"Disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right of individuals to participate in or contribute to society. Improving educational results for children with disabilities is an essential element of our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities."
20 U.S.C.§1400(c)(1) (2007)
Special Education Attorney
San Diego, California
Call or Email Us Now
Experience and Compassion
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (I.D.E.A.) requires school districts to provide all students with disabilities a free, appropriate public education ("FAPE"). School districts must identify, appropriately assess, and provide appropriate education for all students with disabilities. Even students placed in private schools have certain rights as well. Under the I.D.E.A., the parent's only recourse is due process.
Education law is complex, and it takes more than a law degree to navigate the realm of special education. Many parents turn to special education attorneys to assist them with their child's Individualized Education Program (I.E.P.) or due process.
We are passionate about helping students and their parents to receive their FAPE, whether through the IEP or 504 process or through due process.
Contact us today for a free consultation and discuss options for your child.
Monumental Supreme Court Case
In the landmark 2017 special education case Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, the first special education case to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court since Rowley in 1982, the Court was asked to clarify exactly what kind of “educational benefits” an IEP must provide, or more specifically, "what is the level of educational benefit that school districts must confer on children with disabilities to provide them with the free appropriate public education guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.?"
DISCLAIMER: Information contained in this website or provided by this law firm is for general information purposes only to permit you to learn more about the law firm and the legal services that it may be available to provide. The information presented is not legal advice, is not to be acted on as such, may not be current, and is subject to change without notice. Communication with or by Helen Ghio and/or this law firm through this website (1) does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship, (2) is not intended as a solicitation, (3) is not intended to convey or constitute legal advice, and (4) is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney. No attorney-client relationship is formed between you and Helen Ghio and/or this law firm until you have entered into a formal written agreement (i.e. a legal services agreement or retainer agreement). You should not rely upon the transmission of an e-mail message to Helen Ghio and/or this law firm through this website to create an attorney-client relationship.
U.S. Supreme Court alert:
A petition for certiorari was filed in the 9th Circuit case M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High School District. In this case, a California school district is challenging the 9th Circuit's ruling that it denied a blind high school student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) when the district increased the number of service minutes in the student's IEP without his parent's knowledge or consent. The court of appeals held that the unilateral IEP amendment impeded the parent's participation in the IEP process by hindering her ability to monitor the implementation of her son's services. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition on December 11, 2017
Petitions for certiorari were also filed in other special education cases but were denied by the U.S. Supreme Court on 10/2/2017:
Gohl v. Livonia Public Schools (6th Circuit, Michigan) regarding physical mistreatment of a 3-year old by a special education teacher; and
Ms. M. v. Falmouth School Department (1st Circuit, Maine) regarding prior written notice; and
In N.E. v. Seattle School District (9th Circuit, Washington) regarding stay-put.
E.F. v. Newport Mesa Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Circuit, California) regarding assistive technology evaluation was sent back to the lower court for re-examination in light of the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District.