Winkelman+v.+Parma+City+School+District

[|Case]|| 7 votes for Winkelman, 2 vote(s) against || The disagreement at the center of the current disputeconcerns the procedures to be followed when parents and their child, dissatisfied with the outcome of the due process hearing, seek further review in a United States District Court. The school district proposed an IEP for the 2003–2004school year that would have placed Jacob at a public elementary school. Regarding this IEP as deficient under IDEA, Jacob’s nonlawyer parents availed themselves ofthe administrative review provided by IDEA. They filed a complaint alleging respondent had failed to provide Jacobwith a free appropriate public education; they appealed the hearing officer’s rejection of the claims in this complaint to a state-level review officer; and after losing thatappeal they filed, on their own behalf and on behalf of Jacob, a complaint in the United States District Court forthe Northern District of Ohio.The District Court granted respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding it had provided Jacobwith a free appropriate public education. Petitioners, proceeding without counsel, filed an appeal with the Courtof Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Relying on its recentdecision in Cavanaugh v. Cardinal Local School Dist ., 409 F. 3d 753 (2005), the Court of Appeals entered an orderdismissing the Winkelmans’ appeal unless they obtained counsel to represent Jacob. || Landmark Cases [|case] ||
 * Case || Winkelman V. Parma City School District ||
 * Date || 2007 ||
 * Citation || 20 U.S.C. 1400 ||
 * Outcome || The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit by a 7-2 vote, ruling that "[p]arents enjoy rights under IDEA; and they are, as a result, entitled to prosecute IDEA claims on their own behalf
 * Story || Jacob has autism spectrum disorder and is covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Act or IDEA), His parents worked with the school district to develop an individualized education program (IEP), as required by the Act. All concede that Jacob’s parents had the statutory right to contribute tothis process and, when agreement could not be reached, toparticipate in administrative proceedings including whatthe Act refers to as an "impartial due process hearing."
 * Link(s) || [|St][|Story][|ory]