Source: https://telioslaw.com/blog/iv-special-education-and-child-welfare
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:34:13+00:00

Document:
Written by Theresa Sidebotham on March 15, 2012 at 1:30 a.m.
Potential special education or disability issues should be considered both during dependency or neglect proceedings and in foster care to ensure the child has access to appropriate services.
The question of whether special education law and principles are relevant for a particular child should be considered at various points in the course of dependency or neglect proceedings, especially in determining the child’s needs, forming the treatment plan, and obtaining services for the child. Although the following discussion is framed primarily in terms of foster care, the same legal and social principles apply to the entire course of child welfare proceedings.
A child’s educational needs should be considered from the beginning of dependency or neglect proceedings. Whether or not the child has a disability, it is important that someone considering the child’s best interests make educational decisions. Because so many of the rights and procedures under IDEA involve the parent, identifying a parent or educational surrogate parent (ESP) is crucial when the child has a disability under IDEA.
Typically, a parent’s educational decision-making rights are terminated only at the final termination of parental rights. If parents are willing to make educational decisions in the child’s best interests, or can be educated and supported to do so as part of a treatment plan, no other action is required. However, if reasonable parental cooperation with a treatment plan is unlikely, or is in fact not happening, a court could consider terminating educational decision-making rights, which would allow a foster parent or other caregiver to serve as parent or allow an ESP to be appointed.
A clear appointment of educational decision-making rights by the court would assist the school districts in meeting the child’s needs.1 Schools cannot provide services under IDEA without both parental consent for evaluation and for services (though the school district may be able to override lack of parental consent for evaluation with a due process request, in the unlikely event it is willing to invest the energy and money to do so).
parents’ attendance at IEP meetings. If a parent is incarcerated, a conference call is still a possibility.
35% had attention deficit disorder.
16% had mental retardation or developmental delay.
On the other hand, children in foster care are sometimes over-identified as special education students because they are troubled and may be removed from the general school population.12 Special education is not a solution for problems not related to disability, and segregation into a special education program can be very damaging.
Children born with disabilities are more often abused and more often relinquished to the child welfare system than children without disabilities.18 One study shows that children with disabilities are abused at about twice the rate of children without disabilities, and other studies document an increased risk of abuse for children with disabilities between four and ten times that of the general population.19 Children who have disabilities may be at increased risk for abuse, partly because they may be more vulnerable.20 Another factor is that children with certain disabilities may be very difficult to handle, causing extraordinary stress on parents and family. The presence of the disability can exacerbate existing dysfunctions in the family system and trigger inappropriate responses on the part of caregivers.
Specific interventions also exist for reading problems, whether or not they are related to disability. For instance, under the Colorado Basic Literacy Act of 1996, Colorado children in the early grades who test below grade level in reading are provided with an Individual Literacy Plan (ILP), which spells out goals and services the child will receive.29 An ILP is provided whether or not the child has a disability.
A foster child may also be gifted and talented, either globally or in certain specific areas, and thus may qualify for special services as a gifted child. Developing a child’s gifts and talents can be life-transforming. Failure to identify giftedness can cause as much failure and frustration as failure to identify disabilities. Nor are the two exclusive. Many children are Twice Exceptional. Twice Exceptional students are gifted and also identified as having a disability.30 These students need services in both areas to succeed.
Educational plans for foster children with disabilities should include higher education, where appropriate. Many of these children fall victim to low expectations.31 General and special education services can be designed to prepare students for college.
Where children need to be served by multiple agencies, wraparound services are most effective, where the individualized plan is coordinated between agencies.32 Strong collaboration between the courts, child welfare, and health and mental health systems is essential to serve a foster child with disabilities.33 Educational evaluations should be specific and thorough so that disabilities are not over-identified or wrongly identified.
Each foster child should have an educational advocate, whether that is a parent, foster parent, an educational surrogate parent (ESP) appointed by the court or department of education, his or her caseworker, or a Court Appointed Special Advocate. Juvenile court judges should also consider the foster child’s educational needs.41 For instance, judges can ensure IDEA timelines are enforced for prompt evaluation and provision of services.
Child welfare workers, guardians ad litem, and Court Appointed Special Advocates ("CASA") workers should be sufficiently familiar with disabilities to know when a child needs screening, and with whom to collaborate in obtaining services.42 Children with disabilities are often more difficult to interact with and to understand, but need positive interaction even more than children without disabilities.
(1)(a) The judicial department or any agency that performs duties and functions under this title with respect to juvenile delinquency or dependency and neglect cases or any other provision of this title may exchange information, to the extent necessary, for the acquisition, provision, oversight, or referral of services and support with the judicial department or any other agency or individual that performs duties and functions under this title with respect to such cases. In order to receive such information the judicial department or the agency shall have a need to know for the purposes of investigations and case management in the administration of their respective programs. The judicial department or the agencies shall exchange information in accordance with paragraph (b) of this subsection (1).
(b) The judicial department or agency described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (1) shall exchange information with the judicial department or similar agencies who have a need to know to the extent necessary for the acquisition, provision, oversight, and referral of services and support and if provided in the course of an investigation or for case management purposes.
Colorado has various provisions to speed up transfer of records and enrollment for children in out-of-home placement, including special education notification.66 Among other things, once the school has been notified of a transfer request from the Department of Human Services, it only has five school days to transfer the records.
The order is presented to the school district. Those persons, agencies, and their representatives who are connected with the case are not only given access to the records but also have “authorization to exchange educational records and information” among themselves.
The following are possible ways to release educational information so that the child can be better served.
A educational surrogate parent ("ESP") (appointed by the court or the educational agency if the child is under IDEA and has no parent available to advocate), who commits to maintain educational records.
To serve the child better, schools and child welfare professionals should collaborate. Attorneys involved in a child welfare case can talk to school staff about the child (if there is consent from a parent, an educational surrogate parent, or a court order).
(2)(a) Each school district and the state charter school institute, created pursuant to section 22-30.5-503, shall designate an employee of the school district or the institute to act as the child welfare education liaison for the district or for state charter schools. In lieu of designating an employee, a school district or the state charter school institute may contract with an individual to act as the child welfare education liaison. The child welfare education liaison shall be responsible for working with child placement agencies, county departments, and the state department to facilitate the prompt and appropriate placement, transfer, and enrollment in school of students in out-of-home placements within the school district or who are enrolled or enrolling in institute charter schools.
Ensuring that records are delivered to a student’s new school within five days of receiving a request from a county department (2)(a)(II).
Prior to the change of placement of a child, all parties shall attempt to promote educational stability for the child by taking into account the child’s existing educational situation and, to the extent possible and in accordance with the child’s best interests, selecting a change of placement that enables the child to remain in the existing educational situation or to transfer to a new educational situation that is comparable to the existing situation.
Significant delay is not permitted under IDEA.
1. Telephone interview with Keith Kirchubel, Principal Consultant, Dispute Resolution, Colorado Department of Education in Denver Colorado (March 2008).
2. State Bd. of Educ. Rule 9.02(1)(a), 1 Code Colo. Regs. 301-8 (2009).
5. National Council on Disability, Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care System: Barriers to Success and Proposed Policy Solutions, at 4 (2008) available at http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2008/FosterCareSystem_Report.html (viewed Oct. 15, 2010).
9. Mason Burley and Mina Halpern, Educational Attainment of Foster Youth 8 (Washington State Institute for Public Policy 2001) available at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/FCEDReport.pdf (viewed Oct. 15, 2010).
10. National Council on Disability, supra note 5 at 4.
11. Foster Care Alumni Studies, Improving Family Foster Care: Findings from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study 1, 32 (March 2005) available at http://www.casey.org/Resources/ (viewed Oct. 15, 2010).
12. Kathleen McNaught, Learning Curves: Education Advocacy for Children in Foster Care 11 (ABA Center on Children and the Law 2004).
13. National Council on Disability, supra note 5 at 32.
14. McNaught, supra note 12 at 2.
15. National Council on Disability, supra note 5 at 4.
16. Foster Care Alumni Studies, supra note 11 at 2.
17. Sarah Geenen and Laurie E. Powers, Are We Ignoring Youths with Disabilities in Foster Care? An Examination of Their School Performance 234, Social Work 51.3 (July 2006).
18. National Council on Disability, supra note 5 at 4.
19. National Resource Center for Respite and Crisis Care Services, Factsheet Number 36: Abuse and Neglect of Children with Disabilities, 1 (September 1994) available at http://www.archrespite.org/productspublications/arch.fact.sheets#FS_36 (viewed October 15, 2010).
22. Brandy Miller, Falling Between the Cracks: Why Foster Children are Not Receiving Appropriate Special Education Services, 5 Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc. 547, 566 (2006).
24. Angela J. Herrick and Helen D. Ward, Advocating for the Educational Needs of Children in Out-of-Home Care I-4 Colorado Department of Human Services; See 42 U.S.C. § 675(1)(G) (2010).
25. McNaught, supra note 12 at 9-11.
26. Herrick and Ward, supra note 24 at 3-19.
27. Interview with Laura Writebol, Colorado Department of Human Services in Denver, Colorado (May 14, 2008).
28. Office of Special Education Programs, January 21, 2011, http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102276898441-66/OSEP+RTI+memo+01-21-11.pdf (viewed February 19, 2011).
29. Herrick and Ward, supra note 24 at 3-11.
31. National Council on Disability, supra note 5 at 30.
34. Geenen and Powers, supra note 17 at 234.
36. National Council on Disability, supra note 5 at 20.
37. Miller, supra note 22 at 566.
38. Cynthia Godsoe, Caught Between Two Systems: How Exceptional Children in Out-of-Home Care are Denied Equality in Education, 19 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 81, 95 (2000).
39. Miller, supra note 22 at 569.
41. National Council on Disability, supra note 5 at 31.
44. Herrick and Ward, supra note 24 at 4-11.
45. McNaught, supra note 12 at 6.
50. 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(r)(5) (2010).
51. McNaught, supra note 12 at 29.
52. Herrick and Ward, supra note 24 at 6-4.
53. McNaught, supra note 12 at 29.
58. Miller, supra note 22 at 554.
66. House Bill 08-1019, C.R.S. § 22-32-138.
67. Provided by El Paso County Best Practices Court Education Committee f/k/a El Paso County Model Court Education Committee and the El Paso County Model Court Steering Committee.
68. Magistrate Regina Walter, Chairperson of the El Paso County Model Court Truancy Committee, established the contacts in each school district.
69. Created and provided by Sherri Piccione, Legal Secretary, El Paso County Office of Guardian ad Litem.
70. Interview with Ed Rodgers, Office of the Guardian ad Litem, in Colorado Springs, CO (March 19, 2008).
71. Written and contributed by Ed Rodgers, Office of the Guardian ad Litem, El Paso County.
72. Kathleen McNaught, Mythbusting: Breaking Down Confidentiality and Decision-Making Barriers to Meet the Education Needs of Children in Foster Care 13 (American Bar Association 2005) available at http://www.abanet.org/child/education/other-pub.shtml (viewed May 5, 2008).
73. Written and contributed by Ed Rodgers, Office of the Guardian ad Litem, El Paso County.
74. Provided by El Paso County Best Practices Court Education Committee f/k/a El Paso County Model Court Education Committee and the El Paso County Model Court Steering Committee.
75. Provided by El Paso County Best Practices Court Education Committee f/k/a El Paso County Model Court Education Committee and the El Paso County Model Court Steering Committee.
76. McNaught, supra note 12 at 6.
78. Herrick and Ward, supra note 24 at 2-2, 2-3.
79. National Council on Disability, supra note 5 at 28; citing Sarah Woodward, California Moves to Improve Group Home Schools, XXV, 4 Youth Law News (National Center for Youth Law), October-December 2004, Executive Summary at vi.
80. Mason Burley and Mina Halpern, Educational Attainment of Foster Youth 9 (Washington State Institute for Public Policy 2001) available at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/FCEDReport.pdf (viewed Oct. 15, 2010).
81. Geenen and Powers, supra note 17 at 238.
82. Andrea Zetlin, The Experiences of Foster Children and Youth in Special Education 163, Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability 31.3 (Sep. 2006).
83. 42 U.S.C. § 11431, et seq.
84. McNaught, supra note 12 at 5.
85. Herrick and Ward, supra note 24 at 3-5.
86. Id. at 3-4, 3-5; C.R.S. § 22-36-101; § 22-32-116(e).
88. Id.; C.R.S. § 22-1-122.
89. McNaught, supra note 12 at 6.
90. Herrick and Ward, supra note 24 at 3-3, 3-4.
93. Testimony of the National Council on Disability, Juvenile Detention Centers: Are They Warehousing Children with Mental Illness? 4 (July 7, 2004) available at http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/testimony/2004/juvenile_07-07-04.htm (viewed Oct. 15, 2010).
95. National Council on Disability, supra note 5 at 16-17.
98. Geenen and Powers, supra note 17 at 238.
99. Olmstead v. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 600 (1999).
100. Olmstead v. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 601 (1999).
101. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5) (2005).
102. 42 U.S.C. § 673(a)(2)(A) (2010); Cecilia Fiermonte and Jennifer L. Renne, Making It Permanent: Reasonable Efforts to Finalize Permanency Plans for Foster Children 109 (ABA Center on Children and the Law 2002).
104. Id. at 110-111; 42 U.S.C. § 673.
Featured Image: "Child and Touchscreen" by Freerange Stock.

References: § 675
 § 1396
 § 22
 § 11431
 § 22
 § 22
 § 22
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1412
 § 673
 § 673