|
Court: Parents Don't Need Lawyer to
Sue School
May 23, 2007
By Nina Totenberg
Parents of disabled children won a
major victory in the U.S. Supreme Court, as the justices ruled
unanimously that parents do not have to hire a lawyer to sue a
school district over providing an appropriate education for a child
with special needs.
The court's ruling came in the case
of Jeff and Sandee Winkelman, whose son, Jacob, is autistic. When he
entered pre-school, Jacob's tantrums were severe enough that the
district placed him in a special school for autistic children.
But after two years, Mrs. Winkelman
says, there was a changing of the guard, and new school
administrators and school board members said Jacob had to attend
regular public school.
Under the Disabilities Act, parents
are entitled to go to court to enforce the law, but a majority of
the courts have required that parents be represented by a lawyer. If
parents didn't have an attorney, their cases were thrown out.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court
unanimously ruled that parents cannot be shut out of court just
because they are representing themselves.
The ruling was a blow to school
boards across the country. National School Boards Association
General Counsel Francisco Negron says that allowing non-lawyer
parents in court will lengthen the process because parents are not
legally trained and often are emotional.
Parents Don't Need Lawyer in
Education Cases
May 21, 2007
By Robert Barnes
The Supreme Court ruled today that
parents of disabled children do not have to hire lawyers to sue
school districts when they attempt to ensure that their children's
special needs are adequately met.
The court found that the federal
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which guarantees
children a "free appropriate public education," gives rights to
parents as well. Parents may represent themselves in federal court
when disputes arise between them and a school district over what is
best for the child, the court held.
"It is not a novel proposition to
say that parents have a recognized legal interest in the education
and upbringing of their child," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in an
opinion joined by six of his colleagues.
Justices Antonin Scalia and
Clarence Thomas wrote separately to say the majority's view of
parents' rights under the law was too "sweeping." They said they
felt the law gives parents a more limited ability to sue; for
instance, to seek reimbursement for enrolling a child in a private
school.
The decision could allow more
parents unhappy with education plans drawn up for their children by
school districts to take their cases to federal court without
lawyers. Those parents contend that it is expensive and often
difficult to find lawyers who will take such cases.
That was the experience of Jeff and
Sandee Winkelman, who sued the Parma, Ohio school district on behalf
of their autistic son, Jacob. The Winkelmans said they could not
afford an attorney to continue their dispute with the school board
over its decision that Jacob's needs could be met in a public
school.
Federal courts generally allow
individuals to represent themselves--but not others--without the aid
of a lawyer. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
dismissed the Winkelmans' appeal because they had not obtained
counsel to represent Jacob. That decision was reversed by the
Supreme Court today.
The case is Winkelman v. Parma City
School District.
Justices back parents in special
ed case
May 21, 2007
By Mark Sherman
WASHINGTON --Parents need not hire
a lawyer to sue public school districts over their children's
special education needs, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The decision makes it easier for
parents to file federal lawsuits if they are unhappy with a local
school system's plans to educate children with mental retardation,
autism or other disabilities.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing
for the court, said not just children, but also their parents have
legal rights under the Individuals With Disabilities in Education
Act, the main federal special education law.
"They are, as a result, entitled to
prosecute IDEA claims on their own behalf," Kennedy said.
Justices Antonin Scalia and
Clarence Thomas, who partially dissented from the decision, said
they favored giving parents more limited rights to sue.
The decision came in the case of
Jacob Winkelman, a 9-year-old autistic boy from Ohio, whose parents
argued they were effectively denied access to the courts because
they could not afford a lawyer to challenge the school district's
plans for their son.
Federal law gives every child the
right to a free appropriate public education, which in the case of
special needs children sometimes means enrollment in a private
facility.
But most federal courts had
concluded that parents who are not lawyers and who want to challenge
decisions have to hire an attorney to represent them.
The court sided with Jacob and his
parents, Jeff and Sandee Winkelman, in their fight against the
Parma, Ohio school district in suburban Cleveland.
The Winkelmans can't afford a
lawyer or the cost of private schooling for Jacob. Neither parent is
a lawyer.
The parents objected to the Parma
schools' plan to educate Jacob at a public school. They wanted the
district to pay for his $56,000 yearly enrollment in a private
school that specializes in educating autistic children.
The Winkelmans have spent about
$30,000 in legal fees since first contesting Jacob's treatment in
2003. Jeff Winkelman has taken a second job while his wife has
researched previous court rulings and written her own filings.
Sandee Winkelman said she might
press the case on behalf of Jacob with one of several attorneys who
have offered to represent the family for free. If that doesn't work
out, she said, the family would proceed without an attorney.
"I would prefer to give Jacob the
best chance with an attorney. That's the best-case scenario," she
said after the ruling was announced. "I'm very pleased. It restored
a lot of faith I have in the system."
It is unclear how many parents
forgo lawsuits because they can't afford them, although advocates
for disabled children said in court papers that most parents of
disabled children lack the means to hire a lawyer.
Nearly 7 million of the nation's 50
million children in public schools are enrolled in special education
programs.
Francisco Negron, general counsel
for the National School Boards Association, said he understood that
the justices worried about not "foreclosing the right of parents to
seek their day in court."
But Negron said the decision left
unresolved questions about how effectively parents who are not
trained in the law could represent their children's interests in a
court proceeding.
"Our greatest concern is whether
this means parents will see this an open gate to litigate rather
than collaborate. That would be a shame because IDEA has always been
about collaboration," Negron said.
Parents unhappy with a district's
plan can appeal the decision through an administrative process. If
they remain dissatisfied, they can file a civil lawsuit on their
child's behalf, federal courts have said. At that point, however,
most courts have said the parents must hire a lawyer.
Whether Jacob should have private
schooling at public expense was not before the Supreme Court, only
his parents' right to go into federal court without a lawyer.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals had ruled in the school district's favor. Monday's ruling
overturned that decision.
The case number is Winkelman v.
Parma City School District, 05-983.
|
