Since the Education for All Handicapped Children Act became effective in 1977, several aspects of the law have been subject to much litigation. One of the most controversial provisions of the law, in terms of litigation, is the related services mandate. The controversy centers on whether or not school systems are required to provide services such as psychotherapy, certain health services, physical plant accessibility, parent training and counseling, and extra-curricular activities. The author has examined how the courts have interpreted the related services mandate and has offered some guidelines as to what is and is not required.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Birmingham and Lamphere School Districts v. Superintendent, EHLR 554:318 (1982).
2.
Board of Education v. Rowley, 102 S. Ct. 3034 (1982)
3.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et. seq.; 34 C.F.R. § 300.13(a), § 300.13 Comment, § 300.14 Comment.
4.
Erdman v. State of Connecticut, EHLR 552:218 (1980).
5.
Espino v. Besteiro, 520 F. Supp. 905 (1981).
6.
Gary B. v. Cronin, 542 F. Supp. 102 (1980).
7.
Hawaii v. Katherine D., 531 F. Supp. 517 (1982).
8.
Hurry v. Jones, 560 F. Supp. 500 (1983).
9.
In re “A” Family, 602 P. 2d 157 (1979).
10.
McKenzie v. Jefferson, EHLR 554:338 (1983).
11.
North v. District of Columbia, 471 F. Supp. 136 (1979).
12.
OsborneA. G., (1984). An examination of handicapped students’ rights to education and appropriate placement under federal law.University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor MI.
13.
Papacoda v. State of Connecticut, 528 F. Supp. 68 (1981).
14.
Rettig v. Kent City, 539 F. Supp. 768 (1981), aff'd in part, vac't and rem'd in part 720 F. 2d 463 (1983).
15.
Stacey G. v. Pasadena, 547 F. Supp. 61 (1982).
16.
Tatro v. Texas, 625 F. 2d 557 (1980), on rem'd 516 F. Supp. 968 (1981), aff'd 703 F. 2d 823 (1983), U.S. Supreme Court No. 83-558 (aff'd. July 5, 1984).
17.
T.G. and P.G. v. Board of Education, 576 F. Supp. 420 (1983).
