At Issue with the Court
Jerry and Cecile Gracey were called into the Family Court when a Neglect charge was leveled against them for failing to send their children to school. Kathleen Gibbs, the attendance officer, had visited the home and noted Mrs. Gracey's objections to the new sex education course. She answered that this course was a required course and all in Junior High must take it.
​
Appearing before family court judge, Donald K Comstock, the Graceys made their case that the course was offensive and objected to their children being in that course.
​
Judge Comstock warned the Graceys that they had to send their children to school or suffer the consequences.
​
On Monday, October 19, 1970, two social workers accompanied by three police officers arrived at the Gracey residence and removed six of the nine Gracey children ages 15 to 7. The children were further separated to three foster homes: the three oldest were sent to Fair Haven; the two youngest were sent to West Monroe; the middle child was sent to Parish.
​
The three oldest refused to eat, promising that they would eat when returned home. By Friday, Mrs. Dennison, the head social worker, came to the school of the three older children, but failed to convince them otherwise.
​
The appointed law guardian, Robert Hurlbutt, requested an emergency meeting at the family court, where he gave an argument for the children to be returned to their parents. He cited that the children were unhappy.
​
Jerry and Cecile drove over 80 miles that evening to retrieve their children from the three foster homes.
​
​
​
​
On November 13, 1970, the Graceys had their day in court. A decision was not handed down by the judge until February of the following year.
​
The 17 page decision concludes as follows:
​
"The court find that the Respondents are certainly exercsing a a minimum degree of care in supplying the children with an adequate education. Additionally, there is no proof that the physical, mental, or emotional condition of the children has been impaired or is in 'imminent danger' of becoming impaired. Indeed, from what this court could observe, the children are bright, alert, well-mannered and exhibit a strong love and affection for their mother and father as well as each other.
​
The Court concludes that Respondents are exercising a minimum degree of care in supplying their children with an adequate education.
​
The Court concludes that Patricia, Amy, Susan, Gerald, Jacqueline and Kathleen Gracey are not neglected children within the meaning of Section 1012 of the Family Court Act and the petition therefore is dismissed."