Winkelman v. Parma City School District May 21, 2007 U.S. Supreme Court (No. 05-983) May 21, 2007 In a surprising reversal of a 6th Circuit decision, the United States’ Supreme Court held that parents may bring a pro se court action regarding any procedural or substantive claim arising under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA.)
Feb 27, 2007 · Jeff and Sandee Winkelman claimed that Parma City School District failed to give their disabled son Jacob a "free appropriate public education" as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Despite the Winkelmans' opposition, the school district planned to place Jacob in a public elementary school.
- Parties’ Arguments
- Consequences of Possible Outcomes
- The Winkelmans’ Arguments
- Parma City School District’S Arguments
The District argues that the Winkelmans lack sufficient legal expertise to litigate complicated claims and could make mistakes that would harm their child in the future. See Respondent’s Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Brief Opposing Writ) at 16–17; Brief for Nat’l School Bds. Ass’n as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents ...
A Supreme Court decision could result in three different outcomes. First, the Court could follow Cavanaugh and hold that parents cannot prosecute any IDEA claims pro se. This would lead to the surprising conclusion that parents cannot even bring claims based on their own rights under IDEA. Second, the Supreme Court could permit parents to prosecute...
The Winkelmans have three basic arguments: (1) that the legislature intended the IDEA to allow parents to proceed pro se; (2) that allowing parents to proceed pro seis the best policy for promoting education of children with disabilities; and (3) parents are the best advocates for their children. The IDEA dictates that parents play a strong role in...
The School District first argues that nothing in the text of IDEA or the legislative history behind the statute changed the common law rule forbidding parents from litigating pro sein IDEA cases. They also argue that compelling parents to retain professional legal counsel for IDEA claims protects the child’s educational interests and better serves ...
WINKELMAN V. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WINKELMAN, a minor, by and through his parents and legal guardians, WINKELMAN et ux., et al. v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 05–983. Argued February 27, 2007—Decided May 21, 2007
Oct 21, 2014 · Winkelman v. Parma City School District - Amicus (Merits) Docket number: No. 05-983 Supreme Court Term: 2006 Term Court Level: Supreme Court No. 05-983 In the Supreme Court of the United States JACOB WINKELMAN, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS AND LEGAL GUARDIANS, JEFF AND SANDEE WINKELMAN, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
May 21, 2007 · SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WINKELMAN, a minor, by and through his parents and legal guardians, WINKELMAN et ux., et al. v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 05–983. Argued February 27, 2007—Decided May 21, 2007
Feb 27, 2007 · In Winkelman v. Parma City School District, the U.S. Supreme Court must decide whether, and to what extent, non-lawyer parents may prosecute IDEA cases without professional legal aid. The issue has splintered the federal courts of appeals along a 1–4–1 line.