Arizona Parenting Case Study

It was also concluded that the IHSAA broke one of their own rules in regards to the Hardship Rule. According to the Transfer Rule: Rule 19, even when B.J. was granted partial-eligibility, the IHSAA was violating Rule 19.4: “A student should be ineligible for 365 days if he or she transfers schools for athletic reasons”. On top of that, the IHSAA often times issues grants to children who move schools because of their parents. Yet, the IHSAA ignored the facts provided by the plaintiff and his family that would counteract their decision. Furthermore, the IHSAA claimed that the exception holds true when it includes children and/or public interest. The court agreed upon these standards, proving more reasons as to why B.J. should’ve been given the

Randy Rand, Deidre Rand, and Richard Warshak developed the Family Bridges program (Warkshak, 2010). “The Family Bridges workshop has helped families with alienated children throughout the U.S. and other countries for the past 23 years” (Family Bridges: A Workshop for Troubled and Alienated Parent-Child Relationships, 2004-2013). The program was created for participation by the rejected parent and the child. It is a four-day residential, educational and experiential program. Participation in the intervention occurs when the court has made an interim or permanent award of custody to the rejected parent, and has referred the parent and child(ren)to Family

T.M., by A.M. and R.M., his parents, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. Cornwall Central School District United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Docket nos. 12-4301, 12-4484(XAP). Decided: April 2, 2014

In summarizing the salient points of the Supreme Court case Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, it had to do with the respondent’s father who sued candidates, including a school region, affirming that the school locale's approach requiring the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at his little girl's school damaged the First Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the father had standing and decided for the father. Certiorari was conceded to audit the standing and First Amendment issues.

Supreme Court reasoned that the “stay-put” provision does not limit the authority of courts to award appropriate relief to either a parent or the local educational agency. Rather, the Court asserted that the “stay-put” provision created a presumption in favor of leaving children in their existing educational placements unless educators could prove that they were likely to harm themselves or others.

Also, Parents are allowed to sue a state in federal court for noncompliance with the provisions of the law. (IDEA 2004)

In 1981, the parents of several school aged children of Mexican Origin filed a suit against Superintendent James Plyler, of Tyler, Texas, regarding immigration status. The Plyler v. Doe (457 U.S. 202 (1982)) case decision could not have happened prior to 1982, if numerous cases had not paved the way. Some of the significance cases were Vlandis v. Kline (412 U.S. 441 (1973)), which denied an individual an opportunity to present evidence they were a resident entitled to in-state-rates. In Weinberger v. Salfe (422 U.S. 771 (1975)), denied social security benefits to be paid to a mother and child after her husband died. In Toll v. Moreno (441 U.S. 458 (1978)), a student was financially depend upon a person who held a G-4 visa, granted to officers or employees of international organizations. In Elkins v. Moreno (435 U.S. 647 (1978), the student was refused in-state-status, whose parents were lived in Maryland.

SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. JANE DOE INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND FOR HER MINOR CHILDREN, ET AL.

It seems that in this country people want to rush to the courts to fix things. George could not be fixed by the courts so the time had come to be realistic about meeting George’s needs as no law in the United States gives the state the right to NOT meet his needs. Having looked at the final settlement and the numbers involved it seems clear to me that the family was not out to “milk the school district”. They wanted simply to see their son get the most he could get from the educational system and become as viable of an American citizen as possible. This case cries out for thinking outside the box and putting the child first. Unfortunately, as I have seen from interviewing other teachers many parents simply want a fix for their unfixable child. This case does not fall into this category and the fact that in the end solutions were found demonstrates that point.

Case Citation: Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, individually and next as friend for her minor children et al , 530 U.S. 290 (2000)

4. What is the relative weight of parental rights versus the power of the school district?

In Reel v. Harrison, 118 Nev. 881; 60 P.3d 480; 2002 Nev., “First Judicial District Court affirmed the trial court’s determination that § 125C.200 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by restricting a custodial parent's fundamental right to travel. The trial court also concluded that even if § 125C.200 was constitutional, the mother was still permitted to relocate the minor child to New Jersey, based on the career and educational opportunities available... and the ability to maintain reasonable visitation with the father”.

Parents and educators will not always agree on what is best for their child. Murdick, Gartin, & Fowler (2014) state, “the parental view of ‘what is good for my child’ may not be consistent with the school district’s view of what is good for all those in the school” (p. 239). Therefore, it is important that parents know and understand they have rights when it comes to the education of their child. As well, there are legal options available when disagreement occurs. These rights and options come in the form of the procedural safeguards outlined in part B of IDEA. Schools are required to provide parents a copy of the procedural safeguards explaining their rights and legal options upon referral of services, when a complaint is filed, when a change of placement decision is being considered, and anytime upon parental request (“Procedural Safeguards Notice,” n.d.).

For the most part, parents have the best interest of their children at heart. However, there are unfortunately many cases throughout the United States where parents are unable to, for one reason or another, take care of their children. Sometimes, this can be seen as a health issue of the parents. Sometimes, parents are unable to raise their children well due to physical, financial, and/or emotional issues. Other times, parents do not have the best interests of their children in mind and can be neglectful or abusive to them. In these circumstances, the state may become involved and step into

Their findings indicated that when the emotional needs and security of a spouse is met they can better tend to the needs of the child or adolescents. Thus, the value of grounded relationships must be examined when looking at parenting styles as it is apparent to the quality of development in adolescents.