The Supreme Court in Smith v. Robinson indicated substantial restrictions on the ability of students and their families to recover legal expenses incurred in pursuing their due process rights under the Education of the Handicapped Act. The Act's reliance on private enforcement by parents coupled with the difficulties inherent in attempting to pursue administrative and legal remedies without legal training suggest that Congress intended that reimbursement of attorneys' fees be available.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alaska Stat. §14.30.045(4) (1982).
2.
BartlettK., & WegnerJ. (Eds.). (1985). Children with special needs (Symposium). Law and Contemporary Problems, 48(1), (2).
3.
Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
4.
BudoffM., & OrensteinA. (1981). Special education appeals hearings: Are they fair and are they helping?Exceptional Education Quarterly, 2(2), 37–48.
5.
Burlington School Committee v. Department of Education of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 105 S.Ct. 1996 (1985).
6.
Staff. (1985, March 18). Education for the handicapped: Securing a child's rights. Congressional Quarterly News Service.
7.
Education of the Handicapped Act, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.
8.
HayesS. C., & HayesR. (1982). Mental retardation: Law, policy and administration.Sidney, Australia: The Law Book Company.
9.
HillP. (1982) Educational policymaking through the civil justice system.Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation Institute for Civil Justice.
10.
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 104 S.Ct. 3371 (1984).
11.
KirpD. (1976). Proceduralism and bureaucracy: Due process in the school setting. Stanford Law Review, 28, 841–876.
12.
KuriloffP. (1985). Is justice served by due proces: Affecting the outcome of special education hearings in Pennsylvania. Law and Contemporary Problems, 48(1), 89–118.
13.
Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F.Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972).
14.
New Mexico Constitution article XII, §5.
15.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F.Supp. 1257 (E.D. Pa. 1971), and 343 F.Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972).
16.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, §504, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §794.
17.
RoosP. (1970). Trends and issues in special education for the mentally retarded. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 5(2), 51–61.
18.
SalendS., & ZirkelP. (1984). Special education hearings: Prevailing problems and practical proposals. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19(1), 29–34.
19.
Smith v. Robinson, 104 S.Ct. 3457 (1984).
20.
State ex rel. Beattie v. Board of Education, 169 Wis. 231, 172 N.W. 153 (1919).
21.
TugendA. (1985, March 27). Education Department clarifies stance on rights of handicapped. Education Week, pp. 10–11.
22.
WilliamsL. (1985, June 19). Faces behind famous cases. The New York Times, p. C-1.
23.
WolfN. (1985, June). Lawscope: Handicapped kids, lawyers fee bill introduced. American Bar Association Journal, p. 31.
