Supreme Court Holds that Parents Can Pursue IDEA Claims in Federal Court

The United States Supreme Court has held that parents seeking to enforce rights granted to their children under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) have independent, enforceable rights, which are not limited to procedural and reimbursement-related matters but encompass the entitlement to a free appropriate public education for their child and that these right may be enforced by the parents in the federal courts on their own behalf without the assistance of legal counsel.

In Winkelman v. Parma City School District, decided May 21, 2007, the Court reversed the order of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissing the Winkelmans’ appeal unless they obtained counsel to represent their son, Jacob.

The Sixth Circuit relied on Cavanaugh v. Cardinal Local School Dist., 409 F. 3d 753 (2005), where the Court of Appeals had rejected the proposition that IDEA allows nonlawyer parents raising IDEA claims to proceed pro se in federal court. The court ruled that the right to a free appropriate public education “belongs to the child alone,” 409 F. 3d, at 757, not to both the parents and the child. It followed, the court held, that “any right on which the [parents] could proceed on their own behalf would be derivative” of the child’s right, ibid., so that parents bringing IDEA claims were not appearing on their own behalf.

The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that IDEA grants parents independent, enforceable rights. These rights, which are not limited to certain procedural and reimbursement-related matters, encompass the entitlement to a free appropriate public education for the parents’ child.

The Court stated that the Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed the Winkelmans’ appeal for lack of counsel. Parents enjoy rights under IDEA; and they are, as a result, entitled to prosecute IDEA claims on their own behalf.

View the Decision (Legal Information Institute - Cornell Law School)

custody - standing - step-grandparents - parents not separated

Helsel v. Puricelli - Superior Court - May 21, 2007

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a07037_07.pdf

A step-grandfather is not a "grandparent" under the the Custody and Grandparents Visitation Act (GVA), 23 Pa. C.S. 5301 et seq.

Even if he were, he would not have standing under the facts of this case, in which the parents, who had been separated for more than 6 months at one time, were back together as an intact family at the time the step-grandfather filed his action. Sec. 5312 allows a grandparents to seek "reasonable partial custody or visitation" where the parents "have been separated for six months or more..." The court held that the "GVA only applies where parents separated at least six months before the filing of the custody petition and remain separated at the time the petition is filed."

custody - standing

Morgan v. Weiser - Superior Court - May 7, 2007

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a41021_06.pdf

Biological father whose parental rights were terminated does not stand in loco parentis to the child, given that, after the termination, he had minimal partial custody of child, paid minimal child support, and did not live with the child in a familial setting at any time. His contact with the child was "akin to babysitting and caretaking."

attorneys fees - reasonableness

McMullen v. Kurtz - Superior Court - May 17, 2007

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/A37007_06.pdf

Legal fees in a contract must be reasonable even if the contract providing for the award of such fees does not specify that they must be reasonable. A reasonableness requirement is "implicit in the agreement."

In determining reasonableness, the court must consider, inter alia, how complicated the issues the issues in the underlying case were.

consumer protection - drug/medical/dental ads

Commonwealth v. Peoples Benefit Services - Commonwealth Court - May 14, 2007

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/557MD05_5-14-07.pdf

The Attorney General sued PBS for consumer protection violations, alleging that PBS ads could confuse or mislead consumers into believing that PBS and its goods/services are government related, in violation of the CPL, 73 P.S. sec. 201-1 et seq.

The Commonwealth's request for a preliminary injunction was denied, even though the judge who heard the case found that PBS designed its campaign with the intent to take advantage of confusing changes to Medicare Part D and the PBS deliberately attempted to "push the envelope" with its marketing materials. The Court in this opinion denied both parties' request for summary judgment, finding that there were still unresolved issues of material fact.

However, the court set out some important CPL principles, including that an act/practice is deceptive or unfair it is has the capacity or tendency to deceive. Neither the intention to deceive nor an actual deception must be proved. Rather it need only be show that the acts/practices are capable of being interpreted in a misleading way. The test for the court is to determine the overall impression arising from the totality of what is said, as well as what is reasonably implied in the ad or solicitation. The CPL is to be construed liberally to effectuate its objective of protecting consumers from fraud and unfair or deceptive business practices.

Pennsylvania Bulletin of May 5, 2007

http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol37/37-18/index.html

MDJs - Rule 112- availability and temporary assignment - civil and possessory actions
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol37/37-18/774.html

welfare - MA - Healthy Beginnings - Health Horizons - federal poverty guidelines 2007
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol37/37-18/806.html

custody - support - lesbian couple, sperm donor

Jacob v. Jacob - Superior Court - April 30, 2007

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/s15032_07.pdf

Sperm donor-father of children held liable for support -- along with lesbian couple -- on grounds of equitable estoppel and by statute, 23 Pa. C.S. 4321(2). Father -- played active part in children's lives -- ordered joined as indispensable party.

Custody award of lower court confirmed, giving
- shared legal custody to biological mother and her former partner (Appellant)
- primary physical custody to biological mother
- partial physical custody to mother's former partner and biological father (separately)