Opinion ID: 619940
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Definitions of Parent in the 2005 and 2007 Versions of Section 56028 Apply to Section 48200

Text: Whether the definitions of parent in the 2005 and 2007 versions of section 56028 apply to section 48200 with respect to special education students is a close question. There are several reasons to believe that these definitions of parent do not apply. First, section 56028 is found in Part 30 of the Education Code, whereas section 48200 is located in Part 27 of the Code. The primary purpose of section 56028 is to provide a definition of parent for Part 30. See Cal. Educ.Code § 56020 (As used in this part, the definitions prescribed by this article apply unless the context otherwise requires. (emphasis added)). [6] Second, if section 56028 supplies a definition of parent for section 48200, but only with respect to special education students, then the term parent in section 48200 has one meaning for students in special education programs (the definition supplied by section 56028) and another meaning for other students. Absent a statutory basis for holding otherwise, we would expect the term parent, as used in section 48200, to have a uniform meaning for all California students. Cf. Union Sch. Dist. v. Smith, 15 F.3d 1519, 1525 & n. 1 (9th Cir.1994) (agreeing with CDE's contention that residency for special education coverage purposes is measured by the normal standards). Third, we find no explicit statutory basis for applying section 56028 to section 48200 before 2009. On balance, however, we are persuaded that the California legislature intended the definition of parent in the 2005 and 2007 versions of section 56028 to apply to section 48200 for students receiving special education. Although section 56028 is found in the special education programs part of the Education Code and section 48200 is found in the general education part of the Code, not using section 56028's definition of parent for all aspects of a special education student's education would lead to nonsensical results. For instance, if section 56028 does not apply to section 48200, then a student may have a parent for special education purposes but not for residency purposes under section 48200. The legislature, which aimed to implement the special education programs consistent with the IDEA and sought to place the educational decisionmaking and funding responsibility at the local level, presumably did not intend such a result. This conclusion is bolstered by section 56041 of the Education Code. Section 56041 deals expressly with the question of which public agency is responsible for providing an education to a special education student between the ages of 18 and 22. It provides that, for students between ages 18 and 22, the school district responsible for providing an education is the district in which the student's parent resides. See Cal. Educ.Code § 56041(a). Because section 56041 is located within Part 30 of the Code, section 56041 necessarily incorporates section 56028's definition of parent, as all parties agree. See id. § 56020. On its face, of course, section 56041 applies only to students between the ages of 18 and 22, not younger students. But section 56041 demonstrates the legislature's intent that the school district responsible for a student's special education is the district in which the student's parentas defined in section 56028resides. Holding otherwise with respect to younger pupils would produce inconsistent and even absurd results, because section 56028 would determine the agency responsible for a special education student over 18, but not for one under 18. It is highly improbable that the California legislature intended that, when a student turned 18, a different agency would suddenly become responsible for the student's education. See In re Conservatorship of Whitley, 50 Cal.4th 1206, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 342, 241 P.3d 840, 853 (2010) ([A] statute should not be literally construed if to do so would lead to absurd results or defeat the statute's evident purpose.). Such a result is not only improbable but also inconsistent with the purposes of section 56041. The legislature designed section 56041 to ensure funding continuity: the public agency responsible for a student's special education before and after the child reaches the age of 18 should be the same, unless the student's parents relocate. As the California Superior Court has explained, the purpose of section 56041 is to require the local school districts where the pupils' parents reside ... to remain responsible for the pupils' special education after the student turns 18. Sierra Sands Unified Sch. Dist. v. Cal. State Bd. of Educ., No. S-1500-CV-248848, 39 IDELR 70 (Cal.Super.Ct. May 13, 2003) (emphasis added). Section 56041 is a provision to maintain funding responsibilities for the adult student's education with the California school district within which the parents reside. Sierra Sands Unified Sch. Dist. v. Student, No. 2198 (Cal.Special Educ.Hearing Office Oct. 22, 2002) (emphasis added); see also Student v. Berkeley Unified Sch. Dist., No.1989 (Cal.Special Educ.Hearing Office Nov. 6, 2003) (Section 56041 is a provision to maintain funding responsibilities for the adult student's education with the California school district within which the parents reside. (emphasis added)). [7] The legislative priority of funding continuity can be achieved only if section 56028's definition of parent applies to section 48200 for special education students under the age of 18. Thus, although a close and difficult question, we hold that the 2005 and 2007 versions of section 56028 supplied the definition of parent for section 48200 for purposes of determining the agency responsible for providing a student's special education. This interpretation of the Education Code is consistent with the decisions of the Office of Administrative Hearings. See, e.g., Orange Cnty. Dep't of Educ., Nos. 2008120021 & 2009020130, supra, at ¶ 14. [8] B. Whether Ms. Hardy Meets the Definition of Parent The remaining issue is whether Lori Hardy, as A.S.'s de facto parent under Rule 5.534(e) of the California Rules of Court and the person authorized to make educational decisions on A.S.'s behalf, satisfied section 56028's definition of parent from July 28, 2006, when A.S.'s placement at the out-of-state residential treatment facility began, through April 19, 2009. During that time, three different versions of section 56028 were in effect. The 2005 version of section 56028 was effective from October 7, 2005 to October 9, 2007. The 2007 version was in effect from October 10, 2007 to the end of 2008. The 2009and currentversion has been in effect since January 1, 2009. We address the three versions of section 56028 in turn, beginning with the most recent iteration of the statute. 1. The 2009 Version of Section 56028 The parties do not dispute that, for purposes of this case, section 56028 supplies the definition of parent for section 48200 as of January 1, 2009. We therefore must decide whether Hardy qualifies as a parent for A.S. under the 2009 version of section 56028. Under the 2009 version of section 56028, parent means: (1) A biological or adoptive parent of a child. (2) A foster parent if the authority of the biological or adoptive parents to make educational decisions on the child's behalf specifically has been limited by court order in accordance with Section 300.30(b)(1) or (2) of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (3) A guardian generally authorized to act as the child's parent, or authorized to make educational decisions for the child, including a responsible adult appointed for the child in accordance with Sections 361 and 726 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. (4) An individual acting in the place of a biological or adoptive parent, including a grandparent, stepparent, or other relative, with whom the child lives, or an individual who is legally responsible for the child's welfare. (5) A surrogate parent who has been appointed pursuant to Section 7579.5 or 7579.6 of the Government Code, and in accordance with Section 300.519 of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations and Section 1439(a)(5) of Title 20 of the United States Code. Cal. Educ.Code § 56028(a) (2009). Hardy does not meet the first of these definitions. She is not A.S.'s biological or adoptive parent. Nor does she meet the second definition. Although Hardy at one time served as A.S.'s foster parent, she ceased serving in that capacity in 2004, two years before A.S.'s placement at Cinnamon Hills. Hardy also does not satisfy the fourth definition, although this subsection perhaps presents a closer question. The California Rules of Court state that a de facto parent is a person who has been found by the court to have assumed, on a day-to-day basis, the role of parent, fulfilling both the child's physical and psychological needs for care and affection, and who has assumed that role for a substantial period. Cal. R. Ct. 5.502(10). Here, Hardy has in some respects act[ed] in the place of a biological or adoptive parent. But CDE does not contendand the record does not showthat Hardy actually assumed the role as A.S.'s parentin the comprehensive sense suggested by section 56028 during the period in question. Hardy also is not A.S.'s relative, and A.S. does not reside with her. She therefore does not fall within the fourth definition. Nor does Hardy fall within the fifth definition. Under both federal and California law, a surrogate parent perhaps should have been appointed for A.S. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.519 (requiring a public agency to appoint a surrogate parentto represent a child in all matters relating to the identification, evaluation and educational placement of the child and the provision of a free appropriate public education to the childwhen [n]o parent ... can be identified or [t]he child is a ward of the State); Cal. Gov't Code §§ 7579.5-7579.6 (implementing the requirements of § 300.519). As a practical matter, moreover, it appears that Hardy fulfilled many of the functions that would have been performed by a surrogate parent had one been appointed. It appears from the stipulated facts, for instance, that Hardy participated in A.S.'s special education planning, including the 2006 decision to place A.S. at Cinnamon Hills. Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts ¶¶ 44, 46. Had a surrogate parent been appointed, Hardy likely would have been chosen. But Hardy was not actually appointed as A.S.'s surrogate parent under California Government Code sections 7579.5 and 7579.6 or in accordance with 34 C.F.R. § 300.519. She was not, therefore, a surrogate parent for purposes of the 2009 version of section 56028. We hold, however, that Hardy was a parent for purposes of the 2009 version of section 56028 because she was [a] guardian... authorized to make educational decisions for the child. Cal. Educ.Code § 56028(a)(3) (2009). That conclusion is consistent with the plain language of section 56028. Under California law, we give the words of a statute their ordinary and usual meaning. See City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal.4th 905, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 483, 182 P.3d 1027, 1035-36 (2008). The dictionary defines guardian as [o]ne that guards, watches over, or protects, or, in law, as [o]ne who is legally responsible for the care and management of the person or property of an incompetent or a minor. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 779 (4th ed.2000); see also Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1007 (2002) (defining guardian as including one who has or is entitled or legally appointed to the care and management of the person or property of another (as a minor or person incapable of managing his own affairs)). Black's Law Dictionary defines guardian as [o]ne who has the legal authority and duty to care for another's person or property, esp. because of the other's infancy, incapacity, or disability. Black's Law Dictionary 774 (9th ed.2009). Black's adds,  A guardian may be appointed either for all purposes or for a specific purpose.  Id. (emphasis added). Here, Hardy was appointed by the juvenile court to have legal authority for making educational decisions on A.S.'s behalf. That made her a guardian as that term is commonly understood. [9] Hardy thus was a parent for purposes of section 48200 on January 1, 2009, when the 2009 version of section 56028 took effect. 2. The 2007 Version of Section 56028 Under the 2007 version of the statute, parent means any of the following: (1) A biological or adoptive parent of a child. (2) A foster parent if the authority of the biological or adoptive parents to make educational decisions on the child's behalf specifically has been limited by court order in accordance with Section 300.30(b)(1) or (2) of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (3) A guardian generally authorized to act as the child's parent, or authorized to make educational decisions for the child. (4) An individual acting in the place of a biological or adoptive parent, including a grandparent, stepparent, or other relative, with whom the child lives, or an individual who is legally responsible for the child's welfare. (5) A surrogate parent who has been appointed pursuant to Section 7579.5 or 7579.6 of the Government Code, and in accordance with Section 300.519 of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations and Section 1439(a)(5) of Title 20 of the United States Code. Cal. Educ.Code § 56028(a) (2007). We hold that Hardy was a parent for purposes of the 2007 version of section 56028. This is so because, like the 2009 version of the statute, the 2007 version includes [a] guardian ... authorized to make educational decisions for the child. Id. § 56028(a)(3) (2007). Hence, Hardy was a parent for purposes of section 48200 from October 10, 2007 to the end of 2008, when the 2007 version of section 56028 was in effect. 3. The 2005 Version of Section 56028 Under the 2005 version of section 56028, a parent includes (1) A person having legal custody of a child. (2) Any adult pupil for whom no guardian or conservator has been appointed. (3) A person acting in the place of a natural or adoptive parent, including a grandparent, stepparent, or other relative with whom the child lives. Parent also includes a parent surrogate. (4) A foster parent if the authority of a parent to make educational decisions on the child's behalf has been specifically limited by court order in accordance with subsection (b) of Section 300.20 of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Cal. Educ.Code § 56028(a) (2005). Hardy did not fall within any of these categories. She did not have legal custody of A.S. A.S. was not an adult pupil. And, for the reasons already given, Hardy was not a person acting in the place of a natural or adoptive parent, an appointed parent surrogate or, during the relevant time frame, a foster parent. Hardy was therefore not A.S.'s parent for purposes of section 56028or section 48200from July 2006, when A.S.'s placement at Cinnamon Hills began, until October 10, 2007, when the 2007 version of section 56028 superseded the 2005 version. CDE concedes that Hardy does not fall within any of the specific definitions of parent included in section 56028(a)(1)-(4) (2005), but argues on policy grounds that the 2005 version of section 56028 should be read to cover any adult who makes educational decisions for the child because an inclusive definition of `parent' is consistent with the overall policy objectives of special education law. CDE, however, has not pointed to anything in the language, context, purpose or legislative history of the 2005 version of section 56028 that supports such a broad reading. CDE's argument, moreover, is difficult to reconcile with the subsequent history of the statute. The statute identifies specific categories of personscategories that the legislature has seen fit to add to in ensuing years. Were CDE's construction correct, those later amendments would have been unnecessary. [10] CDE similarly presents no authority for the proposition that the 2007 revisions merely clarified the 2005 version of the statute. The broad, 2007 version of section 56028 was designed to implement the new, expansive definition of parent under the 2006 federal regulation, 34 C.F.R. § 300.30. See 2007 Cal. Legis. Serv. ch. 454 (A.B.1663) (West) (explaining that the 2007 amendments to section 56028 were enacted to conform section 56028 to the federal IDEA regulations). That regulation did not exist when the California legislature adopted the 2005 version of section 56028. There is therefore little basis to infer that the legislature intended the 2005 version of the statute to embrace the broad meaning embodied by that later regulation. C. Whether CDE Is Responsible for A.S.'s Out-of-State Education 1. CDE Is Responsible from July 2006 to October 2007 We have concluded that Hardy was not A.S.'s parent for purposes of section 48200 while the 2005 version of section 56028 was in effect, from July 28, 2006, when A.S. first enrolled at Cinnamon Hills, until October 10, 2007, when the 2007 version of section 56028 superseded the 2005 version. Nor have the parties identified any other person meeting the definition of parent during this period. For this period, therefore, California law failed to make any school district responsible for A.S.'s education. Under these specific circumstances, we hold that CDE is the agency responsible for A.S.'s education at Cinnamon Hills for this time period. See Gadsby v. Grasmick, 109 F.3d 940, 953 (4th Cir.1997) ([T]he [State Education Agency] is ultimately responsible for the provision of a free appropriate public education to all of its students and may be held liable for the state's failure to assure compliance with IDEA.); see also St. Tammany Parish Sch. Bd. v. Louisiana, 142 F.3d 776, 784 (5th Cir.1998) (holding that the IDEA places primary responsibility on the state educational agency to ensure that the requirements of the IDEA are carried out); Orange Cnty. Dep't of Educ. v. A.S., 567 F.Supp.2d at 1170 ([T]here is ample authority to support [Orange County's] claim that, in the absence of a statute delegating responsibility for a student's education to a local entity, the State is, by default, the party most appropriately charged with the task.); 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(11)(A) (The State educational agency is responsible for ensuring that ... the requirements of this subchapter are met.). Accordingly, Orange County is entitled to reimbursement from CDE for this period of time. 2. CDE Is Not Responsible from October 2007 to December 2008 We have concluded that Hardy was A.S.'s parent for purposes of section 48200 while the 2007 version of section 56028 was in effect, from October 10, 2007 through December 31, 2008. During this time, Hardy resided in the City of Orange, within the Orange Unified School District. [11] California law accordingly designated an agency responsible for funding A.S.'s education during this period, and CDE is not responsible by default. 3. CDE Is Not Responsible from January to April 2009 We hold that Hardy was A.S.'s parent for purposes of section 48200 while the 2009 version of section 56028 was in effect, from January 1, 2009 to April 19, 2009. CDE accordingly is not responsible for funding A.S.'s education during this period.