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 dministrative 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.