Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether parents can represent their child in court under IDEA
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether parents who are not lawyers have a right to represent their child with disabilities, or themselves, in federal court under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The case is Winkelman v. Parma City School District, Docket No. 05-983, and stems from a lawsuit by Jeff and Sandee Winkelman, Ohio parents who challenged the appropriateness of a school’s educational plan for their autistic son, Jacob. After several administrative hearings at which the Winkelmans represented their son, they sued the Parma school district in U.S district court, challenging the hearing officers’ decisions that the district had provided their son a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) as required by IDEA. The district court ruled in favor of the school system. The family appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the parents could not proceed in that court without a lawyer.
The parents appealed to the Supreme Court, and in May the justices asked the Bush administration to weigh in. U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement filed a brief supporting resolution of the conflict by the Court and suggesting that the Sixth Circuit holding is "inconsistent with the plain language, structure, and purposes of IDEA." The Supreme Court has not addressed whether parents are entitled to sue on their own behalf under IDEA or whether their right to file an IDEA lawsuit derives from their child’s rights under the law, according to the brief. The latter issue is key, Mr. Clement argued, because a nonlawyer parent can only represent himself or herself and not the child. The school district’s brief, on the other hand, argued that IDEA allows parents to represent their children in state administrative proceedings under the federal law, but not in federal court proceedings. At stake, the district argues, is the quality of representation of the child, because "minor children with disabilities cannot make an informed choice to assume the risk of proceeding without counsel." While the Sixth Circuit held that nonlawyer parents may not press an IDEA case in federal court under any circumstance, another federal appeals court has ruled that nonlawyer parents are not limited at all. Four other appeals courts have held that such parents need a lawyer to press a child’s substantive claims under the IDEA, but not the parents’ procedural claims.
Education Week
By Andrew Trotter
[Full story]
[Editor’s Note: The Sixth Circuit’s ruling was based on its earlier decision on the same question in Cavanaugh v. Cardinal Local School District, 409 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2005). The conflicting appeals court decision mentioned is the First Circuit’s ruling in Maroni v. Pemi-Baker School District, 346 F.3d 247 (1st Cir. 2003). All three of these decisions are summarized at the links below. The briefs submitted on the Winkelmans’ petition for certiorari are available at the Scotusblog link.]
[NSBA School Law pages on Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist.]
[NSBA School Law pages on Cavanaugh v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist.]
[NSBA School Law pages on Maroni v. Pemi-Baker Regional Sch. Dist.]
[Scotusblog on petition briefs]