270 S. W3d 13 Summary

In this case, plaintiff Helen Foster brought a wrongful death action after her mentally retarded son was killed while under the supervision of two teachers, defendants Inez Grant and Lloyd Gray.

The two important court rulings were the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1971 and Mills vs. The Board of Education of the District of Columbia in 1972 (ERIC Clearinghouse, 1998). These court decisions showed that “the responsibility of States and local school districts to educate individuals with disabilities is derived from the equal protection law of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”(ERIC Clearinghouse, 1998, n.p.)

The third case, Daniel RR v. State Board of Education, was documented in United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit in June 12, 1989. This case discussed whether a child with disability is given a right to receive mainstream education.

Summary judgment for defendant-school district in an action in which plaintiffs allege that defendant violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by denying plaintiff-minor a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in his least restrictive environment (LRE) is vacated and remanded, where: 1) the LRE requirement of IDEA applies to extended school year placements as it does to regular school‐year placements; 2) the district court erred in determining that defendant met the LRE requirement when it offered plaintiff-minor

The provision of resources to handicapped children is subject to a wide variety of federal and state laws and statutes. However, due the varied and spectacular range of disabilities and combination of disabilities it is often difficult to easily decide who should receive benefits and who should not. Often debated both within the court system, and without, is the subject of whether the child with a severe disability can actually benefit from the services and resources being allocated to that student. Timothy W. V. Rochester School District addresses just that issue referred to as “Zero Reject.”

In 2004 the case of Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education was coming to a close after reaching the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Ohio. Within this essay, detailed examination of this case, along with issues that developed the case, disagreement points, parties involved, and final outcome will be explored. This case was initiated in 1999 and reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 2004. The Individuals with Disabilities Act has given parents and caregivers to student’s unparalleled

The court’s found CIC to be a “related service” allowing Amber to have a special education. The Court of Appeals affirmed and accepted the District Court’s conclusion that state law permitted be required schools to hire trained personnel to help with the needs of handicapped children. This entitles an education for those children with special medical needs. “A service that enables a handicapped child to remain at school during the day is an important means of providing the child with the meaningful access to education that Congress envisioned (Eric).”

This case was a very significant ruling for special education evident with numerous studies positing that the ruling of this 1982 case was perhaps the most important special education decision by the Supreme Court and to this day, continues to have a profound effect on the education of students with disabilities. Additionally, this was the first time that the Supreme Court had to interpret portions of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA 1990), which was then the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) as it relates to what constituted a free and appropriate education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE).

Holding: yes the 8th amendment does protect mentally retarded criminals from capital punishment as cruel and unusual.

Tatro (1984), is a case presented to argue that Debbie Young’s decision to refuse Jonathan’s parents’ request to have him attend a school in the district was wrong. In the case of Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1984), a student with spina bifida suffers from orthopedic and speech impairments and a neurogenic bladder, which prevents her from emptying her bladder voluntarily. She is required to have a clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) services to attend class. Under her individualized education program, there was no provisions for the school personnel to do the CIC services. Her parents filed a suit against the school district. They stated that the CIC was a related service that school should provide. In the end, the court ruled that without the procedure being available at the school for the student she could not attend school. This is a case that would help to show that Jonathan has a right to be at the school. There are services that must be provided for Jonathan to attend school so benefit from special education instruction. IDEA requires an individualized education program to be prepared for the student to receive special education services. Under the IDEA it is emphasized that a student with a disability can be eligible for related services and accommodations in the school. Jonathan’s parents must have the appropriate paper work to show that Jonathan needs these services for him attend school. The court would

A parent of a child with a disability who disagrees with any decision by a school district regarding a change in educational placement of the child based upon a violation of a code of student conduct, or who disagrees with a manifestation determination made by the district, may request and is entitled to receive an expedited due process hearing. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(a) (2006).)

The court held that the expert medical witness testimony regarding the Herbel Study, his own experiences as a physician, and the medical record of the defendant did not provide enough evidence to justify the forced medication of the defendant even though all three concerned patients with delusional disorders. Watson, 793 F.3d at 428. The court found that the fourteen year-old Herbel study was inherently flawed due to its design and did not justify the forced medication of the defendant because the information provided about its subjects was neither similar enough nor specific enough to the situation of the defendant at hand. Id. at 426. Similarly, the court faulted the government’s reliance on the personal experiences of the witness because the information provided regarding his patients was not specific enough to the defendant’s situation. In particular, the testimony did not indicate that the previously treated patients had delusions that were “meaningfully similar in nature and persistence” to those of the defendants. The medical record of the defendant was also inadequate because although it reported that he had previously been given the, it only indicated that he had been treated and released. Id. at

Artifact number four will review a scenario in which a seasoned high school principal refuses a disabled student education due to extraordinary expense and a view that the school might not be the best placement for Jonathan. The topics discussed all pertain to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), Cedar Rapids v Garret, Board of Education v Holland, and Timothy v Rochester. The facts that will be reviewed in this information will be discussed which could be used to defend Young’s decision, but make sure that Jonathan’s rights are not being stepped on.

The purpose of the evaluation is two-fold: (1) to determine if a student is eligible and (2) to determine a student’s educational needs. The Ninth Circuit held that a student with autism was denied a FAPE after his school district failed to formally evaluate him. In that case, despite speculation that the child may have autism, a staff member concluded the child had an expressive language delay based on an informal, unscientific observation that had been conducted. The court reasoned the lack of a formal assessment made it impossible for the district to meet its obligation under IDEA.

Many are disturbed by the execution of mentally challenged or incompetent criminals. The U.S Supreme Court on June 20, 2002 declared that the execution of the mentally challenged is unconstitutional, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. The “criminal” is usually pardoned when further evidence comes out. An incident of this happening is the case of David Vasquez. David Vasquez was arrested for the murder of a woman who was killed in her Arlington County, Virginia home. She was sexually assaulted and then hung. Vasquez, who was borderline mentally retarded, had reportedly confessed to the crime, allegedly supplying details not released to the public. Additionally, Vasquez could not provide an alibi and was placed near the scene of the crime by two eyewitnesses. Investigators also found pubic hairs that visually resembled those of Vasquez. Vasquez’s attorneys argued that the interrogations were tainted because of his lower than normal intelligence. Friends said that he reacts to the world like a young child and that he is easily flustered under pressure. He was described in court as having “borderline retarded/low normal” intelligence. He was so scared of being executed that he pled guilty to a crime he did not commit.