[blindlaw] FW: NCD Speaks Out on Supreme Court Winkleman v. Parma City School District Case

Mon Feb 26 11:11:59 CST 2007

  _____  

From: National Council on Disability News List
[mailto:NCD-NEWS-L at LISTSERV.ACCESS.GPO.GOV] On Behalf Of Mark Quigley
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 9:03 AM
To: NCD-NEWS-L at LISTSERV.ACCESS.GPO.GOV
Subject: NCD Speaks Out on Supreme Court Winkleman v. Parma City School
District Case

NEWS RELEASE 

NCD #07-531

February 26, 2007       

Contact: Mark S. Quigley

202-272-2004

202-272-2074 TTY

National Council on Disability Speaks Out on Supreme Court Winkleman v.
Parma City School District Case

WASHINGTON-National Council on Disability (NCD) chairperson John R.
Vaughn today released the following statement regarding the United
States Supreme Court oral argument, which will be heard on February 27,
on whether parents may, without a lawyer (pro se), file a lawsuit to
enforce their child's rights under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA). 

The case of Winkleman v. Parma City School District (No. 05-983)
addresses a split among circuit courts, one circuit deciding that there
are no limitations on the parents' ability to prosecute pro se an IDEA
case in federal court, several circuits ruling that under IDEA parents
can only represent pro se their own interests and not those of their
child, and the Sixth Circuit said in Winkleman that parents cannot
represent themselves or their kids in court under IDEA.

As an independent federal agency that is statutorily charged with the
responsibility of promoting disability laws and programs, NCD is
concerned about maintaining the ability of parents to obtain the rights
and benefits guaranteed to their children under IDEA. 

Jacob Winkleman is a student with autism whose parents disagreed with
the school district's individualized education program (IEP) for Jacob.
After administrative hearings affirmed the IEP, Jacob's parents chose to
place him in a private school at their own expense and petitioned a
federal district court for reimbursement. The district court denied
their request. At that point, the Winklemans had spent three years and
$30,000 in legal fees on a household income of less than $40,000 per
year. When the Winklemans appealed the federal district court decision,
they sought to argue the case themselves because they could no longer
afford legal representation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit dismissed the suit finding that IDEA does not expressly provide
for the right of a parent to represent the interests of his/her child in
federal court. The circuit court also ruled that non-lawyer parents
cannot represent themselves either, because IDEA provides for the rights
of the child, not the parents. Based on the circuit court holding, the
Cleveland Bar Association initiated an investigation into whether the
Winklemans engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in attempting to
pursue the matter in federal court. 

At stake is the extent of access to IDEA rights and protections for
seven million children and youth with disabilities. NCD affirms that in
the nearly three decades that NCD has monitored IDEA, it is clearly
established that parents are a main enforcement vehicle for ensuring
compliance with IDEA. The statutory scheme of IDEA makes parental
involvement and access to legal services integral to the protection of a
child's rights under IDEA. In conducting its series of evaluative
studies on education, NCD has consistently received reports from parents
about their inability to find or afford lawyers to assist them with
receiving the full benefits of IDEA for their children. NCD also has
found through its research that families with children with disabilities
are overrepresented among poor populations. NCD notes that there is a
severe shortage in Ohio of attorneys with expertise in IDEA, and that
the Ohio Legal Rights Service accepts a small percentage of requests by
families for legal representation. Thus, it is critical to maintain the
ability of parents like the Winklemans to pursue on their own legal
recourse if they disagree with administrative decisions regarding the
education of their child and cannot find or afford an attorney. NCD also
appreciates the position of the U.S. Solicitor on the matter, who has
submitted a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the Sixth
Circuit holding is "inconsistent with the plain language, structure, and
purposes of IDEA." 

NCD urges that the resolution of the Winkleman case give full effect to
the educational guarantees of IDEA by supporting the rights of parents
to pursue the interests of their children regardless of whether they
have a lawyer to assist them.

Recent NCD information regarding IDEA issues includes the following:
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Burden of Proof: On Parents
or Schools?
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2005/burdenofproof.htm; Lessons
for All of Us: Protecting the Right to Education for Persons with
Disabilities, http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2005/lessons.htm;
Improving Educational Outcomes for Students with Disabilities,
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2004/educationoutcomes.htm;
People with Disabilities and Postsecondary Education,
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/education.htm; People with
Disabilities on Tribal Lands: Education, Health Care, Vocational
Rehabilitation, and Independent Living,
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/tribal_lands.htm; School
Vouchers and Students with Disabilities,
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/vouchers.htm; Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act Reauthorization: Where Do We Really
Stand?
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2002/synthesis_07-05-02.htm;
and Back to School on Civil Rights,
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2000/backtoschool_1.htm 

For more information, contact Mark Quigley or Jeff Rosen at 202-272-2004
or 202-272-2074 TTY. 

# # #

Note: NCD is an independent federal agency making recommendations to the
President and Congress to enhance the quality of life for all Americans
with disabilities and their families.

Mark S. Quigley

Director of Communications

National Council on Disability

1331 F Street, NW Suite 850

Washington, DC 20004

-------------- next part --------------
@font-face { font-family: Shruti; } @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; } P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } LI.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } DIV.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A:visited { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } P.MsoAutoSig { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } LI.MsoAutoSig { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } DIV.MsoAutoSig { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } P { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto } SPAN.EmailStyle17 { COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-style-type: personal-compose } P.text { FONT-SIZE: 9pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; COLOR: black; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto } LI.text { FONT-SIZE: 9pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; COLOR: black; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto } DIV.text { FONT-SIZE: 9pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; COLOR: black; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto } P.boldtext { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; COLOR: #990000; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto } LI.boldtext { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; COLOR: #990000; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto } DIV.boldtext { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; COLOR: #990000; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 }

From:
National Council on Disability News List [mailto:NCD-NEWS-L at LISTSERV.ACCESS.GPO.GOV]
On Behalf Of
Mark Quigley
Sent:
Monday, February 26, 2007 9:03 AM
To:
NCD-NEWS-L at LISTSERV.ACCESS.GPO.GOV
Subject:
NCD Speaks Out on Supreme Court Winkleman v. Parma City School District Case
NEWS RELEASE
NCD #07&#8211;531
February 26, 2007      
Contact: Mark S. Quigley
202-272-2004
202-272-2074 TTY

National Council on Disability Speaks Out on Supreme Court
Winkleman v. Parma City School District
Case
WASHINGTON&#8212;National Council on Disability (NCD) chairperson John R. Vaughn today released the following statement regarding the United States Supreme Court oral argument, which will be heard on February 27, on whether parents may, without a lawyer (
pro se
), file a lawsuit to enforce their child&#8217;s rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
The case of
Winkleman v. Parma City School District
(No. 05-983) addresses a split among circuit courts, one circuit deciding that there are no limitations on the parents&#8217; ability to prosecute
pro se
an IDEA case in federal court, several circuits ruling that under IDEA parents can only represent
pro se
their own interests and not those of their child, and the Sixth Circuit said in
Winkleman
that parents cannot represent themselves or their kids in court under IDEA.
As an independent federal agency that is statutorily charged with the responsibility of promoting disability laws and programs, NCD is concerned about maintaining the ability of parents to obtain the rights and benefits guaranteed to their children under IDEA.
Jacob Winkleman is a student with autism whose parents disagreed with the school district&#8217;s individualized education program (IEP) for Jacob. After administrative hearings affirmed the IEP, Jacob&#8217;s parents chose to place him in a private school at their own expense and petitioned a federal district court for reimbursement. The district court denied their request. At that point, the Winklemans had spent three years and $30,000 in legal fees on a household income of less than $40,000 per year. When the Winklemans appealed the federal district court decision, they sought to argue the case themselves because they could no longer afford legal representation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed the suit finding that IDEA does not expressly provide for the right of a parent to represent the interests of his/her child in federal court. The circuit court also ruled that non-lawyer parents cannot represent themselves either, because IDEA provides for the rights of the child, not the parents. Based on the circuit court holding, the Cleveland Bar Association initiated an investigation into whether the Winklemans engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in attempting to pursue the matter in federal court.
At stake is the extent of access to IDEA rights and protections for seven million children and youth with disabilities. NCD affirms that in the nearly three decades that NCD has monitored IDEA, it is clearly established that parents are a main enforcement vehicle for ensuring compliance with IDEA. The statutory scheme of IDEA makes parental involvement and access to legal services integral to the protection of a child&#8217;s rights under IDEA. In conducting its series of evaluative studies on education, NCD has consistently received reports from parents about their inability to find or afford lawyers to assist them with receiving the full benefits of IDEA for their children. NCD also has found through its research that families with children with disabilities are overrepresented among poor populations. NCD notes that there is a severe shortage in Ohio of attorneys with expertise in IDEA, and that the Ohio Legal Rights Service accepts a small percentage of requests by families for legal representation. Thus, it is critical to maintain the ability of parents like the Winklemans to pursue on their own legal recourse if they disagree with administrative decisions regarding the education of their child and cannot find or afford an attorney. NCD also appreciates the position of the U.S. Solicitor on the matter, who has submitted a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the Sixth Circuit holding is &#8220;inconsistent with the plain language, structure, and purposes of IDEA.&#8221;
NCD urges that the resolution of the
Winkleman
case give full effect to the educational guarantees of IDEA by supporting the rights of parents to pursue the interests of their children regardless of whether they have a lawyer to assist them.
Recent NCD information regarding IDEA issues includes the following:
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Burden of Proof: On Parents or Schools?
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2005/burdenofproof.htm http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2005/burdenofproof.htm
;
Lessons for All of Us: Protecting the Right to Education for Persons with Disabilities
, http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2005/lessons.htm http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2005/lessons.htm
;
Improving Educational Outcomes for Students with Disabilities
, http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2004/educationoutcomes.htm http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2004/educationoutcomes.htm
;
People with Disabilities and Postsecondary Education
, http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/education.htm http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/education.htm
;
People with Disabilities on Tribal Lands: Education, Health Care, Vocational Rehabilitation, and Independent Living
, http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/tribal_lands.htm http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/tribal_lands.htm
;
School Vouchers and Students with Disabilities
, http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/vouchers.htm http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/vouchers.htm
;
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Reauthorization: Where Do We Really Stand?
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2002/synthesis_07-05-02.htm http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2002/synthesis_07-05-02.htm
; and
Back to School on Civil Rights
, http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2000/backtoschool_1.htm http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2000/backtoschool_1.htm
For more information, contact Mark Quigley or Jeff Rosen at 202-272-2004 or 202-272-2074 TTY.
# # #
Note: NCD is an independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families.

Mark S. Quigley
Director of Communications
National Council on Disability
1331 F Street, NW Suite 850
Washington, DC 20004