For Angela Nichols, withdrawing her kindergarten son from public school to homeschool resulted in daily emails that her son was still absent. The basis? An unlawful waiting period in state regulation.

Concerned about being charged with truancy, Angela called HSLDA. When HSLDA called the district, the emails stopped and Angela now homeschools in peace. (Name changed and county of residence left out to protect privacy.)

You see, Angela hadn’t originally planned to homeschool her five-year-old son. But after a month of public-school kindergarten, Angela could tell that her son was struggling. He didn’t want to leave home. He had lost weight. He was stressed and suffering anxiety.

Angela decided homeschooling was the right choice. She filed her notice of consent with the County Superintendent and notified her son’s school that she was withdrawing her son to homeschool him.

That’s when things took a troubling turn. In a phone call with the school registrar, Angela was told that she couldn’t legally begin homeschooling her son until 15 days after she had filed her Notice of Consent.

Although the school registrar was sympathetic to Angela and her son, the registrar pointed to the following language in the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR): “A parent or guardian who chooses to provide a home instruction program for his or her child shall initially sign [the Notice of Consent] which … [s]hall be submitted to the local superintendent at least 15 days before the beginning of a home instruction program.”

Immediately after this conversation, Angela began receiving daily automated emails from the public school saying that her son “has been marked absent from school.”

Knowing this could trigger a truancy investigation, she immediately called HSLDA.

HSLDA has long held the position that the “15 day waiting period” in the COMAR regulations is unconstitutional. It has no basis in Maryland law as codified by the Maryland Legislature. And it conflicts with 102 years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent recognizing parental rights as fundamental, and that parents—not the government—decide where a child is educated (see Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), Pierce v. Society of Sisters, (1925), Wisconsin v. Yoder, (1972) Troxel v. Granville,  (2000), and Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025). Indeed, not one member of our HSLDA staff can ever recall a Maryland school district referencing this “15 day waiting period” to a parent.

We immediately called the school district. We are pleased to report that the school district quickly verified to us that Angela had done everything correctly. The district told us that they had updated their automated email messages, and that Angela’s son was officially withdrawn from the public school so that Angela could homeschool him.

We are grateful to the school district for quickly correcting the record. We wish Angela and her family all the very best as they begin their homeschool journey.

Note to members in Maryland: If you ever hear of a Maryland public school district trying to enforce the COMAR’s “15 day waiting period” on a homeschool family, please let us know right away.