Post by KC on Jan 13, 2006 20:45:46 GMT -5
12/28/2005 - A federal appeals court probably had every good intention when it held that an Ohio couple must have an attorney representing them if they intend to press on with a legal appeal regarding the education their autistic child is receiving.
But the case may provide yet another example of how good intention, even a proper ruling in a particular case, can hold unintended and unfortunate consequences for others.
Federal civil rights law governing appropriate public education for children with disabilities has been a godsend for those children and their families, if not school districts, in all cases.
Jeff and Sandee Winkelman say they have spent about $30,000 in legal fees since first contesting their son's education treatment in 2003.
They say the Parma, Ohio, school district does not have an adequate plan for dealing with the 6-year-old's behavioral problems stemming from his autism and want the district to pay the $56,000 annual enrollment cost to place the child in a school that specializes in autistic children.
The school district says the child will benefit from mainstreaming in local classrooms and that the Winkelmans have been persistent but unsuccessful in their ongoing legal claims.
The 6U.S. Court of Appeals says that because the Winkelmans will be representing their child and not themselves, they must have an attorney to continue arguing their case.
A lot of school districts no doubt are saddled with parents like the Winkelmans who simply don't know when to call it quits, or how to compromise.
But to suggest that parents of disabled children cannot legally challenge local school officials absent legal counsel is handing a huge advantage to school districts which have deeper pockets to pay counsel, courtesy of taxpayers. Instead of advancing the interests of those children, in practice it is more apt to prove a setback to their education interests.
This case merits added cautious judicial review.