Who Is the Parent?
Who Is the Parent?
复制标题
谁是家长？
DOI：
10.1177/0040059915605800
复制
发表时间：
2016
影响因子：
1
通讯作者：
Nicola Wiseman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mickey Losinski;Antonis Katsiyannis;Sherry White;Nicola Wiseman
教学特殊儿童，卷。 48、N o。第 3 页，第 13 页。 14 4 – 15 0. 版权所有 2 01 5 作者。 D O I： 1 0. 11 77 /0 04 00 59 91 56 05 80 0 Johnny 是一名 11 岁儿童，患有软骨发育不全（侏儒症的常见原因），但没有接受特殊教育和相关服务。他的父母已离婚，但拥有共同监护权。约翰尼和他的父亲住在一起。在五年级期间，约翰尼开始表现出破坏性行为，例如拒绝交作业、低着头，偶尔还威胁要解雇老师，结果导致了纪律处分，包括校内停课、校长口头谴责和禁赛。他的老师坚持认为约翰尼完全有能力完成作业，但他只是拒绝工作。 12 月，约翰尼的行为升级，学校工作人员与约翰尼的父亲会面，制定干预计划。在会上，父亲报告说约翰尼正在看治疗师，并有美国小人物指定的导师。为了避免家长之间发生矛盾，学校没有邀请这位母亲参加会议。当学校将行为计划邮寄给约翰尼的母亲时，她要求对约翰尼进行学习障碍和行为问题测试。在一次讨论评估的会议上，母亲对父亲关于约翰尼有导师或正在看治疗师的说法提出异议。然后学区制定了一份评估计划并将其提交给家长。最初，父亲拒绝同意评估，校长通知母亲，除非父母双方同意，否则学区不会进行评估。经过很长一段时间（自约翰尼的母亲要求评估之日起 98 天），学区与父亲举行了一次会议，讨论他们的结论，即约翰尼不需要特殊教育和相关服务。母亲再次没有参加这次会议，并最终因未能及时进行评估并对约翰尼怀疑残疾的所有领域进行评估而申请正当程序。在对母亲的裁决中（Val Verde 联合学区，2014 年），独立听证官表示，共同监护令并没有规定在做出教育决定时必须获得父母双方的同意。因此，尽管约翰尼在整个诉讼过程中与父亲住在一起，但他的母亲能够在未经父亲同意的情况下同意特殊教育评估。在制定决定时，听证官澄清说，确定教育决定的“父母”的问题属于离婚法院的管辖范围。此外，《残疾人教育法》(IDEA，2006) 对父母的定义适用于离婚父母，除非监护权法令或州法律另有规定 (34 C.F.R. § 300.30)。最后，如果共同监护令没有明确规定父母双方在做出教育决定时必须同意，则任何一方都可以在法律上单独做出教育决定。 《残疾人教育法》(IDEA, 2006) 对父母的定义适用于离婚父母，除非监护权法令或州法律另有规定 (34 C.F.R. § 300.30)。
T EA C H IN G E xc ep ti on al C hi ld re n , V ol . 48 , N o. 3 , pp . 14 4 – 15 0. C op yr ig ht 2 01 5 T he A ut ho r( s) . D O I: 1 0. 11 77 /0 04 00 59 91 56 05 80 0 Johnny is an 11-year-old with acondroplasia (a common cause of dwarfism) but is not receiving special education and related services. His parents are divorced but have joint custody. Johnny resides with his father. During his fifth-grade year, Johnny began exhibiting disruptive behaviors, such as refusing to turn in assignments, putting his head down, and occasionally threatening to have teachers fired—resulting in disciplinary actions including in-school suspensions, verbal reprimands from the principal and time-outs. His teacher maintained that Johnny was more than capable of completing his assignments but was simply refusing to work. In December, Johnny’s behaviors escalated to the point that school staff met with the father to develop an intervention plan. At the meeting, the father reported that Johnny was seeing a therapist and had a mentor assigned by Little People of America. In order to avoid any conflict between the parents, the school did not invite the mother to the meeting. When the school mailed the behavior plan to Johnny’s mother, she requested that Johnny be tested for learning disabilities and behavioral issues. At a meeting to discuss the evaluation, the mother disputed the father’s statement that Johnny had a mentor or was seeing a therapist. The district then created an assessment plan and presented it to the parents. Initially, the father refused to consent to the assessment, and the principal informed the mother that the school district would not conduct an assessment unless both parents consented. After a prolonged time (98 days from the date Johnny’s mother asked for assessment), the district held a meeting with the father to discuss their conclusion that Johnny was not in need of special education and related services. Once again, the mother was not included in this meeting and eventually filed for due process for failure to conduct a timely evaluation and to assess Johnny in all areas of suspected disability. In ruling for the mother (Val Verde Unified School District, 2014), the independent hearing officer stated that the joint-custody order did not stipulate that mutual consent of both parents be obtained when making educational decisions. Therefore, even though Johnny lived with his father throughout the proceedings, his mother was able to consent to special education evaluation without the father’s consent. In framing the decision, the hearing officer clarified that matters of determining the “parent” for educational decisions is the jurisdiction of the divorce courts. Further, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2006) definition of a parent applies to both divorced parents unless a custody decree or state law states otherwise (34 C.F.R. § 300.30). Finally, in the event the joint-custody order does not explicitly state that both parents must agree when making educational decisions, either party, alone, is legally able to make educational decisions. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2006) definition of a parent applies to both divorced parents unless a custody decree or state law states otherwise (34 C.F.R. § 300.30).