Inside Special Education Hearings: What Parents Need to Know

 

Transcript

ANNOUNCER:  This is Curious Incident, a podcast for special needs families, and your window into the world of special education. Special needs parenting can be challenging, and we want to make it easier by providing you with the resources you need to help your child. Still deep into the world of learning differently with your host, Special Education Attorney Adam Dayan. 

ADAM:  I am pleased to present Peter Albert as my next guest on the Curious Incident podcast. Peter is a seasoned and committed legal professional with extensive experience in education law. He represents families and disabled students in matters involving the right to receive appropriate special education and related services. Prior to representing families, he represented school districts and their defense against due process complaints filed by parents claiming that the district denied their children free appropriate public education. In 2004, he became certified by the New York State Education Department as an impartial hearing officer. Since then, he has presided over hundreds of special education matters throughout New York City and State involving a wide range of issues. In his more than 40 years of experience as an attorney, including 36 years in education law and 22 years as an impartial hearing officer, he has unique insight into special education matters. Peter, I’m so happy to have you here. Welcome to the show. 

PETER:   Well, thank you for inviting me. I’m looking forward to it. It’s great to see you in person. 

ADAM:  So you’ve worked on both sides representing school districts and now working with parents, and you’ve also had experience serving as an impartial hearing officer. How has that shaped your perspective on special education disputes? 

PETER:  I think it helps in really distilling what the issues are, the real issues versus the not so real issues. It’s a very emotional kind of situation. You’re dealing with a child who often has disabilities and who can’t necessarily advocate for themselves. In this respect, having the parent be involved, be their advocate, be their voice sometimes literally and sometimes figuratively is helpful. But what’s most important is separating the real issues from, sometimes I call it, you know, everything but the kitchen sink thrown in. The kitchen office doesn’t want to hear irrelevant or emotional type of issues. What does the student need? What’s appropriate? What’s being recommended? Those are the issues. 

PETER:  Those are the real issues. What does this child need? 

ADAM:  Correct. With everything happening in education right now, what do you think are the most important issues parents should actually be paying attention to? 

PETER:  In terms of everything going on, I don’t think there is much of a change subsonatively in special education. Again, even with the anticipated dismantling of the US Department of Education, I don’t think there’ll be much of a change with respect to special education law. It may affect other areas like the office for civil rights and enforcing civil rights of the students. But with respect to special education, the law hasn’t changed. Well that much. This tinkering and this different interpretations of the regulations, but really not much has changed. 

ADAM:  And do you mean it hasn’t changed for parents or it hasn’t changed for school districts? 

PETER:  I think with school districts, I think they’re facing challenges. And I think most of the challenges are financial. The US Department of Education, as well as New York State Education Department, they’re the gatekeepers or the bean counters as maybe stated. So they’re careful because every student who is receiving special education and related services is a cost. I hate to be that blunt about it, but it’s a notable issue. And school districts, particularly suburban school districts, need to keep those costs down, need to keep their numbers lower. So there’s an inherent, I don’t want to say bias, but there’s an inherent view that maybe the student really doesn’t need all of the services that are being sought. 

ADAM:  And that’s where I was going to go next. Anyhow, you know, you have this unique perspective of having represented school districts and you understand the legal strategy that’s involved in defending them. And so I’m wondering, is there anything more you want to say about that strategy either in the past or currently in light of changes in education or both? 

PETER:  Well, I think sometimes from a school district’s perspective, and perhaps maybe not the New York City Department of Education, which is in a classification by itself, it’s just so enormous in terms of not only geography, but the number of students and the types of issues that are being involved, as well as the financial strain on the city. But in terms of school districts, they’re reluctant to give services. Why? I think in part because once they do that, people speak, people talk. They’re afraid that, you know, it’ll open the floodgates if they give a particular service to a particular student. By the end of the week, there’s 10 more requests from other parents of students who present similarly and districts are afraid of that. So they try to toe the line, give as little as possible. 

ADAM:  There’s a real fear about how it could balloon into something huge. 

PETER:  Absolutely. One of the standard features of any kind of settlement agreement is a non-disclosure. And that’s the reason why. 

ADAM:  You mentioned that a lot has not changed in special education law, which is encouraging for parents. And I’m wondering if you can say more about that. And given that not much has changed, why does it still feel so difficult for families to access appropriate services? 

PETER:  I think it’s accurate that the law really hasn’t changed in any significant way, substantively, during COVID where things were turned upside down. There were very minor changes, particularly with some regulatory requirements dealing with compensatory services. There was a significant number of claims made by parents stating that the school districts had unilaterally modified their child’s individual education program by transferring to an input person services to hybrid or fully remote services. A six-year-old little girl with autism is not going to sit in front of a laptop for two, three hours a day. That’s not going to happen. And hence, the student didn’t receive services, perhaps regressed in many aspects of whatever her disability was and needs to catch up. The state education department following the footsteps of the federal U.S. Department of Education came up with requirements requiring parents to go to the CSE before they could even make an application for compensatory services as a remedy in a special education case in a due process in partial hearing. And we challenged that in some respects we were successful, but it became a very individual 

PETER:  battle. 

ADAM:  When you say we do have your school district hat on, your parents hat on or a different 

PETER:  hat? That was the parents hat. Parents came to us saying, hey, listen, my kid hasn’t received services or effective services for six months during COVID. He’s fallen way behind in reading. He’s fallen way behind in anxiety and other manifestations of their disability. And we challenged that, but the courts were very reluctant to acknowledge that and the courts were even more reluctant to let districts be required to remedy that, notwithstanding the fact that the law did not change. 

ADAM:  From your experience, why do school districts sometimes fight cases, even when it seems clear a child needs more support? And I’ve had this experience countless times that it becomes such a mess because the school district is fighting it so hard and it becomes expensive. Whereas if they had just resolved it at the IP level without litigation, without having to pay attorneys, for example, it would have been easier on everyone and less costly to the district. So why do they fight it so hard even when it seems like the child should just be receiving the services? 

PETER:  Personally, I think there’s at least two kind of motivations involved. I think one is the purely financial obligation and responsibility. Once they recommend the service, they’re stuck with it. Pendingsy can possibly kick in. They may be able to give this service, but it may take a year or more to eliminate that service. Again, without getting into the weeds of declassification and the reduction of services, the school district still has to go through the process prior written notices of an anticipated recommendation to reduce or eliminate services. And they don’t want to do that because it’s not just a one year deal. It could be two or three years. I had a case fairly recently before you mentioned your case. 

ADAM:  I’ll just underscore what you’re saying about penance. Right? Because oftentimes when we talk about it from a parent’s perspective, it’s this hugely advantageous tool where they can continue in a program that perhaps the school district is disputing, but you raise an important point, which is that from the school district’s perspective, they may be on the hook for this thing they’re putting on an IEP for a very long time. And if parents have competent legal counsel, penancey can sometimes be continued for years. So it sounds like from what you’re saying, school districts are really mindful of this. And the fact that they could be responsible for providing the service for a really long time is one of the reasons that they don’t recommend it to begin with. 

PETER:  I was just going to say I had a case where in a suburban school district representing the parent of a student who had some mild autism, even a little bit of dyslexia involved, penancey was invoked. We withdrew a case, settled it, refiled a case, got penancey again because the agreement did not constitute penancey per the terms of the agreement. That was the only way we would agree to settle the case. We rode penancey for three years. The student continued to receive the services. Some of his issues were maturity. He almost grew out of some of those issues. So it worked out well, certainly to the student’s advantage. 

ADAM:  So I’m wondering if you can walk parents through the strategic thinking that school districts may be using behind the scenes. And specifically, I’m thinking of situations where parents are unhappy with the public program that’s been recommended in the past. They take steps to identify a private program of their own. And then a school district scrambles to cobble together their own thing. Can you say a little bit more about that? 

PETER:  It’s a common scenario of certain cases where it may be a smaller district that doesn’t have the resources, doesn’t have 10,000, 20,000, 100,000 students in special education programs. A student may have a certain set of, I don’t want to say unique, but unusual disabilities and manifestations of that disability that require special education and or related services. The district’s not going to provide it for one or two students. Why? That’s why there’s small group instruction because it’s cheaper. I only have to hire one reading specialist to address the needs of five or six students who are similarly situated with similar disabilities and needs rather than six different teachers. So it’s an economic issue. It’s also a control issue. I had a case where a student had some significant medical conditions. It kind of also manifested into psychological issues where the student was not ready to return to school, needed a private, small, very hands-on program. The district didn’t disagree about any of the needs of the student. They went to the program that the parents had scoped out and reviewed and said, this would be perfect for my son. What did they do? As you stated, they cobbled together a program that tried to mirror each and every one of the aspects of that program, put it on paper and said, this is what we’re going to recommend. It would be difficult for a hearing officer to say, well, listen. Yeah, but is it the same? Is it time tested? Has it been established? Those issues are very insignificant. On paper, were these the services that were appropriate for the student? And luckily, that case resolved, but it would have been hard as a hearing officer to have determined that the school district did not recommend an appropriate program. 

ADAM:  I think what’s notable in that example is one, that they were able to find something that on paper resembled the program the parents were interested in. A lot of the time, at least in New York City, that’s not possible because the system doesn’t have the specific methodologies and intensity and consistency of support that a child may need. The other thing I wanted to highlight is that sometimes it takes the parents’ action of saying, this is not working. I’ve found something else and this is what’s appropriate for my child to motivate the school district, to work harder, to find something that’s appropriate for the student. 

PETER:  I think the best role that the parents can play is an advocate, not necessarily as a litigant, being the advocate, looking, asking for the independent educational evaluation, relying on that, looking for the experts. And that can add not only another strain on the parent, but it’s also a financial strain because most evaluations, if they’re done privately, the individual’s absent insurance coverage, it’s an out-of-pocket expense, which could run thousands and thousands of dollars, which many students and many families simply can’t afford. 

ADAM:  Sure. I know we’ve talked on previous episodes about the ability for parents to get funding or reimbursement for the cost of that outside testing. So that’s something important that parents should be aware of as well. So Peter, many parents feel overwhelmed by the hearing process. From your perspective, putting on your impartial hearing officer hat, what makes it so challenging? And I want you to picture parents who are new to this process, right? Not the seasoned parent who has been through the process for several years, but they’re coming at it fresh and they haven’t been through a hearing before. What do they need to know about what makes it so challenging and what should they realistically 

PETER:  expect? 

PETER:  I think the parents have to be apprised of the fact that it’s an adversarial process. It’s not sitting down with the school teacher and the counselor and the social worker and trying to determine, have a conversation as to what the student needs or doesn’t need what’s working, what’s not working. It’s litigation. It’s motions. It’s subpoenas. It’s cross-examination. It can be scary for certain parents. I’ve had many parents say, listen, if I have to testify in person, I’m not going through with this. I don’t want to do that. So I think the parent needs to be apprised upfront that this is not going to be necessarily a walk in the park. That’s why having an attorney represent them is, in my opinion, critical. 

ADAM:  Let’s go deeper with that. Specifically, the parents who’s saying, this is too much. I don’t want to have to testify at a hearing. I don’t want to have to go through this process at all. They throw their hands up when they say, not me. What do you want to say back to them? What sort of encouragement or advice do you want to give? 

PETER:  The encouragement is, I will hold your hand through the process. We will take it in incremental steps. If the student has medical issues, I’m not asking you as you’re attorney to be the doctor. I’m not asking you to be the expert on Wilson reading. I’m asking you to be the expert on the student. To tell the hearing officer what you have personally observed. Have you seen your son or daughter become anxious or angry, upset, frustrated with respect to the services that they’re receiving? Those are the kinds of things that you as the parent have a unique perspective on. That’s what I would have you testify to. What goes on during the weekend? What type of friends does your son or daughter have outside of school? What kind of activities do they like? Also with respect to sometimes for a unilateral placement, what have you seen in terms of progress? Has their vocabulary increased? Has their ability to use their assistive technology device increased? If there’s physical issues, have they been able to sit prone for longer periods of time? Things like that. To make it as easy as possible for the parent. I think if the parent absolutely refuses to testify, it becomes significantly more difficult. As a hearing officer, I have to wonder why the heck isn’t this parent testifying. I’m going to have it in the back of my mind that maybe this parent doesn’t want to jeopardize claims that maybe some of the claims are more lawyer produced rather than reality produced. It’s the human nature part of these cases that come into play. 

ADAM:  This all has to do with the theme of storytelling, which we’ve talked about and I mentioned to you that I was at the annual COPA conference this year where special education attorneys and advocates from across the country get together to train and develop these important skills, including storytelling through due process complaints and impartial hearings. What does that actually mean in the context of a special education case to approach legal advocacy as storytelling? 

PETER:  To me, storytelling is just what it implies, telling the story about the child. A due process complaint is a snapshot in time, usually towards the end of the story, but that’s not necessarily the conclusion. How did that student get there? If there were issues concerning when the child was an infant, did they satisfy the various goals in terms of physical maturity, in terms of intellectual maturity? Did they speak at appropriate times in their life? Did their vocabulary increase? Tell a hearing officer how it got to that role. I don’t think the focus should be on that, but I’d like to know, how did we get to this point? What kind of services was the student receiving had the parents’ services when the student was much younger? Were they provided? Were they successful? Were they denied by the school district? Did the student have a private tutor, a private occupational therapist, private speech and language therapist? All of those things bring you through the process. What did the student receive for the year or two prior to the due process complaint? As you know, there’s a statute of limitations. Even though, and as a hearing officer, I’m always willing to hear testimony and to receive into evidence, IEPs that may be four or five or six years old. Why? Because I want to see what was going on, what led to the development where the parent finally had to throw down the gauntlet, as they say, and file that due process complaint. Was this five years in the making or was this the last six months? There’s a difference. 

ADAM:  So the progression and evolution is very important. Absolutely. And I noticed that you highlighted emotional challenges as well as physical challenges. And a lot of the time, school districts tend to focus on cognitive and academic abilities. So wearing your IHO hat, why are emotional and physical issues important? 

PETER:  Because it can affect the efficacy of what’s being recommended. It’s almost like the state law in New York State, DASA, D-A-S-A. I’ve seen a significant number of cases where there’s the student or there’s at least allegations of bullying. Being in and of itself is not an I-D-E-A, a special education issue. However, if the effects of the bullying has prevented the student from receiving the benefits of an IEP or has created situations where the Committee on Special Education has ignored or has not dealt with appropriately, then they become connected. Hearing a student who may be a little overweight, who may be a little different than his or her peers, being taunted to the point where the student has thought of suicide is heartbreaking. But what did the district do in response? And particularly, did that student have an IEP? And because of issues that are emotional based rather than maybe physical based, like articulation issues, did that prevent the student from receiving their educational benefits? Critical, in my opinion. 

PETER:  That’s a great example. 

ADAM:  Thank you for sharing that. 

ANNOUNCER:  If you like what you are hearing, please let us know by subscribing to our podcast and letting others know about it too. If you have thoughts, questions, comments, or would like to suggest ideas for a future episode, we’d love to hear it. So email your feedback to podcast@dayanlawfirm.com. 

ADAM:  You’ve provided so much insight already. I’m wondering for parents who are preparing for a hearing, are there any other really important things they should focus on when telling their child’s story? 

PETER:  For the parent to remember that this is about their child, not about themselves. I’ve had many parents come to me as the advocate attorney and they think that this is a trip and fall kind of case where they’re going to get damages. And I tell them, no, this is not a damage case. This is not about you. This is about your child. This is about getting your child’s services. If you’re out of pocket money because of services, that’s a different story. We’ll try to get that reimbursed as part of the remedy. But this isn’t about you. This is about your child. 

ADAM:  And we do see this sometimes that parents are angry, often rightfully so, because they and their children have been neglected for years and they want their day in court and they want in a adjudicator to hear all the ways in which they’ve been wrong and for the school district to acknowledge that or apologize for it. And I think it’s really important for parents to understand that this is not necessarily the forum for that. 

PETER:  Correct. I wish I had a nickel for every parent who says, I was wronged. The school district did us bad. I want them to apologize. And I said, if you want them to apologize, give them a call, invite them for coffee and try to get them to apologize. But that ain’t going to happen in an impartial hearing. That’s not going to happen in a settlement of a case and it’s surely not going to happen if the case goes to a hearing and an impartial hearing officer has to issue an opinion. It’s not in the cards. It’s not possible. So if that’s what you’re looking for, you’re in the wrong place. 

ADAM:  But there are many things for which they’ll be in the right place. And so to demonstrate and have the Icho determine that they deny the child a free appropriate public education, certainly in the right place to present to the hearing officer the relief that they believe is appropriate to ensure that the child’s educational needs are met and perhaps that they are made whole for services that were missed or expenses that were paid for. All of those things can be properly addressed within the scope of the impartial hearing. 

PETER:  Absolutely. I tell parents, we’re putting together a puzzle and the entire puzzle is a picture of your child. You are putting together, you are adding to that puzzle a few pieces, pieces that nobody else can provide because they’re all unique pieces. And those are the pieces about the child. How have they dealt with school? How have they dealt with the services recommended? How have they been assessed? How have they been dealing with obviously the frustrations of not receiving the appropriate services? To be honest, when you testify, testifying is one of the most terrifying activities, maybe after a podcast, but certainly testifying for parents and parents need to know it’s okay if you don’t know the answer. It’s okay if you don’t remember something. If I hear a parent or certainly a non professional speak with so clear and so lucid as to say facts and dates, immediately a red flag goes off in my mind that they’ve been coached, that their testimony really is not genuine. And hearing officers have the ability to assess the credibility of a witness. It’s one area of being a hearing officer where it’s extremely rare for the state review officer in New York State or for a court to reverse. Hearing officer is looking at somebody across the table or sometimes on a computer monitor. I can tell if somebody’s lying through their teeth, you do it long enough, you get that vibe that will torpedo their issues very, very quickly. It’s not typical for people to have perfect recall of events two years ago, three years ago, five years ago, ten years ago. It just doesn’t happen. 

ADAM:  These are really important points and I think they also take some of the pressure off of parents. They don’t have to know everything about the case or even every specific detail about what they’re testifying about. There are going to be experts who do a lot of the heavy lifting. Presumably they’re going to have legal counsel working hard to present the case so parents just need to speak to the thing that they’re already expert on, which is who their child is, how they’re struggling and what helps them succeed. 

PETER:  Yeah, there’s nothing more compelling that a parent can add to the process than to give specific concrete examples of their child’s behavior. Either how they dealt with services or progress that has been demonstrated. Nobody else can provide that kind of information. It’s not done in assessments for the most part. Certainly school children act differently. I have three grown children. We’d go to parent teacher night and I would wonder if I was in the correct room because they would be explaining that my children are just wonderful people and well behaved. Obviously, at home, they act very differently. I think giving that familiar perspective tremendously helps the hearing officer assess the effectiveness of the program that the student is receiving. 

ADAM:  I’m laughing because I’ve been there as well personally and I know what it’s like to watch a child hold it together so well at school and then come home and fall apart. I think it raises the question of the emotional toll on a child to get through the school day. We don’t only want children who do well on their exams. We want healthy, well adjusted children who succeed socially and emotionally as well as academically and are on their way to being independent, healthy and productive members of society. That’s in the statute. That is the goal of identifying these needs and making sure that children get supports and services. 

PETER:  Absolutely. You’d just to score that. IEPs have an emotional social aspect. Are they making progress in there? Are they having problems? Do they need small group assistance or one-to-one assistance? I don’t think that should be discounted. It may not be intellectual functioning but it clearly has an effect on the intellectual functioning. 

ADAM:  Absolutely. From the hearing officer perspective, what makes a special education case a difficult one to decide? 

PETER:  I think the most difficult case to decide as a hearing officer is when neither side has really done, in my opinion, a great job in presenting their case. If there’s no compelling evidence one way or another with respect to the program that was recommended, I’m always amazed at reimbursement type cases where a parent may have gone out and spent perhaps in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars for a private placement but doesn’t have an independent assessment from a neuropsychologist or some kind of evaluation or where the school doesn’t permit their staff to testify in these cases. I have no evidence. How do I know that that unilateral placement was appropriate when nobody’s telling me what the kid got? I’m not going to be able to discern from a report card those facts. So give the hearing officer what he or she needs to decide the case. Give them evidence. Give them an independent evaluation to contradict if needed the school district evaluation. But there needs to be evidence. A hearing officer is constrained to issue a decision based on the record evidence. If I don’t have the record evidence, I could think certain things, make certain assumptions, but I can’t base a decision on my assumptions. I need it in black and white and absent that it’s a problem. Those become difficult cases. 

PETER:  Sure. 

ANNOUNCER:  If you like what you are hearing, please let us know by subscribing to the Curious Incident Podcast and letting other special needs parents know about it too. If you have thoughts, questions, comments, or would like to suggest ideas for a future episode, we’d love to hear it. So email your feedback to podcast@dayanlawfirm.com. 

ADAM:  You’ve emphasized that cases should focus on the student, not the parent. 

PETER:  Why is that distinction so important? 

PETER:  The federal law is called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, not the parents of students who have disabilities. I want to know about the student, not necessarily about the parent. The parent can have a whole host of other issues, other children involved, other children with disabilities. While I can sympathize with that, that’s not my concern. My concern as a hearing officer is this student, what does this student need, what’s been recommended or not recommended for the student, and how effective has it been. The bar is relatively low for a school district, certainly in New York, in my opinion, to demonstrate that what they recommended was reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive benefits. The fact that a student may not have received those benefits is an issue and is a factor, but that’s not the tipping point factor. The factor is, is what the school district proposed, recommended, implemented, was that reasonable for the student. In terms of the parent, the parent’s not in that equation, and that’s why the case is about the student, not the parent. 

ADAM:  I’m just curious, since we’re speaking about parents, do you have any specific advice for parents who may have educational challenges of their own? 

PETER:  To rely on outsiders, to rely on legal counsel who is going to represent their interests, rather, at the impartial hearing and the legal process, to rely on a social worker who could give evidence of issues maybe at home. There’s a number of cases that I’ve had over the years or as an impartial hearing officer where the parent has had issues, the parent has learning disabilities and can understand that. As a result, may not be the most effective witness or advocate for their child. They need to have these other individuals, to have the independent educational evaluator, be it in speech or OT or PT, to be able to assist them in the process. 

ADAM:  We’ve talked about what’s happening in school versus what’s happening at home. Since you’ve approached this area of the law from so many different perspectives, I’m curious about your view. When a school district asserts that what’s happening at home doesn’t matter or that they don’t have a responsibility to generalize skills from a school environment or a classroom environment to a home environment, how do you analyze that whole issue? I’m particularly interested in your view as a hearing officer when this comes up before you. 

PETER:  If a behavior is being manifested at home and the students receiving homework or some kind of work that needs to be done outside of class and is unable to prepare it or do it satisfactorily, then it is having an adverse impact on their educational abilities. So it is relevant. Is it as relevant as the behaviors in school? I would say yes. I want to know that. Again, a student in school has different pressures. With their peers, there’s a whole host of other issues and other dynamics going on within a classroom. At home, again, there’s another set of dynamics. But it all goes to whether or not the services that are being provided are appropriate and if not, does the student need other services? Not necessarily more services, but other services. 

ADAM:  Sure. Peter, before we wrap up for families just starting this journey and feeling overwhelmed, what do you want them to understand about this process? Is there anything that you want to share that might ease some of their anxiety? 

PETER:  I think particularly for the newbie parent to a special education, the impartial hearing process under the law is to have somebody guide you, somebody who you can trust. I think having competent legal counsel goes a long way. You wouldn’t want to build a house if you don’t know the basics of construction, of carpentry or masonry. It’s going to be a disaster. Likewise, with an impartial hearing. You need somebody who has gone through the process, who knows what to do, who knows when to do it. There’s many, many situations to trip up on. And particularly in the age of litigation, complying with the administrative requirements, the regulations are critical. The timing aspects, there’s various deadlines to comply with certain requirements, disclosure requirements. I could go on and on and on with those. But having somebody who’s familiar with those, guiding you as the parent, I think, is critical and enhances your ability at succeeding a thousandfold. I think also with that being said, I think it’s also the lawyer’s obligation to make sure that the parent feels included in the decisions. There’s nothing worse than the attorney, even if they’re correct decisions, making the decisions, implementing those decisions without the parent’s knowledge. The parent is going to say, well, when did this happen? And who gave you the right to say that or do that? There may be reasons that you as the attorney aren’t familiar with. There may be the parent didn’t want certain facts known. Sometimes that happens with divorced parents. One of the things when I ask if I know the parents are divorced as a hearing officer or as an attorney, I’ll ask who possesses the right to make educational decisions. You don’t want to find out two thirds into the hearing that you’ve been dealing with the parent who may be a wonderful person to you, but the court has issued an order in a matrimonial proceeding that they do not have the educational rights, the right to make educational decisions on behalf of the child. So having parent involvement, I think, is critical. And I think having a legal shepherd bring you through the process is also critical. 

ADAM:  Yeah, I’m just thinking about what you said about educational decision-making authority. That’s something that comes up from time to time in our practice as well. And I think that’s a really important point to the extent that courts have intervened in a relationship and said, who has that authority that needs to be followed. And from legal counsel’s standpoint, they need to know that they’re working with the parent who has that right to make decisions about their child’s education. 

PETER:  Very often, and I see it more in New York City than in other jurisdictions dealing with a grandparent, many children for one reason or another, are being raised by their grandparent. And the definition of parent under the IDA is very expansive. It’s not necessarily limited to a biological or even an adoptive parent. Just knowing that in advance is critical to both the parent as well as to you as the attorney. And as a hearing officer, again, if I’m issuing an order, I need to make sure it’s against or in favor of the correct individual. 

ADAM:  That’s great. Well, I have to thank you so much for being here. I really respect and admire all of you years of experience in this field, the different hats that you’ve worn, the multiple perspectives from which you’re able to analyze this process and give advice to parents who are going through this. And thank you for being here. Thank you for all the wonderful points that you’ve shared with our listeners. And I know it’s going to be hugely helpful to them. 

PETER:  Well, thank you for inviting me and I’m glad to share the perspectives. 

PETER:  Great to have you. 

ANNOUNCER:  Thanks for listening to Curious Incident, a podcast for special needs families. Don’t forget to subscribe for a new episode every month. For more resources and helpful information, check out our website and blog at dayanlawfirm.com. This podcast provides general information which is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice. You should not rely on this information for any purpose. For legal counsel, you should consult with an attorney to discuss your specific circumstances. You’re listening to this podcast does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the law offices of Adam Dayan, PLC. No attorney-client relationship is established unless a retainer agreement has been executed between the clients and the law offices of Adam Dayan. This podcast may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any guests featured or resources mentioned on this podcast are for information purposes and are not endorsed by the law offices of Adam Dayan, PLC.