Schaffer v. Weast’s Effects on California Special Education Hearing Decisions

2022 ◽  
pp. 104420732110667
Author(s):  
Tiina Itkonen ◽  
Bryan Tomlin ◽  
Manuel G. Correia ◽  
Luis A. Sanchez ◽  
Tracie Schneider ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Due Process Hearings ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
Due Process Hearing ◽  
Before And After

This research examined the associations between Schaffer v. Weast (2005) and special education due process hearing decisions in California. Using a database we coded from the state’s due process hearings for cases which reached a decision (years 1995–2019), this study analyzed (1) how legal representation and the filing party affected the probability of the student fully or partially prevailing in these cases, and (2) how Schaffer affected student representation and the prevailing party before and after this ruling. The results indicate that while students were statistically as likely to be plaintiffs and/or represented by an attorney before and after the 2005 time break in the study, the decision raised the bar for students as the likelihood of favorable outcomes for students fell significantly in the wake of the ruling.

Dysphagia Services in Schools: Applying Special Education Requirements to a Health Service

2009 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 86-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lissa Power-deFur
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Due Process Hearings ◽  
Related Services ◽  
Eligibility Determination ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Provision Of Services ◽  
Related Service ◽  
Specially Designed Instruction

Abstract School speech-language pathologists and districts frequently need guidance regarding how the legal provisions of special education affect the needs of children with dysphagia. This article reviews key principles of special education that guide eligibility determination and provision of services to all children. In the eligibility process, the school team would determine if the child's disability has an adverse effect on his/her education program and if the child needed special education (specially designed instruction) and related services. Dysphagia services would be considered a related service, a health service needed for the child to benefit from specially designed instruction. The article concludes with recommendations for practice that stem from a review of due process hearings and court cases for children with disabilities that include swallowing.

Recovery of Expert Fees in Special Education Due Process Hearings

2008 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 112-115
Author(s):  
Mitchell L. Yell ◽  
Antonis Katsiyannis ◽  
Joseph B. Ryan ◽  
Kimberly McDuffie
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Due Process Hearings

scholarly journals Denials of Judicial Bypass Petitions for Abortion in Texas Before and After the 2016 Bypass Process Change: 2001–2018

2020 ◽  
Vol 110 (3) ◽  
pp. 351-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Jean Stevenson ◽  
Kate Coleman-Minahan ◽  
Susan Hays
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Process Change ◽  
Official Statistics ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
Before And After

Objectives. To estimate the percentage of Texas judicial bypass petitions for abortion denied annually from 2001 to 2018, and to assess whether that fraction changed after the state’s 2016 bypass process change. Methods. Because official statistics on Texas judicial bypass case counts and outcomes are only available for 2016 and later, we systematically reviewed monthly internal reports from Jane’s Due Process (JDP), an organization providing legal representation to pregnant minors seeking bypass from 2001 to 2018. We report numbers and percentages of JDP cases denied for 2001 to 2018 and numbers and percentages of all cases denied from official Texas statistics for 2016 to 2018 (all available years). Results. At least 1 denial occurred in 11 out of 15 years observed before the bypass law changed in Texas (percentages = 0%–6.2%). After Texas made its bypass process more restrictive, the percentage denied increased (from 2.8% in 2015 to 10.3% in 2016 among JDP cases). Conclusions. We found the greatest percentages of judicial bypass for abortion petitions denied after the policy was implemented and after the bypass process changed. Judicial bypass for abortion may expose pregnant minors to judicial veto of their abortion decision.

Immigration Courts

2019 ◽  
pp. 102-113
Author(s):  
Susan J. Terrio
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Immigrant Children ◽  
Dramatic Reduction ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Government ◽  
Administrative Oversight ◽  
Judicial Training ◽  
The U.S

This chapter draws on extended observations within federal immigration courts and interviews conducted with sitting and retired immigration judges both before and after the 2014 influx of undocumented minors who were apprehended, detained, put into deportation proceedings, and forced to appear in fast track hearings. It examines the specific challenges judges face such as staff shortages, court backlogs, and negative press regarding the judicial training immigration they receive before appointment to the bench. Since 2014, stress on judges has been heightened with the creation of expedited juvenile hearings, the increased numbers of children in removal proceedings, overloaded dockets, a dramatic reduction in the proportion of children with legal representation, and mounting numbers of in absentia deportation orders. Immigration judges share views on what they see as their weak structural position within the U.S. Department of Justice, the power imbalances that favor the government and threaten both fairness and due process protections, the inadequate legal protections for immigrant children, and the heavy toll their work exacts through exposure to horrific persecution stories, heavy caseloads, and intrusive administrative oversight..

How to Survive a Due Process Hearing

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-12
Author(s):  
Carl Corbin
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Individualized Education Program ◽  
Special Education Services ◽  
Education Services ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Educational Professionals ◽  
Due Process Hearing ◽  
Education Act

Abstract Background/Introduction: Due process hearings are administrative hearings that resolve disputes between parents of children, who qualify for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), and a Local Educational Agency (“LEA”). The IDEA provides that students that qualify for special education services are entitled to receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”). A FAPE has both substantive and procedural requirements. The process by which a LEA details the provision of a FAPE to a student who qualifies for special education services is through the development of an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”). Objectives: This article reviews the process to develop a legally defensible IEP. This article provides strategies for LEAs and educational professionals to avoid a due process hearing. This article provides a brief description of and timelines associated with a due process hearing. This article provides suggestions to educational professionals who may be called to testify as a witness at a due process hearing. Conclusion: LEAs and educational professionals can minimize their risk of having to undergo a due process hearing and can maximize their chances to prevail at a due process hearing through preparation and training.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document