Federal
court puts further burden on special-ed
families
Wednesday, January 25, 2006 •
BY JOHN MOONEY • Star-Ledger
Staff
In the ongoing tug-of-war between parents
and schools over how children with disabilities are
educated, New Jersey districts won an important legal round
this week.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled Monday in favor of the Ramsey district in a dispute
over the schooling of a 7-year-old boy with autism, saying
his family failed to prove the district's plan was
inappropriate.
For hundreds of special education
disputes that reach court each year in New Jersey, the
decision to place the burden of proof on the family was
critical.
A decision in November by the U.S.
Supreme Court had sent shivers through much of the special
education community when it placed the burden on the family
in a Maryland special education case, Schaffer vs. Weast.
But there was a question whether it would apply in New
Jersey, where the state courts had ruled that the burden was
on districts.
The federal appeals court ruled that the
U.S. Supreme Court's decision prevails in New Jersey in
putting the onus on those filing the complaint, in this case
the family.
The appeals court indicated it may have
sided with the district anyway in the dispute over whether
the child was better served in a mainstream or separate
program. A state administrative law judge and a U.S.
District Court judge both sided with Ramsey schools even
before the Schaffer decision.
But in writing the unanimous decision,
Appellate Judge Maryanne Trump Barry said the burden of
proof was now even greater on the family, which failed to
meet it. "What may have been a close case pre-Schaffer is,
in the wake of Schaffer, no longer so," Barry
wrote.
Specifically shot down was the standing
of a 1989 state Supreme Court decision, Lascari v. Ramapo
Indian Hills Regional High School. The state court found in
Lascari that districts must bear the burden of proof, due to
their greater resources and access to information. Parent
advocates maintained the Schaffer decision allowed for such
separate state standards.
But the 3rd Circuit opinion directly
addressed the question and said that in cases like the
Ramsey one, "Schaffer controls."
Ramsey's lawyer cheered the decision,
saying it affirms an even playing field for districts to
defend their decisions. "Before this, we were guilty until
proven innocent," said Eric Harrison, an Edison attorney
representing Ramsey.
But lawyers for special education parents
said the decision only further dampened families' ability to
fight for their children's education. Some also questioned
the appeals court's reading of the Schaffer decision and
said a number of legal options likely be would considered,
including an appeal.
© 2006 The Star-Ledger. Used by NJ.com with
permission.
|