SAN DIEGO
EDUCATION
REPORT
sandiegoeducationreport.com
Peters versus Guajome Park Academy, et al
Page 12

Various provisions of the I.D.E.A. and its legislative history support the conclusion
that the right to FAPE belongs to both parents and students with disabilities. Since the
enactment and implementation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of
1975, this Act has been successful in ensuring children with disabilities and the families
of such children access to a free appropriate public education and in improving
educational results for children with disabilities. 20 U.S.C § 1400(c)(3) (2002)(emphasis
added). As a result, a claim under the I.D.E.A. that a school district has failed to provide
FAPE is the parent’s own claim under 28 U.S.C § 1654 since it involves their right to
have their child receive FAPE. See generally Machadio v. Apfel, 276 F.3d 103, 106 (2nd Cir.
2002) (threshold question in determining if party can go forward in case without an
attorney is a whether “a given matter is plaintiff’s own case or belongs to another”);
Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d at 137.

In the September 2006 Amicus Curiae to the United States Supreme Court in support
of Petitioners Jacob Winkelman, A Minor by and through his Parents and Legal
Guardians, Jeff and Sandee Winkelman, Et. Al., v. Parma City School District No. 05-983
by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Education. The amicus in
citations to Congressional reauthorization and amended I.D.E.A. in 2004. See Individuals
with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat.
2647 (to be codified at 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.). The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that
parents are among those who may file a civil action under I.D.E.A. See Honig v. Doe,
484 U.S. 305, 312 (1988) (“At the conclusion of [a due process] hearing, both the parents
and the local educational agency may seek further administrative review and, where that
proves unsatisfactory, may file a civil action in any state or federal court.”); School
Comm. Of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 361 (1985) See Winkelman ‘s
Amicus pg. 5. In providing a right to bring a civil action under I.D.E.A. Congress used


Page 13

FECv. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 19 (1998). A person is “aggrieved” if he or she has “legal FECv.
Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 19 (1998). A person is “aggrieved” if he or she has “legal rightsthat are
adversely affected” or has “been harmed by an infringement of legal rights.”Black’s Law
Dictionary 73 (8th ed. 2004).It is uncontested that parents have the right to bring both
procedural and substantive claims under I.D.E.A. at the administrative hearing stage (and
to appear pro se to prosecute those claims, see 20 U.S.C. 1415(h)(2)). See Winkelman ‘s
Amicus Pg.10.Congress intended to permit parents to file their own civil actions challenging
theoutcome of administrative proceedings as well. See NASA v. Federal Labor
RelationsAuth., 527 U.S. 229, 235 (1999) (observing that phrase “should ordinarily retain
the samemeaning wherever used in the same statute”). Nor is there any practical reason
whyCongress would permit parents to litigate administrative proceedings under I.D.E.reason
whyCongress would permit parents to litigate administrative proceedings under I.D.E.A.
butnot federal court actions. See Winkelman ‘s Amicus Pg.11. Parents have procedural
rights under I.D.E.A. and jointly share with their child the substantive statutory right to a
free appropriate public education. See Collinsgru, 161 F.3d at 237 (Roth, J., dissenting)
(parents’ and children’s rights under I.D.E.A. are “overlapping and inseparable”).
(parents’ and children’s rights under I.D.E.A. are “overlapping and inseparable”).
SD Education Rprt Blog
San Diego
Education Report I
continued...
Page 22
Page 23

deemed to be school
deemed to be school
 
districts for purposes of
(1) Education Code
sections 14000 through
14058 (concerning
appropriations,
disbursements, and
apportionment from the
State School Fund to
localdistricts based on
ADA), 41301 (concerning
ADA), 41301 (concerning
apportionment formulas
based on ADA),41302.5
(defining “school
districts” for purposes of
article XVI, sections 8
and 8.5, of theCalifornia
Constitution, which
sections earmark levels
of state funding for
publicschools), 41850
through 41857
(concerning
apportionment from the
State School Fundfor
home-to-school
transportation), and
47638 (concerning
charter schools’
eligibility forState
Lottery funds based on
ADA), and (2) article
XVI, sections 8 and 8.5
of theCalifornia
Constitution.
Constitution.