Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1

/in , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: Colorado

Filed: 2016, 2017

Court: U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

Overview: The brief before the U.S. Supreme Court argued that Congress’ move to standards-based education and the IDEA amendments make the Tenth Circuit Court’s bare-bones “merely more than de-minimis” standard for educational benefit untenable. The brief—in support of Drew, a child with autism who was not making progress under his IEP—argued that the IDEA requires school districts to provide students with disabilities an equal opportunity to meet the standards the district applies to all children and that any deviation from that universal standard must be tied to the unique needs of each child. In 2017, the Court issued a unanimous decision definitively rejecting the “merely more than de minimis” standard and holding that the “IDEA demands more.” In 2017, another amicus brief before the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado asked the court to find that the IEP at issue was not “appropriately ambitious” in light of the “markedly more demanding” standard outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Excerpt: “In the years since Rowley, Congress has not been silent. To the contrary, it has repeatedly amended the IDEA. Where the Rowley Court found that Congress had not adopted language providing a ‘substantive standard prescribing the level of education to be accorded handicapped children,’ the post-Rowley amendments have progressively expanded States’ substantive obligations under the statute. These amendments make clear that a school district’s educational interventions must provide a child with a disability an equal opportunity to meet the standards the district applies to all children. Any deviation from that universal standard must be tied to the unique needs of the child. The Tenth Circuit’s merely-more-than-de-minimis test therefore falls far short of the requirements that Congress has imposed since Rowley.”

Status: In 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado held that the school district did not provide an adequate education and must reimburse the family for private school tuition, noting that the IEP “was not appropriately ambitious” under the new standard articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court since it did not provide the plaintiff with a chance “to meet challenging objectives under his particular circumstances.”

Case Documents

U.S. Supreme Court Brief

U.S. Supreme Court Opinion

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado Brief

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado Opinion

Related Media

The Arc Blog, “The Arc Applauds U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Special Education Case: ‘The IDEA Demands More’”

New York Times, “Supreme Court Rejects Education Minimum Applied by Gorsuch”

In the Matter of Lacee L.

/in , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: New York

Filed: 2018

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Overview: The brief supported a mother with intellectual disability who had her child removed from her care without receiving appropriate accommodations from the state’s child welfare agency that would have allowed her an equal chance to parent effectively. The brief argued that the court must recognize the important role that the family and appellate courts have in enforcing the rights of parents with intellectual disability to receive the supports and accommodations they need to preserve and reunify their families. The brief also provided background on the meaning of an intellectual disability diagnosis, the long history of discrimination against parents with intellectual disability, and the social science and personal stories that show how people with intellectual disability can flourish as parents when provided the supports and services they need to thrive.

Excerpt: “Individuals with intellectual disability can learn how to parent, improve their parenting skills, and parent successfully with appropriate support. Robust enforcement of the reasonable accommodations requirement of the ADA is essential to guaranteeing that they have an equal opportunity to do so.”

Status: In 2018, the Court found that the child welfare agency had met the reasonable efforts requirement and provided all accommodations required. However, on the broader issue of the applicability of the ADA to the proceedings, the Court did state: “An agency, like ACS, that is subject to Title II of the ADA must make ‘reasonable accommodations’ to allow ‘meaningful access’ to government services…To be sure, ACS must comply with the ADA.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: In the Matter of Lacee L.

New York Court of Appeals Opinion

In Re Elijah C.

/in , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: Connecticut

Filed: 2016

Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

Overview: The brief supported a mother with intellectual disability and schizophrenia whose parental rights were terminated by the state’s child welfare agency, despite the agency failing to provide necessary accommodations to the mother throughout the process. The brief argued that termination of parental rights and neglect proceedings are “programs, services, and activities” that must comply with Title II of the ADA.

Excerpt: “Parents with intellectual and psychiatric disabilities face profound challenges when their government accuses them of unfitness. Though nine decades have passed since Justice Holmes upheld the forced sterilization of “mental defectives”…we are not so far removed from Holmes’ bias: Ten states still permit the involuntary sterilization of persons with disabilities; some in language that echoes Holmes’ disdain for its subjects. In Connecticut, parents with intellectual and psychiatric disabilities confront more than just a legacy of discrimination: They also contend with a know-it-when-you-see-it reunification standard and case law that forbids consideration of the ADA. Holding that compliance with the ADA is mandatory in termination and neglect proceedings will remove these two barriers to fair and accurate assessment of the parental fitness of persons with intellectual and psychiatric disabilities.”

Status: In 2017, the Court held that the mother was unable to benefit from reunification efforts. The Court further held that “it is the law of this state that child welfare proceedings are subject to the provisions of the ADA insofar as they involve the services, programs, or activities of any stage agency…the department’s failure to make reasonable modifications to its services, programs or activities to accommodate a parent’s disability would likely preclude a finding…that the department’s reunification efforts were reasonable under the circumstances…We therefore continue to encourage trial courts to look to the ADA for guidance in fashioning appropriate services for parents with disabilities.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: In Re Elijah C.

Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion

In Re Hicks/Brown

/in , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: Michigan

Filed: 2016

Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

Overview: The brief supported a mother with intellectual disability arguing that the state failed in its statutory duty to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family unit because the case service plan never included reasonable accommodations to provide her with a meaningful opportunity to benefit, as required by the ADA.

Excerpt: “The Court of Appeals in this case reached the correct conclusion: when a state agency fails to provide reasonable accommodations to a parent with disabilities in a case service plan, the agency fails in its statutory duty to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family. When this happens, the state simply cannot satisfy the high burden (i.e., clear and convincing evidence) required to take the drastic measure of terminating parental rights. Failing to provide a parent with disabilities with an appropriate case service plan necessarily leaves a ‘hole’ in the evidence that prohibits a court from finding that the requisite grounds for termination have been satisfied. How can a trier of fact find evidence so clear and weighty to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, that a person with disabilities cannot remedy the grounds leading to adjudication or otherwise provide proper care for his or her child when the parent was never given the appropriate reasonable accommodations? The answer is, as the Court of Appeals held, that they cannot. The American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Michigan Probate Code, as well as common sense, dictate such a ruling.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: In Re Hicks/Brown

Supreme Court of Michigan Opinion

In the Matter of Michael A.

/in , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: New York

Filed: 2017

Court: New York Supreme Court

Overview: The brief supported a mother with intellectual disability arguing that the state’s child welfare agency had failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with her son in violation of Title II of the ADA.

Excerpt: “While much research exists demonstrating the ability of individuals with intellectual disability to parent with needed supports, parents with intellectual disability…remain an especially vulnerable population given pervasive and harmful stereotypes of people with disabilities. Their abilities are frequently underestimated, and they remain subject to the outdated notion that, by reason of their disabilities alone, they are simply incapable of parenting. Without proper enforcement of the ADA, these vulnerable parents have no recourse or remedy should [the child welfare agency] deny them equal access to the services, programs, or activities that they and their families require to reunite or to remain together.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: In the Matter of Michael A.

Ivy v. Morath

/in , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: Texas

Filed: 2016

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Overview: The brief argued that Title II of the ADA prohibits disability-based discrimination in public “services, programs, or activities” and state and local governments may not evade Title II obligations by enlisting private entities to perform them. States and other public entities routinely rely on private entities to provide services, programs, or activities, such as operating schools, providing employment training, providing community and long-term housing and care services to people with disabilities, operating prisons, providing transportation, and more. Many of the areas in which states involve private entities to provide public services, programs, and activities are critical to ensuring that people with disabilities are able to live independently within the community, receive educational and employment opportunities, and not be denied access to basic government services and benefits.

Excerpt: “When the state administers a program of issuing an important public benefit – here, a driver’s license – by conditioning that benefit on participation in a service or program operated by a private entity, it has a Title II obligation to ensure that people with disabilities are not excluded from the program and thus the benefit…[S]tates have experimented with a variety of arrangements to deliver public services and carry out public programs and activities through private entities. When the states’ administration, policies, directives, or actions lead to or allow disability-based discrimination in those public services, programs, and activities, the plain text of the statute holds the ‘public entity’ responsible. And the regulations…make clear that a public entity’s obligations extend not just to those services and benefits it provides ‘directly,’ nor even just to programs, services, or activities operated by private entities ‘through contractual . . . arrangements’ with the state, but also to state programs, services, and activities that enlist private entities through ‘licensing, or other arrangements.’

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: Ivy v. Morath

Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates

/in , , , , , /by The Arc

COPAA’s mission is to protect and enforce the legal and civil rights of students with disabilities and their families. Our primary goal is to secure high quality educational services and to promote excellence in advocacy. This is an external resource.

Affordable Care Act Amicus Briefs

/in , , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: Texas

Filed: April 1, 2019; May 13, 2020

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, U.S. Supreme Court

Overview: The briefs support the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and outline how the ACA has been essential to overcoming the disproportionate impact that America’s health care crisis has had on people with disabilities.

Excerpt: “…declaring the ACA unconstitutional in its entirety will uniquely and extensively harm [the disability] community…Congress could not have intended to inflict such harm upon people with disabilities when it removed the financial penalty associated with the ACA’s individual mandate but left the provisions above intact. And it is even more unlikely that it intended to do so without otherwise protecting disabled people who would shoulder much of the burden of invalidating the entire ACA. This Court should not ascribe such an intent to Congress and should reverse the district court’s decision which strips away the significant gains that people with disabilities have made since the ACA’s passage.”

Case Documents

Fifth Circuit Amicus Brief

Supreme Court Amicus Brief

Related Media

Press Release: “The Arc Joins Appellate Court Amicus Brief Outlining Critical Importance of ACA for People with Disabilities”

Press Release: “The Arc Deeply Troubled by Affordable Care Act Ruling”

Press Release: “The Arc Joins Supreme Court Amicus Brief Urging Court to Uphold Affordable Care Act, Congressional Protections for People with Disabilities”

Press Release: “The Arc’s Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling in California v. Texas“

Mental Health Courts and Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: A Criminal Justice Solution?

/in , , , , , , , , /by The Arc

Mental health courts were created to divert offenders away from prison into long-term community-based treatment. These courts rely on assessments, treatment plans and ongoing monitoring of behavior to address both the mental health needs of the offenders, as well as the safety needs of the community. But, are mental health courts appropriate for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD)? Can they do more harm than good? Join NCCJD as we explore these questions and hear from experts in the field about this under-recognized dilemma in the criminal justice system. NCCJD will discuss the results of a recent informal survey of mental health courts serving people with IDD, followed by Ms. Baird who will provide a historical perspective of mental health courts, and define their role and purpose in the criminal justice system. Ms. Patton will discuss how the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Court specifically addresses the needs of individuals with IDD and the benefits of serving these individuals. Mr. Stone will address the concerns of mental health courts and whether they are adequate to serve those with IDD.

Panelists:

Jennifer Baird, Program Manager, Mental Health Court, St. Lucie County, Florida
Meghan Patton, Court Coordinator, Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Court, Cuyahoga County, Ohio
Adam Stone, Criminal Defense Attorney

Competency of Individuals With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in the Criminal Justice System: A Call to Action for the Criminal Justice Community

/in , , , , , , /by The Arc

Join NCCJD as we explore the concept of competency for individuals with IDD in the criminal justice system. Topics addressed will include the competency to stand trial process, the differences between competency and the insanity defense, importing death penalty standards for individuals with IDD into competency determinations, competency evaluation wait times, and the impact that guardianship and supported decision making have on competency in criminal cases. Individuals familiar with IDD will get an introduction to competency issues that people with IDD may face while legal professionals will gain insight into the specific implications of IDD within the conceptual framework of competency. The speakers for this webinar are authors of our new white paper, Competency of Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in the Criminal Justice System: A Call to Action for the Criminal Justice Community.

Panelists:
Robert Fleischner, Assistant Director, Center for Public Representation
Claudia Center, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Disability Rights Program
Robert Dinerstein, Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Experiential Education, Director of Disability Rights Law Clinic, American University Washington College of Law
Andrew Flood, Stanford Law School
Brooke Boutwell, Wake Forest University School of Law, NCCJD Intern
Hillary Frame, Wake Forest University School of Law, NCCJD Intern