Opinion ID: 1239525
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: who shall pay?

Text: Resolution of this question depends upon a decision as to the residence of G. H. for school purposes. That problem was exhaustively discussed in Anderson v. Breithbarth, supra. Although the statutes have been amended in many respects since then, the amendments would not change the result. Section 15-59-07, relating to education of students with physical handicaps and learning disabilities, says nothing about residence. It tells only what is to be done if any school district has such a handicapped child. The facts here are very similar to Anderson. In Anderson, a child had been more or less abandoned by her parents and left with relatives, who enrolled her in a local school. The school district challenged her right to attend the school without the payment of tuition by the district of her former residence or the district of her parents' then residence. We held that it was the residence of the child which was controlling, and that she was entitled to attend the school where she resided with relatives. In the present case, if the Williston School District had facilities within its district to educate handicapped children such as G. H., she would no doubt still be living there, and Anderson would be exactly in point and controlling. Does the fact that Williston has no such facilities, and therefore contracted with the Crippled Children's School to provide them, change the situation in any material way? We think not. A contract between a school district and the Crippled Children's School does not change the residence of the child, which remains within the contracting district. We therefore hold that the trial court was correct in its order of May 14, 1970, in holding that Williston School District No. 1 was liable for the tuition of G. H. at the Crippled Children's School and that it erred in later modifying that order to provide that the Special Education Division of the State Department of Public Instruction be required to make such payments. [The Special Education Division will reimburse the School District for a portion of the costs, pursuant to Chapter 15-59, as it has consistently offered to do.] We so hold, even though the child's parents have moved from the State of North Dakota and established residence elsewhere. G. H. has been determined to be a ward of the State. Her residence is separate from that of her parents. Anderson v. Breithbarth, supra . If Williston were not her residence, we would have to decide whether the responsibility for her care lay with the Social Service Board of the State. By holding that the Public Welfare Board (now Social Service Board) is not liable for the tuition of G. H., we do not mean to agree in any sense with its position that it cannot be held liable because it has no appropriation specifically designated for that purpose or that it must first obtain approval from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare of a plan to make any such provisions. We are not so federalized that a State department is not subject to the courts of the State. See Collins v. State Board of Welfare, 248 Iowa 369, 81 N.W.2d 4 (1947). Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ERICKSTAD, C.J., and TEIGEN, KNUDSON and PAULSON, JJ., concur.