Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Winkelman v. Parma City School District

On Feb. 27, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Winkelman v. Parma City School District, Docket No. 05-983, a case examining to what extent, if any, a non-lawyer parent of a minor child with a disability may represent his or her child pro se, without an attorney, in a federal court action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The issue has led to a three-way split among the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. While the First Circuit has ruled there are no limitations on the parents’ ability to act on their kids or their own behalf in court under IDEA, the Second, Third, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits have ruled that parents can only prosecute on their own behalf. The Sixth Circuit has said parents cannot represent themselves or their kids in court. In Winkelman, the Sixth Circuit granted the school district’s motion to dismiss the parents’ appeal because they were prosecuting the appeal pro se without a lawyer. The court relied on its prior decision in Cavanaugh v. Cardinal Local School District, in which it held that non-lawyer parents of special education students might not represent their children in an IDEA suit and also rejected the argument that IDEA grants parents a cognizable legal right of their own to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for their child, in addition to the child's own legal right.

According to Christina Henagen Peer, attorney for the Parma City School District, the Winkelmans’ case is crucial for both disabled kids and school districts, because of the number of parents and schools affected by the court’s decision. She argues that it is crucial for disabled students to be represented an attorney. "By the time the case gets to court, if the parents don’t have a lawyer representing the kid, they can jeopardize the legal rights of their kid," she says. But Ilise L. Feitshan, attorney for two individuals who filed an amicus brief in the case, says that the case was very different from custody dispute of a child where a child needed an attorney to make an independent decision. In an IDEA case, both parents are on the same side as the child and should be allowed to represent their kid, she says. Ms. Peer counters that, "My biggest fear is that non-lawyer parents aren’t well versed enough in law." She adds that parents, who cannot afford legal fees, can seek the assistance of legal aids free of charge. She also says that in many states such as Ohio, there are organizations that provide free legal services to parents of disabled students.

Medill School of Journalism News Service
By Moushumi Anand
[Full story]

[Editor’s Note: NSBA, along with the American Association of School Administrators, the Ohio School Boards Association (OSBA), the Buckeye Association of School Administrators, the Ohio Association of School Business Officials, and the Greater Cleveland School Superintendents’ Association, has filed an amicus brief, below, in support of the school district. Lead writers on the brief were COSA members Julie Carleton Martin and Kate V. Davis of Scott, Scriven & Wahoff LLP in Columbus, Ohio, whose services were provided courtesy of OSBA. Background on the case, including the Legal Clips summary of the Sixth Circuit decision, is available starting at the second link.]
[NSBA et al. brief in Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist.]
[NSBA School Law pages on Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist.]