Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 05-983,
Parents have the right to sue a public school district regarding their child’s special education needs even if they do not hire an attorney, according to a Supreme Court ruling today that has just been reported in the New York Times. Jeff and Sandee Winkelman were unable to afford a lawyer to challenge the Parma, Ohio, school district’s plan to educate their autistic son Jacob in a public school autism program. The Winkelmans questioned the appropriateness of the education that Jacob would receive in the public school program and requested that the Parma School District pay for tuition at a private autism school, the Monarch School in Shaker Heights. 16 months ago, they lost in Federal Court in Cleveland and, while their case was on appeal, the Federal States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, ruled that such suits as theirs could not be pursued without a lawyer. Today’s Supreme Court ruling, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing, overturns the previous decision of the Sixth Circuit. Notes the New York Times about the case, Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 05-983:
Sandee Winkelman said she might press the case on behalf of her 9-year-old son 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.
More details of the Winkelman’s case can be found at an earlier Autism Vox post and also in And Justice For All on Club 166. My son Charlie’s IEP is scheduled for next month and while we are in a good conversation with the school district right now, this can change as Charlie’s needs and skills evolve, and as the school program, personnel, budget and other factors change too—-and it’s very good to know that a a parent’s right to represent their child is being given due regard.
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Education, Legal Issues
6 opinions for Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 05-983,
Club 166
May 21, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Finally, a bit of common sense. My greatest fear, in this instance, was that if the ruling went against the parents that the school districts would feel even more empowered to steamroll over parents, knowing that many of them could not afford a lawyer to pursue due process.
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 21, 2007 at 2:14 pm
A small gain for justice—now for the fight—-
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 21, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Sandee Winkelman’s reaction to the ruling is noted here:
Niksmom
May 21, 2007 at 8:51 pm
I think Francisco Negron’s concern that this could open the gate for greater litigation and less collaboration is a load of manure. As I understand it, most states have a proscribed due process procedure which includes mediation before any court proceding can even be initiated. Statements like Negron’s seem designed to inflame the uninformed masses (those who do not have a viable stake in the issue beyond concern for how their school tax dollars are spent (”…on shameless litigation! Why Ma/Pa, that’s a sin what them parents are tryin’ ta do to are kids’ school, ain’t it?!”)
Glad to know the voice of reason prevailed in this case. In a serious vein, I do think this is a landmark decision b/c it makes it possible for families who cannot afford lawyers. I know in my own state (DE) there are an extremely small number of lawyers who will do this sort of work for non-paying or low-income families. BTW, that’s not strictly my perception. That is based on comments made at a recent Wrightslaw seminar by lawyers from my state! The ones that *will* do pro-bono or sliding scale are VERY FEW AND FAR BETWEEN…like maybe one or per county. (For a grand total of…THREE. Yes, THREE.)
Daisy
May 21, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Parents already shoulder the burden of proof if they bring the suit or the complaint — and what district is going to bring a suit accusing itself of wrongdoing?
To put it in kid language — get real.
Club 166
May 22, 2007 at 12:01 am
Parents not only shoulder the burden of proof, but also risk having to pay for the district/state lawyers if their suit is deemed “frivolous or without substantial merit”. So this decision gives a small, but necessary victory to all parents.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: