Navin v. Park Ridge School District 64

• Decision Date: 06 November 2001
• Docket Number: No. 00-4109,00-4109
• Citation: 270 F.3d 1147
• Parties: (7th Cir. 2001) Patrick Navin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Park Ridge School District 64, Fred Schroeder, and Sally Pryor, Defendants-Appellees
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 1147

270 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2001)

Patrick Navin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Park Ridge School District 64, Fred Schroeder, and Sally Pryor, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-4109

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Submitted October 16, 2001

Decided November 6, 2001

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 00 C 2735--Suzanne B. Conlon, Judge.

Before Bauer, Easterbrook, and Evans, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam.

Patrick Navin, whose son J.P. Navin is enrolled in Park Ridge School District, disagrees with the way the school has addressed J.P.'s dyslexia. J.P.'s educational plan calls for 500 minutes of tutoring per week. Contending that the tutoring was being provided by a crossing guard supervisor with no skill (or at least no certification) in educating dyslexic youths, Patrick asked for a hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, see 20 U.S.C. § 1415, and filed this suit when the hearing officer terminated the proceeding without addressing the merits. The district court dismissed the suit, ruling that non-custodial parents lack standing under the idea. Patrick is divorced from Margaret Murnighan, J.P.'s mother, and the divorce decree gives Margaret custody of J.P., including the right to make educational decisions. This means, the district court held, that Patrick lacks any legal interest in J.P.'s educational plan.

Two preliminary issues require attention. First, Patrick filed suit not only for himself but also on behalf of J.P., acting as J.P.'s next friend. It is doubtful that a non-custodial parent may use the next-friend device to seize control of the child's educational decisionmaking, when a divorce decree has given those choices to the custodial parent. Cf. T.W. v. Brophy, 124 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 1997). We do not pursue this subject, however, because Patrick did not retain a lawyer. Patrick was free to represent himself, but as a non-lawyer he has no authority to appear as J.P.'s legal representative. See Collinsgru v. Palmyra Board of Education, 161 F.3d 225, 231 (3d Cir. 1998); Wenger v. Canastota Central School District, 146 F.3d 123, 124-26 (2d Cir. 1998); Devine v. Indian River County School Board, 121 F.3d 576, 581-82 (11th Cir. 1997). The notice of appeal is signed only by Patrick and therefore is ineffective to seek review on behalf of J.P.; the district court's dismissal of his claim therefore is conclusive, and the appeal proceeds with Patrick as the only appellant. Second, the defendants contend that the suit must be dismissed because Patrick failed to appeal within the state system. But in 1997 Illinois eliminated the need to pursue two tiers of administrative review, see 105 ILCS 5/14-8.02a(i), so Patrick was free to file his complaint when he did.

If the divorce decree had given Margaret not only custody but also every instrument of influence over J.P.'s education, then the district court's decision would be correct. Although the idea grants rights to "parents," and the regulatory definition of "parent" includes all biological parents, see 34 C.F.R. § 300.20, which implies that a divorced parent retains statutory rights, nothing in the idea overrides states' allocation of authority as part of a custody determination. See Susan R.M. v. Northeast Independent School District, 818 F.2d 455, 457 (5th Cir. 1987). If the decree had wiped out all of Patrick's parental rights, it would have left him with no...