In March 2025, the State’s Office of the Child Advocate (OCA) proposed language to state lawmakers to strengthen the state’s homeschool regulations. These proposals followed the then-breaking story of a Waterbury man who was trapped in his mother’s home for twenty years, after being withdrawn from school. 

The proposed language of that homeschool regulation, as well as conversations between state officials surrounding it, was recently uncovered via FOIA by Attorney Deborah Stevenson, founder of the National Home Education Legal Defense (NHELD). Stevenson and other homeschool advocates took issue with the proposals, accusing state decision-makers of scapegoating homeschoolers for the failures of state agencies and for conducting legislative conversations behind closed doors.

“No one to date is looking into why these agencies failed these children so badly,” said Stevenson, in an online meeting hosted by NHELD last night. “This is about the agencies and how they have failed these children.”

The issue of homeschooling regulation is not a new one, but it has gained renewed steam in recent years after a report released in 2019, which assessed the death of 17-year-old Matthew Tirado. The 79-page report included recommendations that state officials re-evaluate homeschooling regulations, while also assessing the shortcomings of state agencies that allowed Tirado’s abuse to go unnoticed. On May 5, the OCA released a similar report with similar recommendations. While it briefly mentioned the Waterbury incident, it primarily went into depth on another incident, in which a child who showed no signs of abuse prior to his withdrawal from government schooling was discovered in 2023 by police, after his withdrawal, showing signs of significant abuse.

Per Stevenson’s FOIAs, Child Advocate Christina Ghio sent her first legislative proposals to former Child Advocate Sarah Eagan, and the Executive Director of the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents, Fran Rabinowitz, on March 18. 

Titled “Keeping Children Safe,” the first proposal would amend the state’s current statutes governing homeschooling, so that parents must provide proof their child is receiving “equivalent instruction” and must meet annually with state education officials to “participate in an annual portfolio review to demonstrate instruction in the required courses.” 

Under this first draft, if state officials found a child is not receiving equivalent instruction, their parents would have to re-enroll them in public schools. Additionally, the state’s Department of Education (CSDE) would be tasked with implementing a system “for cross-checking enrollment of children whose parents have reported a change in districts or have not returned to school as expected,” which could trigger a report to DCF, who would then perform an in-person check. 

Lastly, it would require districts to conduct an “internal assessment” anytime a parent notifies them of their intent to homeschool, to identify any prior reports of suspected abuse or neglect logged by district personnel to “determine whether such notice gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that a child is abused or neglected and should be reported to DCF.”

“They wanted to regulate, and if you don’t follow the regulations, they’re going to make sure that you are forced to re-enroll your child in a public school,” said Stevenson. “That was the first concept, and we’re talking March 18, which is six days after the Waterbury story broke. That’s the first idea of Sarah Eagan and Ghio, the new OCA, was to compel re-enrollment in the public school system.”

On March 19, Ghio sent the proposals to Children Committee Co-Chairs, Sen. Ceci Maher (D-Wilton) and Rep. Corey Paris (D-Stamford), Education Committee Co-Chairs, Rep. Jennifer Leeper (D-Fairfield) and Sen. Doug McRory, and a legislative assistant of Gregg Haddad, (D-Mansfield). Additionally, drafts were forwarded to CSDE Commissioner, Charlene Russell-Tucker, and Gov. Ned Lamont’s Senior Advisor, Thea Montanez, and another email confirmed that Speaker of the House Matthew Ritter (D-Hartford) had seen the proposal as well.

The most extensive draft of the bill included all the originally proposed elements, but added several other provisions. The provisions would require parents to bring their child with them when notifying districts of their intent to homeschool, bring a “description of the curriculum to be used,” and provide documentation proving the child has received a recent physical examination that asserts they’re “in good health.” This would have to be repeated annually for each year the parent intends to homeschool.

Another draft stated that child physicals would only have to be provided in certain years, not every year. It also further fleshed out methods of determining if the child is receiving “equivalent instruction,” such as making children take state exams, or having them “assessed by a qualified professional using a commercially published norm-referenced achievement test.”

In Stevenson’s release compiling the FOIAs, she accused former OCA Eagan of having a “vendetta” against homeschoolers. The release showed communications between Eagan and other state officials, in which Eagan requested renewed discussion surrounding the state’s homeschooling laws. In one email from Eagan to Franklin Perry, the House Democrats’ Chief of Staff, she states her intent is not to punish homeschoolers but to prevent abusers from using homeschool as a shield.

“Christina Ghio and I would like to meet with you and Speaker Ritter if possible to talk over the fact that CT is one of the only states in the country that has no regulatory framework/oversight of homeschooling, which means kids can just be pulled off the grid under the pretense of homeschooling (homeschooling is not actually the problem),” wrote Eagan.

Eagan told Inside Investigator that the conversation surrounding homeschooling is not new, and is one that should be had in the legislative chambers.

“We support the constitutionally protected right of parents to direct the educational upbringing of their children, a long-recognized right and one that should be protected,” said Eagan. “The law also recognizes that children have a right to an education, and that the state has an interest as well, and how to balance these interests is a matter properly put before policy makers.”

Stevenson expressed frustration that these conversations were had “behind closed doors,” and pointed out that the discussions occurred prior to the legislature’s May 5 informational hearing. That hearing, held by the Education and Children Committee, saw thousands of homeschool advocates show up in protest. Homeschool rights advocates later criticized the meeting, saying they were barred from speaking. Stevenson also pointed out that many of the state officials who did speak, such as Ghio, were included in the communications uncovered in the FOIA.

“You need to know that this is what they’re thinking, this is what they’ve written in these versions, all behind closed doors, and in public [they’re] saying something entirely different,” said Stevenson. “‘We just need information. We just want to have a conversation.’ That’s baloney. They already had the bill written when they said that on May 5.”

She found it dishonest that state lawmakers did not publicly share the existence of these conversations at the meeting.

“This is not acceptable,” said Stevenson. “It’s not acceptable to regulate behind closed doors. This is just plain wrong. This is not our system of government.”

One of the OCA’s statutorily mandated duties is the provision of legislative recommendations pertaining to the safety of children. Eagan defended the conversations herself, while noting her agreement that any law should receive a public hearing prior to its passage.

“Ideas are put before legislators in a variety of ways all the time, we certainly agree before the final passage of any law, it needs to be publicly discussed, as it always is, through the legislative process,” said Eagan. “People give their ideas to legislators up until the last day of the legislative session, and they play out through the legislative process.”

Ultimately, Stevenson said that she would continue to monitor any movements on future legislative proposals.

“We don’t know where it’s going to go from here,” said Stevenson. “We are constantly going to be watching and making more requests for information.”

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.