In the wake of the tragic discovery of an 11-year-old girl’s body in New Britain, many Connecticut officials and commentators rushed to frame the incident as evidence of a “homeschooling crisis.” New information now shows those early claims were incorrect.
On Oct. 16, Attorney Deborah Stevenson, founder of National Home Education Legal Defense (NHELD), released court documents clarifying the timeline. According to those records, the murder of Jacqueline “Mimi” Torres Garcia occurred on June 21, 2024 — while she was still enrolled in public school. The family’s supposed withdrawal and intent to homeschool were not signed until Aug. 26, more than a month after her death.
Despite this timeline, the case quickly became a talking point for expanding state oversight of homeschool families. Before investigators even finished processing the scene where Torres Garcia’s remains were found on October 8, 2025, calls emerged for increased state oversight of families who educate their children at home — based on the assumption that homeschooling had played a role in the tragedy.
As Stevenson noted, “Those who are responsible for spreading these rumors now owe the homeschool community a very large and genuine apology,” That statement should give policymakers pause. It underscores a broader issue in our state’s political culture: the rush to regulate before verifying the facts.
When Misinformation Becomes Policy Talking Points
Just days after the discovery, several officials publicly linked the case to homeschooling.
On Oct. 13, Rep. Liz Linehan (D-Cheshire) posted on Facebook:
“Another child supposedly being ‘homeschooled’ to cover up her abuse and murder. I beg homeschool families to understand that it’s not that we don’t trust homeschooling parents, it’s that the law allows abusers to hide amongst you. Please, join us in rooting out those abusers. … Make some concessions for the safety of kids who don’t have parents as loving and involved as you.”
Her post — endorsed by other legislators with a “like” and “sad face” emojis— illustrates how quickly speculation can become political narrative. The Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents (CAPSS) — while publicly complimenting parents who homeschool — weighed in, suggesting to NBC Connecticut annual check-ins for homeschooled students. “It is our responsibility, according to the state constitution that says we must educate every child,” said Fran Rabinowitz, the association’s executive director. “They have a right to home school if they so choose, but I think we have a responsibility to make sure every child is accounted for.”
In New Britain, Alderman Nathan Simpson posted on Facebook that he was “deeply in favor of the state adopting a law to prevent systematic failures like the ones which led to Mimi’s fate.” He proposed requiring homeschooling parents to appear for yearly in-person reviews at public schools, writing: “I anticipate someone somewhere is concerned about big government policies. If the check-in is at the school, the government isn’t in your home.”
When a commenter suggested the tragedy shouldn’t be used to target homeschooling, Simpson replied, “I just don’t have faith in the current systems. They all failed. This would be one tool, and the whole check-in could just be showing up.”
These reactions — claiming to respect parental rights even as they proposed new ways to monitor families — demonstrate how easily speculation can become the basis for new regulation before full facts emerge.
Government Failure, Not Parental Freedom
Sen. Rob Sampson (R-Wolcott) urged colleagues to avoid conflating government failure with parental misconduct:
“In the rush to respond, too many lawmakers have blamed homeschooling parents instead of the agencies that failed to act. But the facts in this heartbreaking case make it clear that homeschooling was not the issue — government failure was. The Department of Children and Families failed this child — not homeschooling, not parents exercising their rights. The state’s focus should be on accountability within DCF, not on punishing families who are doing their best to provide a safe and quality education for their children.”
Sampson’s point underscores an important distinction: when oversight systems fail, the appropriate response is accountability, not expanding regulation on families who followed the law.
A Lesson for Policymakers
This case should serve as a cautionary example of how policy built on misinformation can erode trust. Connecticut’s homeschool families already comply with established notice requirements. There is no evidence this case stemmed from a lack of regulation.
As NHELD noted, “It’s never a good thing to jump to conclusions without having solid facts first.” Policymakers should take that advice to heart. Reform should be rooted in evidence, not emotion.
If the state’s goal is truly to protect children, it must strengthen existing accountability within agencies like DCF — not impose new oversight on law-abiding families. Parents who choose to educate their children at home are exercising a legal right and often a deep sense of responsibility. They deserve to be treated as partners in the state’s effort to safeguard children, not as suspects.
Because when lawmakers start with blame, they risk alienating the very families they rely on for cooperation. And no one wants to “come to the table” when they’re already on the menu.
