Source: https://telioslaw.com/blog/iii-parents-surrogate-parents-and-educational-decision-makers
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 18:24:14+00:00

Document:
Written by Theresa Sidebotham on March 15, 2012 at 1:31 a.m.
When a disabled child is involved in dependency and neglect proceedings, educational needs should be considered from the beginning. The child should have a person who can make educational decisions on his or her behalf. In the child welfare system, determining this person can be complicated, and may require intervention from the courts. Usually the person would be a parent. If the parents of the child are not known, or may not act in the child’s best interests, other alternatives exist.
Various laws determine who is a parent and who can make educational decisions. The authority to make educational decisions is defined more restrictively under IDEA than for general, educational decision-making. Moreover, special education law is structured in such a way that it is crucial that someone act as a parent. Therefore, if no one can be identified as a parent under IDEA rules and regulations, an educational surrogate parent (ESP) should be appointed.
In a child welfare case, if parental rights have not been terminated, a court may need to consider whether to remove a parent’s educational decision-making authority so that a foster parent or other statutorily authorized person may act as the parent, or so that an educational surrogate parent may be appointed. This decision may depend on whether the parent will act in the child’s best interests.
Best practice in a child welfare case would be to discuss carefully any possible educational decisions with the parents, such as a referral for an evaluation or attendance at IEP meetings. Sometimes parents who are reluctant to cooperate change their minds when their fears about the process have been alleviated. If appropriate, properly exercising educational decision-making rights can be part of the treatment plan.8 However, if this process clarifies that the parent is not likely to act in the child’s best interests, the court might consider removing educational decision-making authority from the parent and appointing an ESP.
When a child has a disability under IDEA, an educational surrogate parent (ESP) may be appointed if: (1) the parents of the child are not known or cannot be located; (2) the child is a ward of the state; or (3) the child is an unaccompanied homeless youth under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.9 This may be necessary if no one fits one of the definitions of a parent under IDEA.
The duties of an ESP are to represent the child in all matters relating to the “identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child” and to make certain a free appropriate public education (FAPE) is provided to the child.12 This includes filing for mediation or due process if necessary.
A court could choose an ESP from the list maintained by the Colorado Department of Education, or a person who already has a relationship with the child could request the training.
To see how a person who is not a parent, such as an advocate, may obtain educational records, see the section on FERPA.
1. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(23) (2008).
2. State Bd. of Educ. Rule 2.33(1), 1 Code Colo. Regs. 301-8 (2009).
5. 34 C.F.R. § 303.19.
6. Kathleen McNaught, Learning Curves: Education Advocacy for Children in Foster Care 45 (ABA Center on Children and the Law 2004).
7. Angela J. Herrick & Helen D. Ward, Advocating for the Educational Needs of Children in Out-of-Home Care 4-6 Colorado Department of Human Services.
8. Interview with Laura Writebol, Colorado Department of Human Services (May 14, 2008).
9. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(2)(A) (2005); 34 C.F.R. § 300.519; 42 U.S.C. § 11434a(6) (2002); Rule 2.13.
10. Rule 2.53(1) and (2); 20 U.S.C. § 1401(36).
11. Rule 6.02(8)(e)(iii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.519(d)(2)(ii) and (iii).
12. Rule 6.02(8)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.519(g).
14. 34 C.F.R. § 300.519(h).
17. Interview with Laura Writebol, Colorado Department of Human Services (May 14, 2008).
18. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(2)(A)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.519(c); Rule 6.02(8)(d).
19. Herrick & Ward, supra note 7 at 4-6.
20. Kathleen McNaught, Mythbusting: Breaking Down Confidentiality and Decision-Making Barriers to Meet the Education Needs of Children in Foster Care 37 (American Bar Association 2005). Available at http://www.abanet.org/child/education/other-pub.shtml (viewed Oct. 15, 2010).
21. Herrick & Ward, supra note 7 at 4-5.
22. Telephone interview with Keith Kirchubel, Principal Consultant, Dispute Resolution, Colorado Department of Education in Denver Colorado (March 2008); contact Jennifer Rodriguez, 303-866-6889, for the ESP registry.
23. 34 C.F.R. § 300.519(f).
24. 20 U.S.C. § 1439(a)(5) (2005).
25. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(2)(A); 34 C.F.R. 300.519(d)(2)(i).
26. Randy Chapman, The Everyday Guide to Special Education Law, 47 (The Legal Center for People with Disabilities and Older People 2005).
27. Email from Keith J. Kirchubel, Principal Consultant, Dispute Resolution, Colorado Department of Education, to Theresa Sidebotham (March 17, 2008, 3:40 p.m.)(on file with author).
28. McNaught, supra note 19 at 9.
31. 20 U.S.C. § 1232h(c)(6)(D) (2002).
32. National Council on Disability, Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care System: Barriers to Success and Proposed Policy Solutions, at 57 (2008) available at http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2008/FosterCareSystem_Report.html (viewed Oct. 15, 2010).
33. Herrick & Ward, supra note 7 at 2-11.
34. McNaught, supra note 6 at 22.

References: § 1401
 § 303
 § 1415
 § 300
 § 11434
 § 1401
 § 300
 § 300
 § 300
 § 1415
 § 300
 § 300
 § 1439
 § 1415
 § 1232