20-year history of litigation in the juvenile courts over the care of their children,” but, again, there’s no detail of the case.
• A March 5 press release by the conservative Pacific Justice Institute denouncing the court ruling makes no mention whatsoever of the family’s history.
• On the March 7 edition of his “Focus on the Family” radio show, James Dobson said the ruling “strikes at the very heart and soul of families and their children,” adding, “The court has assaulted parental rights again, and this time with a sledgehammer.” Guest and HSLDA co-founder Michael Farris said, "At the heart of this case is a distrust of parents." Dobson did allude to the family’s case, saying, “There was one family that was accused of either abusing their children or not handling them properly. And this case went to the court to address their situation, and then the court ridiculously applied it to all homeschools, people throughout the state.” But Dobson and Farris avoided mentioning any other details about the family, and Farris took pains to separate the Longs from homeschooling in general, while supporting their alleged right to homeschool: “We would like this family to win, but if they don’t win, we want it limited to just that one set of facts.” Farris also said regarding the effort to “depublish” the ruling, “We would like this family have the right to homeschool, but it would be a factual decision about them and whether their facts warrant some remedy here.”

Then again, these organizations don't claim to be news sources "dedicated to uncompromising journalism, seeking truth and justice" and to be "credible, fearless, independent"; WorldNetDaily does.

Condoning child abuse may ultimately be an even worse legacy for WND than libel and reporting false claims. It's a downward spiral of journalistic deception that will eventually destroy WND unless it chooses to do something about it. But then, common sense dictates that a "news" organization exhibiting such blithe indifference to telling the truth doesn't deserve to live.