The U.S. Supreme Court and Parental Rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Abstract

President Gerald Ford signed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) into law in 1975. Since the original passage of the EAHCA, the law has been amended four times and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (See Figure 1). After each revision, the U.S. Department of Education has issued new regulations implementing the Act (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300 et seq). The current IDEA, as amended, is codified in Title 20 of the United States Code (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § § 1400 et seq.). When the EAHCA was being written, the law's authors recognized the importance of parents being involved in the development of their child's program of special education. In fact, parental involvement has been one of the cornerstones of the law (Yell, Ryan, Rozalski & Katsiyannis, 2009). In 2004 Congress emphasized the necessity of meaningful parental involvement in the IDEA's findings and purpose section: Almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by-strengthening the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring that families of such children have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at school and at home. (IDEA 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (c)(S)(B)) Congress believed that access to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for students with disabilities in part depended on their parents' ability to advocate on their child's behalf. One purpose of the EAHCA, therefore, was to create specific procedural safeguards for parents to ensure that their children would receive a FAPE (Meade & Paige, 2008). See Table 3 for a list of these safeguards. CLAIMS UNDER IDEA AND THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM Federal law provides that federal courts have jurisdiction for civil claims arising under the laws of the United States (28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2006)). Thus, the federal courts have jurisdiction over claims under IDEA. IDEA allows an aggrieved party, after exhausting his or her remedies under the Act, to file a claim in state court or a federal district court

Who Is the Parent?

“…Recent case law has also underscored the importance of parental participation (see Conroy, Yell, Katsiyannis, & Collins, 2010;Yell, Katsiyannis, & Losinski, 2013…”

“…Recent case law has also underscored the importance of parental participation (see Conroy, Yell, Katsiyannis, & Collins, 2010; Yell, Katsiyannis, & Losinski, 2013). For example, in Doug C. v. Hawaii Department of Education (2013), the 9th Circuit Court found that IDEA-mandated timelines for individualized education program (IEP) revisions or reevaluations are considered secondary in importance to having parents in attendance and that the IEP meeting should have been rescheduled unless the parent refused to attend (see also 34 C.F.R.…”

Autism litigation: Outcomes for 2010, trends in decision making and changes in diagnostic criteria

“…President Gerald Ford signed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in 1975, and it has been amended four times over 29 years. It was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) in 2004 (Conroy, Yell, Katsiyannis, & Collins, 2010) (Table 1). As a federal law, the federal courts have jurisdiction for IDEA claims once exhaustion of other remedies has failed.…”

“…Interpretation of federal law through the hearing of cases by the Supreme Court sets precedents when conflicts exist in interpretation of the law. This is according to stare decisis, or common law doctrine (Conroy et al, 2010). In 2010, one case regarding autism and IDEIA was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States but the writ of certiorari was denied.…”