Source: https://www.wrightslaw.com/news/07/oa.winkelman.parma.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:26:18+00:00

Document:
Will Supreme Court Side with the Parents in Winkelman v. Parma?
On February 27, 2007, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Winkelman v. Parma City Schools.
In this article, parent attorney Wayne Steedman described the arguments made, how they were received, and questions asked and answered. At the end of oral argument, Mr. Steedman did a "quick unofficial poll" of observers about their predictions.
This article includes links to the transcript of oral argument and a Quick Poll so you can cast your vote about the outcome in this important case.
Sandee and Jeff Winkelman are the parents of Jacob, a child with autism.
Jean-Claude Andre, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, represented the parents.
David B. Salmon, Esq., Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, appeared on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the parents.
Pierre H. Bergeron, Esq., Cincinnati, OH, represented the school district.
The question before the Court in Winkelman v. Parma City Schools was to what extent, if any, non-lawyer parents may represent their child with a disability in Federal Court under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Although an individual may represent himself in a court of law, he may not represent another person unless he is admitted to practice law in that court. This rule applies equally to family members and strangers.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) clearly provides parents the right to represent their child in administrative hearings, but is silent on whether parents may represent their child in Court. Counsel for the parents argued that IDEA grants them the right to represent their own interests, in addition to the rights of their minor child, and that the rights of the parents and child are inseparable. The United States supported the parents’ position.
Counsel for Parma City Schools argued that parents have no right under the IDEA to represent their children’s interests in federal court.
All the Justices seemed to reject this argument, at least in part. Some Justices agreed that parents could represent themselves in seeking a remedy for a school district’s violation of their procedural rights, in addition to tuition reimbursement.
However, Justices Scalia and Roberts appeared to take the position that parents could not bring an action in federal court for a denial of free appropriate public education (FAPE) because the child, not the parents, is entitled to a FAPE.
Justice Scalia rejected the argument by the Solicitor General of the United States that parents who cannot afford an attorney have no recourse but to represent their child themselves, stating these parents would be incapable of representing their children.
Justice Souter questioned the need for procedural rights if parents could not make a claim for a denial of FAPE. In other words, what good are procedural rights if only the child, not the parent, can challenge the IEP or placement?
School board counsel stated that a Judge or Hearing Officer can not rule that there has been a denial of FAPE based on procedural violations alone. But Justice Souter noted that procedural rights protect the child’s substantive rights to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). If IDEA provides parents with procedural rights and the child with substantive rights, then the two are intertwined and the child’s rights and the parents’ rights are inseparable.
Can Parents Be a “Party Aggrieved”?
Counsel for the school district argued that the IDEA only permits a “party aggrieved” by an administrative decision to file a civil action. The school district asserted that parents are not a party aggrieved, because IDEA does not guarantee them a right to an appropriate education.
But Justice Breyer noted that a parent who is denied tuition reimbursement to which the parent believes he or she is entitled is a party aggrieved under the law.
Justice Roberts also noted that the attorneys’ fees language in the Act provides for reimbursement to “a prevailing party who is the parent of a child with a disability.” The language seems to provide parents “party” status, in contrast to the school district’s argument.
Justice Scalia expressed concerns about the likelihood that parents would file frivolous lawsuits.
He noted that attorneys, as officers of the court, are charged with filtering out claims that have no merit and are prohibited from filing frivolous lawsuits. Justice Scalia seemed concerned that these lawsuits could to add more work to Courts that are already overburdened.
Justice Kennedy asked if there was any argument during the case that the Winkelman’s claim was frivolous.
Do Parents Have Necessary Knowledge and Emotional Detachment?
Justice Alito expressed concerns about the practical benefit to parents, in light of the complexity of the IDEA and the difficulty parents would have in maintaining emotional detachment.
"All Rights of the Statute are Shared by the Parent"
Mr. Salmons, Assistant Solicitor General, represented the United States in support of the parents. Mr. Salmons argued that the right to a free appropriate public education is defined in part in terms of the parents’ interests.
Justice Scalia rejected the argument by the Solicitor General that parents who cannot afford an attorney have no recourse but to represent their child themselves, stating these parents would be incapable of representing their children.
Although school district counsel continued to argue about the distinctions between the rights of the parent and the child, the Justices did not seem to be persuaded.
The Justices did not seem to be persuaded by this argument either.
Justice Ginsberg said she could not see how allowing parents to file IDEA claims in Court would cost schools districts more money since parents who represent their children are not entitled to attorneys’ fees.
Justice Roberts noted that when parents who are represented by an attorney are prevailing parties in an IDEA dispute, the school district must reimburse their attorneys’ fees. When parents represent themselves, the school district will avoid this obligation.
Notwithstanding the additional expense argument, some Justices seemed concerned about the potential for frivolous claims brought by parents.
Justice Souter asked school board counsel if there were any figures for frivolous cases brought by lawyers and frivolous cases brought by parents acting pro se. School board counsel acknowledged that there was no data on this issue.
After rebuttal by the parents’ counsel, oral argument ended. The case was submitted at 11:04 a.m.
The Court is expected to issue a decision by the end of this term.
A quick, unofficial poll of observers at oral argument yielded the belief that the Supreme Court is likely to side with the parents on this one.
Read the transcript of oral argument.
The Court is expected to issue a decision by the end of this term, in late June or early July 2007. We will be able to answer this question in a few months – or sooner.
The Court may issue a decision more quickly. Pete received a unanimous decision in Florence County School District IV v. Shannon Carter 34 days after oral argument.
Supreme Court to Hear Oral Argument in Winkelman v. Parma City Schools on February 27 - This page includes the background of the case, links to briefs from amicus curiae, links to other decisions about parental representation from Courts of Appeals, a discussion of the issues from briefs filed, links to pleadings in the case.
The most recent article about the Winkelman case is “Argument Recap: Winkelman v. Parma City School District on 2/27” by Molly Cutler of the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation.
For Supreme Court news, commentary and analysis, orders, opinions, and multimedia, go to Scotusblog.
Oyez is the Supreme Court multimedia site where you can hear podcasts, interviews, and take a virtual tour of the Supreme Court building.
To learn more about the U. S. Supreme Court, and the procedures that govern the Court, go to the official U. S. Supreme Court site.
Wayne Steedman is a partner at The Steedman Law Group. Mr. Steedman's practice is devoted primarily to the representation of children with disabilities. He has represented his clients in administrative due process hearings and state and federal courts.
In addition to a law degree from the University of Maryland, Mr. Steedman has a Masters Degree in Social Work. For several years, he served as a Due Process Hearing Officer in special education cases. He is an active member of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.