An anti-homeschool bill has passed the Connecticut House and Senate and will force parents to prove they are not abusive or neglectful before they are allowed to homeschool their children. H.B. 5468 requires parents to pass an abuse and neglect registry check through the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) before beginning a home education program. Democrat Gov. Ned Lamont is expected to sign the bill into law.

Advocates of the legislation used a familiar tactic to push it through; a particularly horrific, high-profile abuse case known as the Waterbury captivity case involving a child, known publicly only as “S,” who was locked away in a small room for nearly two decades by his stepmother. She allegedly removed him from public school in fourth grade after school officials notified authorities that he was eating out of garbage cans due to hunger. He reportedly has two stepsisters, but they were instructed that the boy “was their secret” and that they were not to discuss him outside the home.

The family claimed the child was being homeschooled, and after his rescue he told police he was given a dictionary and a few books each year. He also had a radio, which became his only connection to the outside world except for the rare occasions when his father briefly took him out of the house. “S” said he lived under the constant threat of even more severe deprivations, which sufficed to keep him under control for years.

There is one report of the boy’s father alleging harassment by school staff and the police for trying to follow up on the child’s wellbeing after he was withdrawn from the school. At some point in his later life, the father is said to have been confined to a wheelchair, and he passed away in 2024.

According to NBC Connecticut news, in February 2026, a conservator for “S” filed a notice with the Connecticut Claims Commissioner’s Office asserting “that DCF would have discovered the boy was ‘confined to the home, undernourished, abused, and otherwise neglected’ had DCF fully investigated the complaints it received.”

When he was finally rescued in 2025 after starting a fire in the home to attract outside attention, the victim was reportedly 31 years old, 5’9” tall, and weighed just 68 pounds. NBC noted that the conservator’s notice could “allow for a future lawsuit against Connecticut’s DCF.”

The former principal of the boy’s elementary school, Tom Pannone, said he “repeatedly contacted police for welfare checks after noticing concerning signs,” and that police and DCF visited the home on several occasions but nothing was done. Pannone said school staff reported that before he was removed from the school, he was constantly hungry and thirsty, stealing food from other students and sometimes drinking water from the toilets.

In many true abuse cases, state departments of children and families or children and family services unfortunately drop the ball or miss or ignore evidence of parental wrongdoing. The Waterbury case is truly shocking in that school staff raised concerns multiple times and neighbors reported that they never saw the boy outside, but only looking out the window of the locked room upstairs where he was allegedly held.

Pannone told NBC Connecticut just last month: “I can remember almost every teacher from kindergarten, first, second, third grade, being in my office with me, calling DCF together. [A]nd it wasn’t just once a year; it was numerous times a year ... We reported it and not a damn thing was done. That’s the tragedy of the whole thing.”

The stepmother, Kimberly Sullivan, faces charges in the case. She claims no abuse took place, that “S” was not kept in a locked room, and her lawyer says she is the victim. The investigation is ongoing and the legal process is continuing.

Punish all homeschoolers

Connecticut PBS reported that the Waterbury case “is among a string of high-profile incidents involving children connected with DCF that prompted lawmakers to act this year.” The new law includes reforms to DCF designed to strengthen protections for children during investigations of potential abuse or neglect. The law also “establishes a new Child Welfare Policy and Oversight Committee, and a mentorship program for newly hired social workers at DCF.”

But while homeschooling has never been regulated in Connecticut, advocates believe the new law takes an extreme position, and that the real goal is to limit the right of parents to choose the best option for educating their children. The CT Homeschool Network, described as “a watchdog for homeschool freedom and privacy,” called the legislation “wholly irresponsible,” and said the state is using homeschooling families as “the scapegoat” for the DCF’s failures.

The law faced strong opposition from Republicans, but the Democrat majority passed it along party lines. U.S. News quoted the ranking Republican member of the Connecticut Senate Education Committee as saying: “What is at stake is not simply homeschooling, but the meaning of liberty itself.” Religious leaders from the Education Association of Christian Homeschools and the Family Institute of Connecticut, as well as the Homeschool Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) all voiced objections to the legislation.

HSLDA president, James R. Mason, pointed out that Connecticut’s law will subject every family who decides to homeschool to a DCF background check, “not after evidence of abuse” or “in response to a specific concern,” but because they are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

With the Connecticut DCF facing scrutiny in the wake of the Waterbury case in particular, observers say it’s easy to imagine that the agency might be overzealous in denying good parents their constitutional right to educate their own children.

Supreme Court precedent

Mason cited the 1979 Supreme Court ruling in Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, which was not related to education but “concerned a difficult question about when a parent may admit a child for mental health treatment.” He wrote that the court first quoted an older case, Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) which affirmed: “The child is not the mere creature of the State.”

“That line marks a boundary,” noted Mason. “The state may have interests in the welfare of children, but it does not possess children. Parents do not exercise their role at the pleasure of a regulatory scheme; they fulfill a duty that precedes the state.”

Democrats maintain the law provides “a very minimal degree of regulation,” and compared it to drunk driving laws that are not “looking to infringe upon the rights of reasonable and responsible drivers.”

But homeschool proponents believe the camel’s nose is now under the tent in Connecticut and the door is open to false accusations and restrictions against good parents while abusers manage to evade the system.

More updates

Education Reporter has often described attempts by various states to control homeschooling. (See for example, March 2025 and July 2024.) This year, HSLDA also reported on a setback in Nebraska, where parents are now prevented from homeschooling if they are being investigated by the Nebraska Division of Children and Family Services (CFS), even if the claims against them are unsubstantiated. Parents could spend months defending their innocence.

HSLDA’s Mason said Nebraska’s reversal of its prior homeschooling law “is especially troubling because the legislation the governor signed appears to conflict with constitutional guarantees.”

Although Nebraska’s law was amended to apply to all education options, Mason points out that it is consistent “with a concerning narrative being forwarded by ideological opponents to homeschooling—one that accuses homeschooling parents of placing children in greater danger for abuse or neglect by the mere act of taking charge of their education and teaching them at home.”

The one bright spot on the homeschool legislation front was the defeat of several restrictive bills in West Virginia, which would have limited the ability of parents to withdraw their children from public schools in favor of homeschooling.

Nonetheless, homeschooling remains under attack, even as the public education system doubles down on issues repugnant to many parents, such as the denial of biological reality in the promotion of transgender transitioning and the incursion of males in female restrooms, locker rooms, and sports.

HSLDA, for one, pledges to continue defending the right of parents to homeschool their children across the country, advocating in state legislatures and working to engage parents and citizens committed to freedom.

As HSLDA’s newsletter editor and staff writer noted on May 5: “The United States Supreme Court declared in Parham v. J.R., “The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition.”

Meanwhile in Connecticut, “S” has been undergoing medical treatment and is said to be making progress given his decades-long ordeal. His identity is being closely guarded to protect him from casual onlookers and well-meaning strangers, but there appears to be hope for his future.

Want to be notified of new
Education Reporter content?
Your information will NOT be sold or shared and will ONLY be used to notify you of new content.

Click Here

Return to Home PageEducation Reporter Online - May 2026