Legal Rights of Children with Epilepsy in School & Child Care

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Dispute Resolution and Legal Remedies Lester H. v. Gilhool, 916 F.2d 865 (3 rd Cir. 1990), cert denied 499 U.S. 923 (3 rd Cir. 1991) The IDEA requires exhaustion of administrative relief unless recourse to the administrative process would be futile or inadequate, such as when the relief sought is not available under the IDEA. In this case, exhaustion would have been futile because the issues involved were purely legal, the record was fully developed, and the administrative process was powerless to address the issue of whether compensatory education was appropriate. M.M. v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Co., 303 F.3d 523, 536 (4 th Cir. 2002) Parents must exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA. There are three exceptions to the exhaustion rule: 1) Exhaustion would be futile 2) The school board failed to give parents proper notice of their administrative rights 3) Administrative exhaustion would have worked severe harm upon a child with disabilities Pace v. Bogalusa City School Board, 325 F.3d 609, 622, fn. 20 (5 th Cir. 2003) Although IDEA plaintiffs may bring claims under other statutes, such as the ADA, they must first exhaust administrative remedies if they are seeking relief that is available under the IDEA. Gardner v. School Board of Caddo Parish, 958 F.2d 108 (5 th Cir. 1992) Plaintiffs must exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing suit in federal court under the IDEA unless exhaustion would be futile. The plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating futility. Crocker v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 873 F.2d 933, 935-37 (6 th Cir. 1989) (Crocker I) Plaintiffs must exhaust their administrative remedies before bringing a civil action to enforce their rights under the IDEA. Exhaustion is not required if the plaintiffs were not given full notice of their procedural rights under the IDEA. The party seeking to avoid the administrative procedures bears the burden of demonstrating that exhaustion would be futile. This holding was also adopted by the court in Covington v. Knox County School System, 205 F.3d 912, 917 (6 th Cir. 2000). See also: Doe v. Smith, 879 F.2d 1340, 1343- 33 (6 th Cir. 1989), cert denied 493 U.S. 1025 (1990) (plaintiffs must exhaust administrative remedies before bringing suit in federal court to obtain relief that is also available under the IDEA) 127
Legal Rights of Children with Epilepsy in School and Child Care C.T. v. Necedah Area School District, 39 Fed. Appx. 420 (7 th Cir. 2002) Judicial review is generally unavailable under the IDEA unless all administrative procedures have been exhausted. The IDEA’s exhaustion requirement serves several policy objectives. First, it permits deference to the education agency’s expertise in resolving education matters. Second, it gives the agency an initial opportunity to correct mistakes. Third, it gives courts a more fully developed record, often involving technical issues. Finally, it prevents parties from deliberately disregarding the IDEA’s comprehensive procedures and remedies. Charlie F. v. Bd. of Educ., 98 F.3d 989, 992-93 (7 th Cir. 1996) If relief is available in principle under the IDEA, parties must exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA even if they invoke different statues or seek monetary damages which are unavailable under the IDEA. M.P. v. Independent School District No. 721, 326 F.3d 975, 980 (8 th Cir. 2003) Exhaustion is required unless it would be futile or inadequate. Exhaustion is the general rule, regardless of whether the administrative process offers the particular type of relief being sought. See also: M.P. v. Independent School District No. 721, 439 F.3d 865 (8 th Cir. 2006) (M.P. II) (parents could proceed with Section 504 claim even though they did not exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA. Section 504 is a proscriptive, antidiscrimination statute with different remedies from those under the IDEA). Porter v. Board of Trustees of Manhattan Beach Unified School District, 307 F.3d 1064 (9 th Cir. 2002), cert denied 537 U.S. 1194 (2003) Plaintiffs must usually exhaust due process hearing procedures prior to bringing suit under the IDEA or other federal laws when relief is available under the IDEA. However, the exhaustion requirement is not rigid, and there are exceptions when exhaustion would be futile or inadequate. The IDEA did not intend that plaintiffs exhaust both the IDEA’s due process hearing procedures and the complaint resolution process prior to initiating court action. Rather, in some instances, the complaint resolution process may be a substitute for a due process hearing. See also: Hoeft v. Tucson Unified School District, 967 F.2d 1298 (9 th Cir. 1992) (exhaustion will be excused when questions of law are involved in determining the validity of a policy; the question is whether the administrative process is adequately equipped to address and resolve the issues presented). Padilla v. School District No. 1, City and County of Denver, Colorado, 233 F.3d 1268 (10 th Cir. 2000) Plaintiffs must exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA before bringing suit pursuant to the ADA when seeking relief that is available under the IDEA. 128
Page 1 and 2:
AN ADVOCATE’S MANUAL AN ADVOCATE
Page 3 and 4:
User is hereby granted permission t
Page 5 and 6:
CHAPTER TWO What Laws Apply to Chil
Page 7 and 8:
Case Scenarios ....................
Page 9 and 10:
4.35Q: What happens if a parent dis
Page 11 and 12:
5.20Q: 5.21Q: 5.22Q: Does a school
Page 13 and 14:
Case Scenarios ....................
Page 15 and 16:
8.20Q: May a party appeal a due pro
Page 17 and 18:
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Leslie Seid Margol
Page 19 and 20:
Legal Rights of Children with Epile
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
CHAPTER TWO What Laws Apply to Chil
Page 33 and 34:
What Laws Apply to Children with Ep
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94: Legal Rights of Children with Epile
Page 101 and 102: CHAPTER SIX Special Education and S
Page 103 and 104: Special Education and Students with
Page 143: Legal Rights of Children with Epile
Page 148: APPENDIX A: CHILD CARE SEIZURE DISO
Page 151 and 152: Activity Restrictions _____________
Page 153 and 154: The following form is to be complet
Page 156 and 157: 8301 Professional Place, Landover,
Page 158 and 159: Myoclonic seizures: Seizures in whi
Page 160 and 161: (Student’s name) needs assistance
Page 162 and 163: 7. FIELD TRIPS AND EXTRACURRICULAR
Page 164: APPENDIX C: SCHOOL SEIZURE ACTION P
Page 167 and 168: Seizure Observation Record Student
Page 170 and 171: SAMPLE COMMUNICATION FORM FOR STUDE
Page 172 and 173: SAMPLE COMMUNICATION FORM FOR STUDE
Page 174: APPENDIX E: SELECTED STATE LAWS ON
Page 177 and 178: Selected State Laws on School Medic
show all

Legal Rights of Children with Epilepsy in School & Child Care

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?