Opinion ID: 3010614
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Legislative History of the IDEA

Text: The legislative history offers little additional guidance about Congress's purported intent to create joint rights in parents and children. On one hand, the Senate Report, in discussing a mediation option in the 1985 amendments, states, Although the law has worked very well in most cases, Congress knew that there would be instances where parents would be denied the free appropriate public education to which their handicapped child was legally entitled . . . . 131 Cong. Rec. S1979 (Feb. 6, 1985) (statement of Sen. Weicker) (emphasis added). Earlier, in considering amendments to the forerunner to the IDEA, the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA), the Senate Report stated that parents of [learning disabled] children have the right to expect that individually designed instruction to meet their children's specific needs is available. S. Rep. No. 94-168, at 10 (1975), reprinted in 17 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1425, 1434. See also id. at 32, 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 1456 (stating that under the Committee's bill, a state's application for federal funds shall provide that special education and related services shall be provided at no cost to the parents of a handicapped child); id. at 42, 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 1465 (defining free appropriate public education as special education and related services . . . to be provided at public expense, without charge to the parents or guardians of a handicapped child). On the other hand, the legislative history refers to the responsibility of the states to develop procedures for appointing the parent or another individual to represent the interests of the child, which suggests that the role of the parent is to represent solely the interests of the child, not to represent jointly held substantive rights. S. Rep. No. 105-17 (1997), 1997 WL 258948, . In addition, the Senate Report to the 1985 amendments to the EHA indicated that the Act established an enforceable right to free appropriate public education for all handicapped children. 131 Cong. Rec. S1979 (1985). The Report also noted that the right to judicial review offers protection for those rights, thus making the procedural rights of the parents appear derivative of the substantive right of the child. See id. See also 121 Cong. Rec. S37412 (1975) (remarks of Sen. Stafford) (referring to the rights of the child); S. Rep. No. 94-168, at 7, 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 1431 (discussing the protection of the rights of handicapped children); S. Rep. No. 105-17, 1997 WL 258948,  (stating that S 1415 simplifies the process of delivering notices to parents about their child's rights). We conclude that the legislative history sheds little light on Congress's intent to create joint rights. The above-cited comments are merely snippets plucked from broad discussions of the general statutory goals of the Act and do not arise from explicit discussions of the issue at hand. Because neither the statutory language nor the legislative history clearly implies that Congress intended parents to have joint rights with their children under the IDEA, we will not read joint rights into the Act. 18