Winklemans’ day in court
By jmittler on Mar. 1, 2007.
The New York Times reports the hearing before the Supreme Court yesterday about the rights of parents to represent their child in a Federal Court. While it may have little to do with the actual education of any child, I always find it fascinating when our nice, tightly defined special education system, for which most folks outside of those involved don’t give a hill of beans, actually impacts the great big world out there. So it is with this case with the following issues reported in the article:
1) Does IDEA refer only to the child or to his family as well. Specifically, the lawyers argued, the law is about children, but gives particular rights to parents (due process). One argument being made is that since the law only provides those parental rights, the parents are not the focus (sorry, this is a poor term in this legal dispute) of the law. One argument continues that if the child is only the protected individual under the law, only the child can represent himself (or herself) and the parents cannot serve in that capacity. So, does IDEA protect only children or does it apply to their families (beyond the specific due process rights)?
2) Should anyone be permitted to represent themselves in a court? I smiled at the argument that only lawyers can appear before the courts as they and only they can prevent frivolous lawsuits. I wonder if these same attorneys defend the rights of home schoolers to be educated without a teacher. Bar Associations are considering bringing charges of “unauthorized practice of law” against these parents who could not afford to hire an attorney to represent them. Should teacher unions bring charges of “unauthorized practice of teaching” against home schooling parents? (Or perhaps they should bring those same charges against some of their own members?)
If interested, I’m sure the story is covered in your local paper or in the
Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/washington/28scotus.html?_r=1
2 Responses to “Winklemans’ day in court”
I was there for the oral arguments yesterday. I was very impressed by the level of detail of questions by Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, and Breyer. They were clearly briefed very well.
It was interesting to watch Roberts/Scalia and Alito (to a much lesser extent) really give very hard questions to the attorney for the parents. When the district presented their case to then watch Ginsburg/Breyer/Souter and a little of Kennedy to give hard questions to him. Verbal jousting at it’s best.
Additionally, it was announced that they will hear another tuition reimbursement case. In a summary from scotusblog.com:
The Court indicated it will decide whether parents of a disabled child are entitled, under federal law, to reimbursement of private school tuition if the child had not previously received any special education from the public schools system or other government agencies. The issue arises in Board of Education of New York City v. Tom F., et al. (06-637). The child involved in the case had attended private school throughout his childhood, at a school that does not have an approved special education program. The boy’s parents refused to have him placed in a public school program, kept him in private school, and obtained tuition reimbursement. The city school system lost in an appeal to the Second Circuit.
By David Bateman on Mar 1, 2007
Here are a few links for additional information about Winkelman v. Parma City School Distr.
By JohnL on Mar 1, 2007