The plaintiff, Ruffin, originally sued HISD in 2008 for failing to provide adequate educational assistance as outlined in the individualized education plan (IEP) for the child “L.F.” The result of that hearing was in favor of HISD, thus extinguishing the change of placement, private tutoring, and counseling. In this request for a new trial, Ruffin alleges that the hearing officer in the 2008 suit was engaged in a relationship with HISD’s counsel, stating that the relationship somehow influenced the original decision. Ruffin alleges that the IEP in the 2007 school year was insufficient and that the child should have an extended school year (ESY). However, thenr Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) team meeting determined the child would not
General education high school teacher, Michael Withers, failed to comply with his student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP). D.D. Doe’s IEP required tests to be read orally. Despite knowledge of this IEP and being instructed to follow the IEP by the superintendent, school principal, special education director, and special education teacher, Withers still refused to make the accommodations for D.D.’s handicapping condition. As a result, D.D. failed the history class. His parents filed charges against Withers, arguing that D.D was not afforded the right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) promised to all students by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). They also filed a claim for injuctive relief against the Taylor County Board of Education to enforce the laws that protect handicapped students.
The Gaskin Settlement Agreement is an agreement between a group of families and advocacy organizations who filed a class action lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) on behalf of a group of children with disabilities in 1994. This agreement does not change a student’s placement, program, or IEP in any manner. Only the IEP team has the authority to make modifications that will impact a student’s IEP. The main goal of this settlement is to make sure that IEP teams will determine if the goals in a student’s IEP may be implemented in a general education setting with supplementary aids and services prior to considering an environment that is more restrictive in nature. The elements of this case were designed to help increase the capacity of school districts to provide related services, SDI that is appropriate, supplementary aids and services, and supports to students who have disabilities that are placed in general education classrooms. The PDE lists many important elements of the Settlement Agreement to be aware of...
In 1974, Brooker T. Hillery Jr., John Larry Spain, Bobby Bly, and Michael Shane Guile, four Californian prison inmates, and Eve Pell, Betty Segal, and Paul Jacobs, three journalists, filed a lawsuit against Raymond K. Procunier, the Director of the California Department of Corrections. The suit was filed in regards to the constitutionality of the California Department of Corrections Manual Regulation 415.071. The manual regulated that the press and media could not specify particular inmates to be interviewed. However, the regulation did allow random inmates to be interviewed by the media. This regulation was passed following a brutal prison incident that officers believed was the result of allowing specified prisoner and press interviews. The
Robert Duffley, a high school senior at Trinity High School, had withdrawn from his sophomore year early in the first semester after falling ill. Anticipating problems with his eligibility to participate in high-school sports during his senior year under certain NHIAA rules, Duffley’s principal sought a ruling from the NHIAA granting such eligibility. The NHIAA decided to allow Duffley to participate only during the first semester of his senior year. No reason was given for denying Duffley eligibility for the second semester. After unsuccessful appeals to the NHIAA executive council, Duffley filed a petition in the Superior Court, seeking equitable and injunctive relief. Duffley alleged "violation of his due process rights” and that the defendant had acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in arriving at its decision, which was “unreasonable and unlawful."
The areas in which these reforms should occur are twofold. One argument that Judge Ross raises repeatedly is that measures should be taken to insure the sustainability of Family Court employees through more manageable caseloads. The necessity of this change is evident in countless examples of children suffering as a result of constantly changing, thin-spread, staff. In one particular instance, a six month child abuse case is adjourned because they “don’t have the medical records” in time (128). The second argument that can be implicitly made based off of Judge Ross’s expressed frustrations is that, if given the proper time for consideration, there should be more room for consideration of circumstance in Family Court. From a legal standpoint, there is substantial evidence for the validity of a common law approach to Family Court over the traditional civil law. Judge Ross establishes that ideally “In each case to protect children, to assure due process, to remain neutral until the facts are established, to apply common sense and sound judgment within the framework of the law in making decisions—the Family Court judge’s charge lies quite outside the arena of public policy, comment, and debate” (104). However, as seen in many of his cases, the combination of the overflowing workload and an inability to apply proper consideration to any given circumstance makes it impossible for the pre-existing
Abington v. Schempp was an important case regarding the establishment of religion in American schools. Until the late twentieth century, most children were sent to schools which had some sort of religious instruction in their day. The schools taught the morals, values, and beliefs of Christianity in addition to their everyday curriculum. However, as some people began to drift away from Christianity, parents believed this was not fair to the kids and justifiable by the government. They thought public schools should not be affiliated with religion to ensure the freedom of all of the families who send students there. Such is the situation with the 1963 Supreme Court case Abington v. Schempp.
2.Facts: This case was originally presented before the district court of Colorado in 1993 on behalf of the parents of Gregory Urban, a seventeen-year-old teen with severe mental disabilities. Gregory and his parents moved to Evergreen, Colorado in 1991. The parents wanted Gregory to go to Evergreen High School but the school district placed him at Golden High School where he participated in support services for children with severe disabilities. The support services at Golden High School were not available at Evergreen High. After the development of Gregory’s IEP his parents voiced objections to what they believed constituted violations of Gregory’s right to a free and appropriate public education. These violations included placement of Gregory outside his neighborhood school and failure to stipulate transition services in his IEP. After initially participating in the IDEA administrative process the parents filed a case with the district court claiming the school district violated Gregory’s rights under IDEA and ADA. The court ruled in favor of the school district by rejecting
Petitioner, Kaitlyn M. (“Kaitlyn”) is a twelve-year-old student in the 6th grade. Kaitlyn resides with her maternal grandmother, Lydia Delacroix within the jurisdictional boundaries of Beaumont Independent School District (“BISD”). District records indicate that Kaitlyn has lived with her grandmother since infancy. Ms. Delacroix advised the District that Kaitlyn has a medical diagnosis of ADHD, asthma, and allergies. Ms. Delacroix has indicated that Kaitlyn’s was diagnosed with ADHD in first grade while attending elementary school in Vidor. Ms. Delacroix notified the BISD that Kaitlyn’s physician prescribed approximately five different medications for ADHD which were discontinued by Ms. Delacroix because she did not see positive results. Kaitlyn
Two case rulings have helped fuel the incarceration rate among African Americans, Terry v. Ohio and Whren v. United States. The Terry v. Ohio case in 1968 presents serious questions regarding the role of the Fourth Amendment in the confrontation between citizens and the police officers when investigating suspicious circumstances on the street. The Supreme Court ruled that the practice of stopping and searching a citizen without a warrant or probable cause based on a reasonable suspicion that they are involved in criminal activity was authorized. This practice is known as the Terry Stop and is a nationwide police practice that has caused numerous legal problems for police departments and young Black citizens. Continuing with the trend of African
By the second half of the 20th century, as more federal laws protected against gender discrimination and the national zeitgeist turned more towards gender equality in the public sphere, decisions in landmark Supreme Court cases began striking down more statutes that were discriminatory based on gender. However, for a while the Court refused to place a higher level of scrutiny on claims of gender discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. In 1971, the Supreme Court examined a challenge to the Idaho Probate Code that preferred males over females in all probate battles in the case of Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971). After their adopted son passed away, Sally and Cecil Reed both sought to be named the administrator of their son’s estate. However, as previously stated, the
As humans, we have pointless arguments over things that do not matter. For example: currently, many people all over the world are arguing over whether or not water is wet. No one really cares about the true answer. It is just something to talk about. Well, meaningless arguments have always been a thing to do, but no one ever expected anything like a friendly argument to go to the Supreme Court. In 1893, a case made it all the way to the Supreme Court which argued over whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable (Caitlin Dewey, The Washington Post.com). Personally, I have always considered a tomato a vegetable, but technically the seeds are enclosed inside of the plant so would that make it a fruit?
In this case, the IEP requirements of the child Frank Evans were not met by the school and the district. The reading and the facts provided in the case show that the district did not have any IEP for the child prepared at the beginning of the school session (Wrightslaw - Caselaw - Evans v. Rhinebeck (S.D. NY 1996), n.d.). The IDEA states that the IEP has to be prepared in a meeting where the child’s parents, a qualified spokesperson from the concerned school, the child’s teacher and when possible the child himself. With the consensus of the people mentioned here a detailed document about the assessment of the child’s educational needs and an action plan to meet the same is devised. Frank Evans was within his legal rights under IDEA to have an IEP for himself which was not provided and hence severely undermined the child’s performance levels in the school (FindLaw's the United States Supreme Court case and opinions,
We had this morning Jonathan’s IEP and his dad was supposed to attend the meeting, but he did not showed up, due to being sick. The developmental preschool teacher called Jonathan’s parents and they will be signing the IEP tomorrow. Anyway, the IEP was discussed and concerns came up about Jonathan’s learning disabilities and services that he qualifies for special education. the Special Education team mentioned that he could be under the spectrum of autism, although, it is not stated on his medical history or have been diagnosed by any physician. But he shows many of the symptoms. He will be attending developmental preschool as soon as the paper work is sign.
A resolution meeting can help provide an opportunity to the parents to discuss their due process complaint. The next step is to meet the special education administrator or the principal at the school. The different local school districts have a different dispute resolution mechanism. The South Carolina Public Charter School District is responsible for conducting the impartial due process hearing utilizing a hearing officer trained by the South Carolina Department of Education and appointed by the South Carolina Public Charter School District. A facilitated IEP meeting can also be requested. This IEP facilitator will ensure that the IEP is doing their best thinking, interacts with all in a respectful manner, and hears the perspectives of all participants (South Carolina Department of Education,
Entrance of a child into special education services can come through referrals made by many different sources. It is a long and tedious process that helps make sure each child is receiving the services he or she needs. This plan is called an IEP(Individualized Education Program). This process and plan gives adage to the old saying, “It takes a village to raise a child.”