Legal Rights of Children with Epilepsy in School & Child Care

Legal Rights of Children with Epilepsy in School and Child Care
3.8Q:
May child care providers charge parents of a child with epilepsy for the cost
of needed accommodations?
A: Parents of children with disabilities may not be charged for services that are
required by the ADA or Section 504. However, if a child care provider chooses
to provide additional services beyond what the law requires, the provider may
charge families for those services. For example, if a student with epilepsy needs
routine administration of medication, the child care center cannot charge parents
for that service. However, if the child were to need a medical service that did not
need to occur at child care, e.g., periodic resetting of a vagus nerve stimulator,
and the child care provider chose to contract for the provision of that service, the
provider could charge the family for that service because the provider is not
legally required to provide it.
3.9Q:
May a child receive early intervention services at a child care site?
A: Yes. Children should receive early intervention services in the “natural
environment.” Infants and toddlers usually spend their time at home or at child
care, rather than at separate special education schools, where early intervention
services are often provided. Although special education schools provide such
services, because early intervention services can be most effective in a child’s
natural environment, it actually makes greater sense to put early intervention
services into place in child care settings.
Case Scenarios
Case Scenario 1 — Discrimination on the Basis of Epilepsy
Billy is a two-year-old child with epilepsy. He typically has several seizures a week. His
parents attempt to enroll him in Garden of Love, a home-based child care program. The
owner, Mrs. Love, rejects Billy, telling his parents that she does not know anything about
epilepsy. Billy’s parents offer to connect Mrs. Love with training resources about
epilepsy and support from organizations that assist providers who care for children with
disabilities, but she still refuses to accept Billy into her care, saying that she does not
want to take care of a “child like that who has fits” and that his parents must have
“committed a terrible sin to have a child like him.” Billy’s parents contact an attorney for
assistance.
Discussion and Possible Advocacy Strategy: Mrs. Love’s rejection of Billy is clearly
discriminatory. Section 504 applies if Mrs. Love receives any federal funding (e.g.,
money for milk or food, or funding from any other federal programs). This is unlikely but
possible. More likely is that Mrs. Love is subject only to Title III of the ADA. She has
made a decision based on misperceptions, stereotypes and ignorance about Billy’s
disability. Billy’s parents face a dilemma: On the one hand, this encounter was appalling,
and they want to seek legal redress because Mrs. Love should be held accountable for her
32