Wrightslaw l No Child Left Behind l IDEA 2004 l Fetaweb l Yellow Pages for Kids l Harbor House Law Press

 Home > News > U. S. Supreme Court to Hear Jacob Winkelman, et. al. v. Parma City Schools


The Special Ed Advocate
It's Unique ... and Free!

Enter your email address below:

 

2014 - 2015 Training Program

Aug 2 - Birmingham, AL

Aug 3-8 - Wmsburg, VA

Aug 21 - Norfolk, VA

Oct 23 - Wilton, CT

Oct 25 - Olympia, WA

Oct 30 - Phoenix, AZ

Nov 6 - McAllen, TX

Nov 21 - Temecula, CA

Dec 4 - OKC, OK

Full Schedule

Be a Hero ...

 Candle in window
... to a Hero
Learn more

Wrightslaw

Home
Topics from A-Z
Free Newsletter
Seminars & Training
Consultations
Yellow Pages for Kids
Press Room
FAQs
Sitemap

Books & Training

Wrightslaw Books & DVDs
Wrightslaw Storesecure store lock
  Advocate's Store
  Student Bookstore
  Exam Copies
Training Center
Bulk Discounts
New! Military Discounts
Mail & Fax Orders

Advocacy Library

Articles
Doing Your Homework
Ask the Advocate
FAQs
Newsletter Archives
Summer School Series
Success Stories
Tips

Law Library

Articles
Caselaw
IDEA 2004
No Child Left Behind
McKinney-Vento Homeless
FERPA
Section 504
Fed Court Complaints

Topics

Advocacy
ADD/ADHD
Allergies
Assistive Technology
Autism Spectrum
Behavior & Discipline
Bullying
College/Continuing Ed
Damages
Discrimination
Due Process
Early Intervention (Part C)
Eligibility
ESY
Evaluations
FAPE
Flyers
Future Planning
Harassment
High-Stakes Tests
Homeless Children
IDEA 2004
Identification & Child Find
IEPs
Juvenile Justice
Law School & Clinics
Letters & Paper Trails
LRE/Inclusion
Mediation
Military / DOD
No Child Left Behind
NCLB Directories
NCLB Law & Regs
Parental Protections
PE and Adapted PE
Privacy & Records
Procedural Safeguards
Progress Monitoring
Reading
Related Services
Research Based Instruction
Response to Intervention (RTI)
Restraints/Abuse
Retention
Retaliation
School Report Cards
Section 504
Self-Advocacy
Teachers & Principals
Transition
Twice Exceptional (2e)
VA Special Education

Resources & Directories

Advocate's Bookstore
Advocacy Resources
Directories
  Disability Groups
  International
  State DOEs
  State PTIs
Free Flyers
Free Pubs
Free Newsletters
Legal & Advocacy
Glossaries
   Legal Terms
   Assessment Terms
Best School Websites

 

U. S. Supreme Court to Hear Jacob Winkelman, et al. v. Parma Schools

Print this page

On February 27, 2007, the U. S. Supreme Court will hear Oral Argument in Jacob Winkelman, et. al. v. Parma City Schools. The decision will resolve a split among circuits about whether non-lawyer parents may represent the interests of their children with disabilities in federal court.

This case generated intense interest after the Cleveland Bar Association launched an investigation of the Winkelmans and other Ohio parents for the Unauthorized Practice of Law.
In April 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court ordered “the Cleveland Bar Association to show cause, through the production of evidence ... why the complaint it has filed against [the parents] .... should not be dismissed ... because it appears that the parents have not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law." Related article.

The Solicitor General for the United States is supporting the parents in this case and filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to decide the case and resolve the split among circuit. A brief filed by the Solicitor General advised that "IDEA's procedural protections are designed to encourage parental involvement in the ultimate goal of having the child receive a free appropriate public education. The IDEA statement of purpose explicitly recognizes the statute's mission 'to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected.'" 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(B)

The Winkelman Parma page includes:

Question Presented

"To what extent, if any, may a non-lawyer parent of a minor child with a disability proceed pro se in a federal court action brought pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act."

Background of Case

Jacob Winkelman is a young child with an autism spectrum disorder. Jacob and his parents, Jeff and Sandee Winkelman, live in Ohio.

In 2001, Jacob's parents met with officials of the Parma City School District. The team decided to place Jacob at the Achievement Center, a preschool program for young children. Two years later, the parents and public school officials met to decide on an IEP for the next school year. The school offered to place Jacob in a public school kindergarten program. Jacob's parents did not agree that this program met Jacob's unique needs.

Due Process Hearing

This led to a disagreement about Jacob's "current educational placement." His parents requested a due process hearing to resolve this question. The Hearing Officer concluded that the Achievement Center was Jacob's current educational placement, although the preschool would not be able to meet his needs much longer. The parents then enrolled Jacob in the Monarch School, a private school that specializes in educating children with autistic spectrum disorders.

A few months later, the Hearing Officer concluded that the public school program was appropriate and denied the parents' request for tuition reimbursement for the Monarch School.

Appeals

During the due process hearings and administrative appeal, Jacob was represented by his parents. After the parents received an adverse decision from the federal district court, they appealed to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit ruled parents may not represent their children, nor their own interests in federal court, but must retain an attorney.


On September 20, 2005, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a decision in Jacob Winkelman, et al. v. Parma City Schools, holding that Jacob's parents were not allowed to represent him but must retain an attorney because "the IDEA does not grant parents the right to represent their child in federal court ... "[T]he text of the IDEA does not support the proposition that its guarantee of a [free appropriate public education] is a right that [a child] shares jointly with his parents." Jacob Winkelman, et al. v. Parma City Schools (6th Cir. 2005)

Bar Association Investigates Parents for Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL)

After this decision, the Cleveland Bar Association initiated an investigation into whether Jacob's parents were engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. (Bar Association Battles Parents by Patrick O'Donnell, Cleveland Plain Dealer, April 27, 2006) If found guilty, Jeff and Sandee Winkelman could be fined $10,000.

Ohio has a severe shortage of attorneys who represent children with disabilities and their parents. In the twelve months between October 2004 and September 2005, the Ohio Legal Rights Services (OLRS) received 683 requests for legal assistance. They were able to provide representation to 58 families, less than 10 percent of the requests for help.


Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case

On October 27, 2006, the U. S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Jacob's case and and resolve a split among circuits about whether parents can represent their children with disabilities in federal court.

Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae

Before the U. S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Jacob's case, they invited the Solicitor General to submit a brief "to express the views of the United States." Read Brief of Solicitor General.

The Solicitor General urged the Supreme Court to grant the petition for certiorari. "The Sixth Circuit's holding barring parents from appearing pro se in civil actions under the Act is inconsistent with the plain language, structure, and purpose of IDEA." He urged the Supreme Court to resolve this conflict in light of the critical interests in IDEA litigation, the recurring nature of the question, and the need to ensure that IDEA is applied in a uniform manner.

The brief by the Solicitor General described a split among circuits and asked the Court to "resolve this inter-circuit split."

"As several courts of appeals ... have expressly acknowledged, the circuits are divided on that question."

Collinsgru v. Palmyra (3rd Cir. 1998)

In Collinsgru v. Palmyra, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that parents who file IDEA lawsuits in federal court may proceed pro se on their own procedural claims only.

In a divided decision, the Court of Appeals concluded that parents have no substantive rights of their own under IDEA so they cannot proceed to federal court without an attorney. Judge Roth dissented because parents enjoy "joint rights with their [children] under the IDEA which they may pursue pro se in the federal courts."

Maroni v. Pemi Baker Regional School (1st Cir. 2003)

Five years later, in Maroni v. Pemi Baker Regional School, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit "expressly rejected the reasoning of the Third Circuit in Collinsgru" and held that parents are 'parties aggrieved'" under IDEA and may proceed pro se.

Cavanaugh v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. (6th Cir. 2005)

Two years later, in Cavanaugh v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist, "The Sixth Circuit expressly rejected the position of the First Circuit which held that parents may proceed pro se under IDEA."

"The Sixth Circuit held that parents cannot proceed pro se on behalf of their children under IDEA and that parents have no substantive claim of their own to a free appropriate public education."

Procedural Protections and arental Involvement Necessary for FAPE

In the amicus brief filed on behalf of Jacob Winkelman and his parents, the Solicitor General wrote, "IDEA's procedural protections are designed to encourage parental involvement in the ultimate goal of having the child receive a free appropriate public education. The IDEA statement of purpose explicitly recognizes the statute's mission 'to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected.' 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(B)

The Solicitor General's brief described the disadvantages parents face when they attempt to obtain a free appropriate public education since "school districts are usually represented by counsel and have ... a built-in advantage over other IDEA litigants."

"We find it unlikely that Congress intended to put parents who attempt to proceed pro se at the even greater disadvantage of preventing their suits from going forward at all."

Winkelman Decision Renders IDEA Rights "Empty and Meaningless"

The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA), The Arc, and TASH filed a brief on behalf of Jacob and his parents. The brief focused on concerns about "the limited number of attorneys available to represent children with disabilities in IDEA proceedings, and whether the rights of parents to represent their own interests pro se are being abridged."

The brief includes statistics about the availability of attorneys who can represent children with disabilities in Ohio and other states, and urges the U. S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari to clarify that parents are not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law:

"A frightening prospect for Ohio families is that parental ardor to ensure that a child with disabilities receives FAPE could also result in punishment by the State. The Cleveland Bar Association has recently initiated an investigation as to whether the Winkelman's pro se representation ... constituted the unauthorized practice of law."

"It is unfathomable that the Winkelmans may be prosecuted ... the potential for such actions serves as a significant deterrent to pro se parents seeking enforcement of their children's IDEA rights in court." Read brief.

Links to Pleadings

Petition for Writ of Certiorari - Parents' request that U. S. Supreme Court hear their case; includes reasons why the high court needs to resolve the split among circuits on this issue. (02/02/06)
URL: http://www.harborhouselaw.com/law/plead/winkelman,petition.cert.pdf

Respondent Parma City School District's Brief in Opposition to Petition for Certiorari (04/06/06)
URL: http://www.harborhouselaw.com/law/plead/winkelman.brief.opposition.pdf

Reply Brief for the Petitioners (04/18/06)
URL: http://www.harborhouselaw.com/law/plead/winkelman.reply.pdf

Supplemental Brief in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari - Supplemental Brief includes documents filed by the Cleveland Bar Association in their investigation of the Winkelmans’ pro se litigation; also documents in the UPL complaint by the Cleveland Bar against other non-lawyer parents who litigated their disabled child’s IDEA cases pro se in U. S. District Court. (03/30/06)
URL: http://www.harborhouselaw.com/law/plead/winkelman.supp1.pdf

Second Supplemental Brief in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari - After the school's brief in opposition and the parents' reply brief were filed with the U. S. Supreme Court, the Ohio Supreme Court ordered “the Cleveland Bar Association to show cause, through the production of evidence ... why the complaint it has filed against [the parents] * * * should not be dismissed ...” because it appears that the parents have not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Cleveland Bar Ass’n v. Woods, 109 Ohio St. 3d 1418 (2006).(05/08/06)
URL: http://www.harborhouselaw.com/law/plead/winkelman.supp2.050806.pdf

Links to Amicus Briefs

Briefs Requesting that Supreme Court Grant Certiorari

Brief from the United States as Amicus Curiae
URL: http://www.harborhouselaw.com/law/plead/winkelman.amicus.doj.cert.pdf

Brief of Amici Curiae: Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, The ARC and TASH
URL: http://www.harborhouselaw.com/law/plead/winkelman.amicus1.pdf

Amicus Briefs on the Merits

Brief of the Ohio Coalition for the Education of Children With Disabilities and the Autism Society of Ohio as Amicus Curiae

URL: http://www.harborhouselaw.com/law/plead/winkelman.amicus.oh.coalition.pdf

Brief of Amici Curiae: Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates and eleven other advocacy organizations
URL: http://www.harborhouselaw.com/law/plead/winkelman.amicus2.pdf

Note: We understand that briefs have been filed by other amicus curiae, including Senators Kennedy and Harkin, and Representatives Miller and Kucinich. We will continue to add briefs as they become available.

Links to Cases About Parental Representation

Cavanaugh v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist., 409 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2005)
URL: http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/05/cavanaugh.cardinal.htm

Collinsgru v. Palmyra Bd. of Educ
., 161 F.3d 225 (3rd Cir. 1998)
URL: http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/3rd.collinsgru.palmyra.htm

Maroni v. Pemi-Baker Regional Sch., 36 F.3d 247 (1st Cir. 2003)
URL: http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/2003/1st.maroni.pemi.baker.htm

Jacob Winkelman, et al., v. Parma City Sch. Dist.
(6th Cir. 2005)
URL: http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/05/6th.winkelman.parma.pro.se.htm

Articles about Jacob Winkelman's Case

Can You Represent Your Child's Rights Under IDEA? by Peter W. D. Wright and Pamela Wright

Government Urges Review of Parents' IDEA Role - Posted on Scotusblog by Lyle Denniston

Pro Se Plea: Parents Seek the Right to Represent Their Son's Case in Federal Court on ParentAdvocates.org

Bar Association Battles Parents - Says Couple Served as Lawyers
by Patrick O'Donnell, Cleveland Plain Dealer

To Top

Revised: 01/02/07
Created: 11/13/06



Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon The Special Ed Advocate: It's Free!

 

Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 2nd Edition, by Pam and Pete Wright
About the Book

Wrightslaw: All About IEPs
About the Book

Wrightslaw: All About Tests and Assessments
About the Book

Surviving Due Process: Stephen Jeffers v. School Board
About the DVD Video

 

Copyright 1998-2014, Peter W. D. Wright and Pamela Darr Wright. All rights reserved.

Contact Us | Press Mission l Our Awards l Privacy Policy l Disclaimer l Site Map

25% OFF Wrightslaw Products

Wrightslaw Summer Sale!


Now Shipping!

Wrightslaw: All About Tests and Assessments
About the Book

Check it out!

Wrightslaw Store

The Advocate's Store

Get Help!

Blog the Wrightslaw

Wrightslaw on Facebook

Find us on Facebook

Wrightslaw Books

Student Discounts

Military Discounts


Wrightslaw: All About IEPs

About the Book
To Order

Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 2nd Edition, by Pam and Pete Wright
About the Book
To Order


About the Book

To Order


Surviving Due Process: Stephen Jeffers v. School Board

About the DVD Video
To Order


To Order


Wrightslaw: No Child Left Behind

About the Book
To Order

Wrightslaw Multimedia Training


Understanding Your Child's
Test Scores (1.5 hrs)

Understanding Your Child's Test Scores

Learn More
To Order
Retail Price: $
24.95
Wrightslaw Special: $14.95

Special Education Law & Advocacy Training
(6.5 hrs)


Wrightslaw WebEx Special Education Law & Training Program (6.5 hrs)


Learn More
To Order
Retail Price: $99.95
Wrightslaw Special: $49.95