SUPREME COURT SUPPORTS PARENTS' RIGHTS TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES IN IDEA CASES IN COURT

The Supreme Court decision in Winkelman came down on 5/21/07, favoring that parents have the right to proceed pro se in all IDEA cases (both substantive and procedural). Congratulations to the Winkelman family for prevailing and establishing that parents nationwide may represent themselves pro se in court in an IDEA case of any kind. This is a significant victory for parents in many circuits who found the courthouse door barred unless they had a lawyer or presented only a claim on a narrow set of procedural rights. Read the Brief. Yet, the victory remains bittersweet as many parents still cannot afford attorneys and cannot afford due process because they are unable to pay for the expert witnesses needed to bear their burden of proof.

The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates led a group of 11 advocacy organizations in filing an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in Winkelman v. Parma City School District on December 15, 2006. COPAA's brief urges the Supreme Court to hold that parents may represent themselves pro se in court actions to enforce their IDEA rights and protect their children's access to a Free Appropriate Public Education.

A team of Baker & McKenzie lawyers wrote the brief as pro bono counsel. They were assisted by volunteers on COPAA's amicus curiae committee. COPAA is grateful for their work.

When pro se parents are unable to file challenges in court to adverse administrative decisions, the rights granted through the IDEA are rendered empty and meaningless except for parents who can afford legal counsel. Access to justice cannot depend on the ability to pay for a lawyer or find a lawyer.

Many parents are forced to proceed pro se because they have no money or have run out of money during the litigation and are unable to pay for a lawyer. Importantly, approximately 36% of children with disabilities live in families that earn less than $25,000 a year; over 2/3 earn less than $50,000 a year.

The text and purposes of the IDEA demonstrate that Congress intended to bestow IDEA rights on both parents and children. COPAA agrees with Petitioners and the Solicitor General that IDEA's clear statutory language established that parents possess all procedural and substantive rights granted under the IDEA. Consequently, parents are entitled to proceed pro se to enforce their own rights.

Parental advocacy is essential to under-resourced parents, for whom the IDEA is the only tool available to ensure their children receive FAPE. The IDEA was not intended to deny children FAPE or other IDEA rights because of the shortage of qualified lawyers willing and able to accept unprofitable IDEA cases. Congress included parents in every critical point of the statutory scheme. To do otherwise would unnaturally dismantle rights which are inherently married and interdependent.

Congress intended that courts be the final arbiters of IDEA claims. Barring parents from bringing their own pro se cases will deny those parents access to federal court on their claims, and effectively make due process hearing officer decisions final.

Moreover, school districts could simply up-end due process decisions in favor of parents by filing actions in federal court. Parents unable to find or afford lawyers would be forced to accept default judgments in favor of the school districts. This is fundamentally unfair.

Signing onto COPAA's brief were the Arc of the United States, TASH, National Down Syndrome Congress, Public Counsel, The Rocky Mountain Children's Law Center, The Support Center for Child Advocates, Children's Law Center of Minnesota, The Northwestern University School of Law's Bluhm Legal Clinic, The Children's Law Center Of Massachusetts, and the Oklahoma Lawyers for Children.

How to Obtain COPAA's Amicus Brief

COPAA's amicus curiae brief on the merits in Winkelman v. Parma City School District is available here (PDF, 30 pages, 1.3MB).

Other Briefs

The brief of the Petitioners, the Winkelman family is available here (PDF, 85 pages, 384KB). The petitioners brief explains why parents are the real parties in interest and entitled to bring IDEA cases in court, and how IDEA 2004’s statutory language clearly supports that right. There were four amicus briefs in addition to COPAA’s amicus brief (PDF, 30 pages, 1.3MB). Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Dodd, and Feingold and Representatives Miller, Markey, Owens, Woolsey, Davis, Holt, and Kucinich filed an amicus brief. The Congressional amicus (PDF, 38 pages, 1.9MB) cogently demonstrates that IDEA’s plain language and legislative history support the rights of parents to represent themselves. The Solicitor General of the United States also filed a brief (PDF, 37 pages, 148KB), arguing that the right of parents to support themselves is made clear by both the statutory language and the intertwining of procedural and substantive rights under the IDEA.

In addition, the Equal Justice Foundation and others filed a brief (PDF, 20 pages, 172KB), the Ohio Coalition for Children with Disabilities and Autism Society of Ohio filed a brief (PDF, 32 pages, 96KB), and the Autism Society of America and others filed a brief.

*PDFs require Acrobat Reader for viewing. If you don't have Acrobat Reader installed on your computer, you can download a copy for free.)