Following the death of 11-year-old Mimi Torres-Garcia, who reportedly disappeared from public view under the guise of homeschooling, Connecticut lawmakers are considering a mandate to alert DCF when children are withdrawn from school.
When districts receive notice of withdrawal, the bill would require them to notify the Department of Education, which would then notify the Department of Children and Families.
Homeschooling families are responding with alarm, calling the proposal, in Section 5 of Senate Bill 6, a gross overreach. Parents fear police showing up at their doors to investigate them, a ban on homeschooling and personal information being tracked through a permanent registry or DCF files.
That’s not what’s proposed, according to Sen. Ceci Maher, co-chair of the Children’s Committee, where the bill is currently being considered.
“This bill seeks to protect children by closing a reporting loophole that parents, such as Mimi’s, who have intention to hide potential harm or mistreatment of a child, could utilize to mask that intent,” Maher said in a statement to the Courant.
“Additionally, it does not impact homeschool families’ freedoms, as it does not create a file for homeschooling families. The bill’s mechanism would simply check whether a file already exists for a child. If there is one, a note would be placed in that child’s file. No additional actions would be triggered.”
While the measure would not impact families already homeschooling, it could apply to those who withdraw their children for enrollment in private schools as well as homeschoolers.
The bill language could be changed before it reaches a vote of the full legislature, if it were advanced by the committee. A public hearing on the issue is scheduled for Tuesday at 1 p.m. in the Children’s Committee.
Currently, the language suggests only that a notation would be placed in the file of a child who currently has an active DCF case.
“Upon receipt of a notification … that a child has been withdrawn from the public schools, the Commissioner of Children and Families shall, as soon as practicable, determine if such child is the subject of an order for protective supervision, as defined in section 17a-92 93 of the general statutes, or receiving protective services, as defined in section 17a-93 of the general statutes. If such child is the subject of such an order or receiving such services, the Commissioner of Children and Families shall include a notation of such withdrawal in such child’s case file for informational purposes,” the bill language reads.
Attorney Deborah Stevenson, National Home Education Legal Defense, wrote in written testimony that Section 5 is an “unconstitutional outrage, removing the presumption of innocence of every parent in this state.”
She urged the committee to remove the section.
“Section 5 not only removes the presumption of innocence, but also it is overly broad, vague, gives unbridled discretion to state agencies to track and share information. It also violates each parent’s right to choose the upbringing and education of a child,” Stevenson wrote, as well as violates “due process rights.”
“It also instills in parents a chilling fear that the government will take official action against them just because they exercise their inalienable right to choose an appropriate education for their child.”
One mother, in submitted testimony, noted that she cares “deeply about the safety and well-being of children” and supports “thoughtful measures that protect vulnerable children while respecting constitutional parental rights.”
She said the improvements outlined in Sections 3 and 4 of SB6 “appear to move in that direction.”
Section 3 and 4 deal with people convicted of abusing, endangering, or neglecting children sharing a primary residence with a child, unless such person is the parent of the child. Section 4 sets up a reporting pipeline similar to Section 5, which would notify DCF of the address to which people convicted of abusing, endangering, or neglecting children are being released from prison. DCF would then put a note in the file of any children living in such home only if they are already the subject of a protective order or receive protective services.
Following the discovery of Mimi Torres-Garcia’s body in a storage container outside a New Britain home in October of 2025, public officials redoubled their commitment to increased oversight of homeschooling. Mimi’s mother, who, along with her boyfriend and sister, is charged with murder in her death, reportedly withdrew her from the New Britain schools after her fifth-grade graduation in June and before the start of the 2025 school year.
Advocates have said Mimi’s withdrawal from school removed her from oversight of public schools. She weighed only 27 pounds at the time of her death — thought to be in September — and died of starvation, according to the chief medical examiner’s office.
Mom of 11-year-old CT girl allegedly fooled DCF into believing she was alive months after her death
Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney has said increased homeschooling oversight is a priority for him.
“The problem right now is we have one of the lowest levels of homeschool regulations in the country,” Looney said in February. “We are way behind in terms of regulation.
“Last year, there wasn’t really time,” he said. “It was too late for the committee process last year. The children’s committee is really going to be on it this year. I hope to see the strongest bill possible, but whatever we can get support for, I’m for.”
Homeschool advocates have contended that DCF had previously investigated Mimi’s family for abuse and neglect allegations and her removal of school did not remove the burden of the agency’s investigation into her welfare. Rather, homeschool advocates blame negligence by DCF for the girl’s death. Her family is looking to sue the agency and lawmakers have said they are also looking at reforms.
The homeschooling mother who gave written testimony on Section 5 of SB6 echoed the community’s concerns that the measure targets innocent families in trying to protect children.
“Parents withdraw their children from public school for many legitimate and loving reasons — including private school enrollment, homeschooling, relocation, or specific educational or medical needs,” she wrote.
“Automatically tying school withdrawal to a reporting structure risks treating ordinary, lawful parental decisions as suspicious. As a mother, that is deeply unsettling. I believe Connecticut can protect vulnerable children without creating policies that chill parental freedom or imply wrongdoing where none exists. Longstanding constitutional principles recognize that parents have the primary role in directing the upbringing and education of their children. Any policy affecting that right should be narrowly tailored and carefully considered.”
Proposed CT homeschooling regulation brings clash. Lawmaker: It could ‘undermine’ parental rights
Mary Owens, in written testimony, questioned why lawmakers were again trying to increase oversight of homeschooling after thousands appeared at the Capitol last year to protest proposed legislation.
“We are made up of Democrat, Republican, Independent and Unaffiliated voters. We are ALL watching what is happening and we will NOT stand for it. THIS is where WE UNITE! Parental Rights will NOT be messed with!! If this vote passes, there will be the largest turnout you have ever witnessed here at the Capital AND at the voting booths! This goes for HB5044 as well!!” she said, referring to a bill in the Education Committee that seeks oversight of homeschool curriculum. The text for that bill has not yet been released.
Several homeschool organizations in Connecticut have urged families to appear at the Capitol Tuesday to lobby against the measure.
The public hearing will be held at 1 p.m. in Room 2E of the Legislative Office Building and is also broadcast on YouTube Live.