Source: https://telioslaw.com/blog/v-special-education-and-juvenile-justice
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 17:44:33+00:00

Document:
Written by Theresa Sidebotham on March 15, 2012 at 1:29 a.m.
Because a large percentage of juveniles in the juvenile justice system have disabilities, special education issues may interact with juvenile proceedings. Sometimes the juvenile proceeding results from an infraction at school, causing an overlap between IDEA and juvenile proceedings. Also, different stages of the juvenile justice present various disability considerations.
Juvenile judges should take some time to acquaint themselves with special education law as it applies to the juvenile justice system. Attorneys advocating for juveniles should either devote time to learning special education law or collaborate with outside special education attorneys.
Special education proceedings and juvenile justice proceedings take place in completely different settings, with different rules, but may be interrelated. First, they may concern the identical offense, as criminal charges may be filed for something the juvenile did at school. Second, even if not directly related, the result of special education proceedings might shed light on the juvenile’s actions and the rehabilitative process and might be valuable for the juvenile court.
An attorney must honor the juvenile’s perception of his or her best interest and maintain confidentiality. Therefore, it is important to have the juvenile’s agreement to pursue special education representation. Some clients feel the stigma of special education labels or the revelation of family secrets are not worth the advantages.
Consult with the juvenile about a possible special education strategy, and the need to engage a parent as a client for the special education representation.
Execute a retainer agreement with parent and juvenile.
Discuss the goals of the client both educationally and for the delinquency case.
Obtain all relevant records to investigate the educational, medical, and social history.
Chart the educational history, organizing the information year by year, and by category.20 Sometimes, this process can unearth a long history of educational neglect.
Start the process of requesting evaluations or reevaluations and work with the school district to formulate an IEP suitable for the juvenile’s needs.
If the offense occurred at school and school discipline is also involved, pursue a manifestation determination through the IDEA process.
Combine the special education strategy with the delinquency defense strategy.
If the school should have known the juvenile had disabilities and did not evaluate or provide services, or if the school provided an IEP that was inadequately formulated or implemented, then the juvenile’s rights under IDEA have been violated.This may be relevant to the charges if a nexus exists between the disability and the behavior.
If the case involves a juvenile with a suspected or identified disability, the disability may make it difficult for the juvenile to understand or comply with programs developed for low-risk delinquent juveniles, such as diversion or probation.The juvenile may have better success with special education behavioral interventions under IDEA.34 At a minimum, the juvenile may need special support to succeed in these programs.
Juvenile detention facilities must provide a broad array of educational and rehabilitative services.55 The educational process in the detention center is administered differently from the Division of Youth Corrections (DYC). In Colorado, schools in the detention centers are administered by the school district in which the detention center is located.56 The school districts count these students for purposes of financing.57 Once a juvenile is sentenced, education falls under the DYC. Thus, although detained and sentenced juveniles may be at the same facility, a different administrative body is responsible for their education.58 The Colorado Department of Education works closely with both the DYC and the Department of Corrections (DOC) to provide technical support and assistance to enhance academic standards and implement a Response to Intervention model.59 The juvenile’s advocate should be aware of exactly who is responsible for implementing the IEP or performing evaluations.
The extent and nature of a disability, and its effect on a youth’s thinking and acting, may be significant in determining evidentiary issues. For each of these evidentiary determinations, an accurate special education evaluation and diagnosis would be helpful.
Intent to commit the offense (mens rea): may be affected by a disability, especially one involving limited mental functioning or severe emotional disturbance.
The court can also consider any manifestation determination held by the school for “probative evidence about whether conduct was, in fact, a manifestation of disability.”82 The answer may have bearing on a just disposition.
The court should consider whether a correctional setting being considered can accommodate and address the juvenile’s disability.For instance, the type of disability may affect a juvenile’s ability to cope in certain settings, such as a large dormitory in an institution.91 For some juveniles, rehabilitation will require a facility that can give medications where appropriate, and where the staff is trained to understand various diagnoses such as ADHD and emotional disorders.92 Juvenile justice professionals should follow up to ensure juveniles with disabilities receive services ordered at disposition, and that special education rights under IDEA are protected.
Because juvenile offenders with disabilities may have difficulty understanding the connection between their actions and the consequences, requiring them to make direct restitution to the victims can help establish the link between actions and consequences and help build restorative relationships.98 Because a juvenile with a disability may take much longer than average to understand the connections between choices and consequences, an ongoing rehabilitative program that focuses on restorative justice and allows the juvenile to confront the consequences of his choices and the impact on the victim may be very effective. An accommodation could be support in learning the cognitive skills necessary for this process.
“Restorative justice” means those practices that emphasize repairing the harm to the victim and the community caused by criminal acts. Restorative justice practices may include victim-offender conferences attended voluntarily by the victim, a victim advocate, the offender, community members, and supporters of the victim or the offender that provide an opportunity for the offender to accept responsibility for the harm caused to those affected by the crime and to participate in setting consequences to repair the harm. Consequences recommended by the participants may include, but need not be limited to, apologies, community service, restoration, and counseling. The selected consequences are incorporated into an agreement that sets time limits for completion of the consequences and is signed by all participants.
Transition services may be the most neglected aspect of corrections special education.119 Transition services under the IEP (beginning at least by age fifteen in Colorado), should be closely coordinated with institutional planning for parole or release of juvenile offenders.120 If the juvenile is transitioning back into the home school district, it may help to coordinate further services under IDEA with the local educational agency.121 For more detailed information, see the section on transition.
family involvement and family counseling.
Juveniles with disabilities in adult correctional facilities need not participate in general testing programs.
Therefore, the best practice is for young prisoners to be provided general and special education where possible.
1. Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice (CECP) & EDJJ, The National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice, Addressing Invisible Barriers:Improving Outcomes for Youth with Disabilities in the Juvenile Justice System9 (June 2002) available at http://cecp.air.org/juvenilejustice/juvenile_justice.asp (viewed Oct. 15, 2010).
3. Sue Burrell and Loren Warboys, Special Education and the Juvenile Justice System, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Justice Bulletin July 2000, at 1.
4. Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice (CECP) & EDJJ, The National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice, Best Practices for Serving Court Involved Youth with Learning, Attention and Behavior Disabilities 3 (June 2002) available at http://cecp.air.org/juvenilejustice/juvenile_justice.asp (viewed Oct. 15, 2010).
5. National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, Models for Change:Key Issues 1 available at http://www.ncmhjj.com/faqs/default.asp (viewed Oct. 15, 2010).
6. Kristine Buffington, Carly Dierkhising, and Shawn Marsh, Ten Things Every Juvenile Court Judge Should Know about Trauma and Delinquency, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2010, p. 4.
7. Ann Schrader, Second Chance for Mentally Ill Teens, Denver Post, March 11, 2008.
8. The Special Needs of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System:Implications for Effective Practice, Children’s Law Center, Covington, Kentucky (2001).
9. Burrell and Warboys, supra note 3 at 2.
12. CECP and EDJJ, supra note 1 at 18.
14. Burrell and Warboys, supra note 3 at 1.
15. Unique Challenges, Hopeful Responses:A Handbook for Professionals Working With Youth With Disabilities in the Juvenile Justice System 47 (Pacer Center, Minneapolis, MN1997).
16. Joseph B. Tulman and Joyce A. McGee, eds., Special Education Advocacy for Children in the Juvenile Delinquency System 1-4 (University of the District of Columbia School of Law Juvenile Law Clinic, 1998).
22. Ralph C. Martin, II, Zero Tolerance Policy Report 1, American Bar Association, ABA Juvenile Justice Policies (February 2001) available at http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/zerotolreport.html (viewed April 17, 2007).
24. Testimony of the National Council on Disability, Juvenile Detention Centers:Are They Warehousing Children with Mental Illness? 13 (July 7, 2004) available at http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/testimony/2004/juvenile_07-07-04.htm (viewed Oct. 15, 2010).
26. Burrell and Warboys, supra note 3 at 7.
27. CECP and EDJJ, supra note 1 at 3.
29. Testimony of the National Council on Disability,supra note 23 at 7.
33. Burrell and Warboys, supra note 3 at 7.
36. CECP and EDJJ, supra note 1 at 20.
37. Burrell and Warboys, supra note 3 at 7.
38. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(6)(B) (2005).
43. Buffington, supra note 6 at 8.
45. CECP and EDJJ, supra note 1 at 3.
49. Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice (CECP) and EDJJ, The National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice, Youth with Disabilities in the Correctional System: Prevalence Rates and Identification Issues 17 (June 2002) available at http://cecp.air.org/juvenilejustice/juvenile_justice.asp (viewed Oct. 15, 2010).
50. Burrell and Warboys, supra note 3 at 8.
52. Tulman and McGee, supra note 16 at 1-5.
53. Burrell and Warboys, supra note 3 at 8.
54. Tulman and McGee, supra note 16 at 2-10.
55. The National Center on Education, Disability and Juvenile Justice, Special Education in Correctional Facilities, 6 available at http://www.edjj.org/Publications/list/osep_rehabsvrs-1999.html (viewed May 7, 2008).
56. Telephone interview with Barb Taylor, Special Education Director, Division of Youth Corrections, in Denver, Colorado (June 9, 2008).
57. Amended Rules for the Administration of the Public School Finance Act 2254-R-5.16, 1 Code Colo. Regs. 301-39.
58. Telephone interview with Barb Taylor, supra note 56.
59. Email from Maureen Wirth, Colorado Department of Education (May 19, 2008, 9:27 a.m.)(on file with author).
60. Burrell and Warboys,supra note 3 at 10.
62. Alexander S. v. Boyd, 876 F.Supp. 773, 802, 22 IDELR 139 (D.S.C. 1995).
63. CECP and EDJJ, supra note 1 at 19.
65. Burrell and Warboys, supra note 3 at 8.
66. Tulman and McGee, supra note 16 at 5-13.
68. Burrell and Warboys, supra note 3 at 9.
69. Tulman and McGee, supra note 16 at 5-14.
71. State Bd. of Educ. Rule 9.03(2)(a)(ii), 1 Code Colo. Regs. 301-8 (2007).
72. Thomas Grisso, Juvenile Competency to Stand Trial:Questions in an Era of Punitive Reform 5 (American Bar Association) available at http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/12-3gris.html (viewed Oct. 15, 2010).
73. C.R.S. §19-2-1301(2) through 1305.
75. Burrell and Warboys, supra note 3 at 8-9.
76. Tulman and McGee, supra note 16 at 2-13.
77 Thomas Grisso, Juvenile Competency to Stand Trial:Questions in an Era of Punitive Reform 10 (American Bar Association) available at http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/12-3gris.html (viewed Oct. 15, 2010).
78. Lynda E. Frost and Robert E. Shepherd, Jr., Mental Health Issues in Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings 3 (American Bar Association 1996) available at http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/cjmental.html (viewed Oct. 15, 2010).
80. CECP and EDJJ, supra note 1 at 3.
82. Brad Bittan, The Mandate to Use Special Education at Juvenile Delinquency Sentencing, 32 Colo. Law. 99, 101 (2003).
83. Burrell and Warboys, supra note 3 at 9.
84. Brad Bittan, supra note 80 at 100.
85. Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice & EDJJ, The National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice, Advocating for Children with Disabilities in the Juvenile Justice System8 (June 2002) available at http://cecp.air.org/juvenilejustice/juvenile_justice.asp (viewed Oct. 15, 2010).
86. National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, Models for Change:Key Issues 2 available at http://www.ncmhjj.com/faqs/default.asp (viewed May 2, 2008).
87. Testimony of the National Council on Disability, supra note 23 at 8.
88. Peter Leone and Lois Weinberg, Addressing the Unmet Educational needs of Children and Youth in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems, Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, May 2010, p. 41.
90. National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, Models for Change:Key Issues 3 available at http://www.ncmhjj.com/faqs/default.asp (viewed May 2, 2008).
91. Burrell and Warboys, supra note 3 at 9.
92. CECP and EDJJ, supra note 1 at 22.
93. CECP and EDJJ,supra note 85 at 9.
94. Tulman and McGee, supra note 16 at 10-5.
95. Pam Stenhjem, Youth with Disabilities in the Juvenile Justice System:Prevention and Intervention Strategies National Center on Secondary Education and Transition February 2005, Vol. 4, Issue 1 available at www.ncset.org (viewed Oct. 15, 2010).
98. CECP and EDJJ, supra note 85 at 8.
99. C.R.S. § 19-2-303; C.R.S. § 19-2-706; C.R.S. § 19-2-708; C.R.S. § 19-2-907; C.R.S. §19-2-925.
100. Burrell and Warboys, supra note 3 at 10.
102. Id.; Alexander v. Boyd, 876 F.Supp. 773, 800-04 (S.D. S.C. 1995)(State correctional facilities also responsible to meet requirements under Section 504 and ADA).
103. 34 C.F.R. § 300.118.
104. Sheri Meisel, et al., Collaborate to Educate:Special Education in Juvenile Correctional Facilities (The National Center on Education, Disability and Juvenile Justice 1998) available at http://www.edjj.org/Publications/list/meisel_henderson_cohen_leone-1998.html (viewed Oct. 15, 2010).
106. E-mail from Barb Taylor, Division of Youth Corrections (June 11, 2008)(on file with author).
107. National Children’s Law Network, In School, the Right School, Finish School 30 (Holland & Hart and Rocky Mountain Children’s Law Center 2007).
109. Burrell and Warboys, supra note 3 at 10.
112. 31 IDELR 250 (however, the school district should provide reasonable notice to the parents that the records have been transferred); Alexander S. v. Boyd, 876 F.Supp. 773, 802, 22 IDELR 139 (D.S.C. 1995).
113. Burrell and Warboys, supra note 3 at 11.
116. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(7)(B) (2005); 34 C.F.R. § 300.324 (d)(2).
117. Burrell and Warboys, supra note 3 at 11.
119. The National Center on Education, Disability and Juvenile Justice, Special Education in Correctional Facilities, 8 available at http://www.edjj.org/Publications/list/osep_rehabsvrs-1999.html (viewed Oct. 15, 2010).
120. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII).This is an example of a state making a more stringent administrative rule.In lieu of 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(b), Rule 4.03(6)(d)(i) requires the transition plan begin no later than the age of 15, rather than 16.
121. Burrell and Warboys, supra note 3 at 11.
122. Sheri Meisel, et al., supra note 104 at 3.
123. CECP and EDJJ,supra note 4 at 5-21.
124. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(11)(C) (2005).
126. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(7)(B); 34 C.F.R. 300.324(d)(2).
127. 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a).
129. 20 U.S.C. § 1414 (d)(7)(A) & (B); 34 C.F.R. 300.324(d)(1); 30 IDELR 607 (Note that this 1998 letter from the Federal Office of Special Education Program interprets IDEA 1997, but because the prison provisions are quite similar, the post-2004 IDEA may be read as retaining those concepts.).
130. 30 IDELR 607; 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(7)(B).

References: § 1415
 v. 
 §19
 § 19
 § 19
 § 19
 § 19
 §19
 v. 
 § 300
 v. 
 § 1414
 § 300
 § 1414
 § 300
 § 1412
 § 1414
 § 300
 § 1414
 § 1414