Smith v. Cumberland School Committee, 79-22-A

• Decision Date: 03 June 1980
• Docket Number: No. 79-22-A,79-22-A
• Parties: Thomas F. SMITH, Jr., et al. v. CUMBERLAND SCHOOL COMMITTEE et al. ppeal.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 168

415 A.2d 168

Thomas F. SMITH, Jr., et al. v. CUMBERLAND SCHOOL COMMITTEE et al.

No. 79-22-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 3, 1980.

Oster, Groff & Prescott, George M. Prescott, Lincoln, S. Arlene Violet, Consultant Atty., R.I. Protection & Advocacy System, Inc., Providence, for amicus curiae.

James M. Shannahan, Marcia L. McGair, Providence, for Cumberland School Committee.

Dennis J. Roberts, II, Atty. Gen., Forrest Avila, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants.

OPINION

DORIS, Justice.

The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island has certified to this court two questions of law that require us to decide whether a school committee or the Department of Mental Health, Retardation and Hospitals (MHRH) must bear the cost of providing special education for handicapped children.

The facts underlying this litigation are not in dispute. Thomas Smith, a twelve-year-old multihandicapped child, and his parents reside in Cumberland, Rhode Island. Due to Thomas's physical and emotional handicaps, the regular programs offered in the Cumberland school system do not meet his particular educational needs. Since December 1975, therefore, Thomas has been enrolled in the Day Hospital Program at Bradley Hospital, which, the parties agree, provides him with an appropriate education. The Cumberland School Committee (school committee) partially funded the tuition for this program for approximately one year following Thomas's enrollment. ¹ In November 1976, however, the superintendent of schools informed plaintiffs that MHRH, not the school committee, was responsible for providing Thomas's special education. The school committee unanimously upheld the superintendent, concluding that G.L. 1956 (1977 Reenactment) §§ 40.1-7-1 to -9 dictated that the education and care of Thomas were the responsibility of MHRH. The plaintiffs appealed the decision of the school committee to the associate commissioner of education, who held that MHRH must provide the special education and related services and that the school committee must contribute to MHRH only the "per pupil cost" as its share of the services provided to Thomas.

The plaintiffs petitioned the Family Court for an order that the school committee continue to finance Thomas's special education. The Family Court dismissed the action for want of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs then commenced a civil action in Superior Court seeking the same relief. The court dismissed this action on the ground that plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies. The plaintiffs then filed a third action in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island seeking a mandatory injunction ordering the school committee to continue funding Thomas's special education. The District Court found that G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 16-24-1, which requires local school committees to provide a special education for handicapped children, and G.L. 1956 (1977 Reenactment) §§ 40.1-7-1 to -9, which establish within MHRH a program for emotionally disturbed children, both dealt with educating handicapped children. Because of the apparent statutory conflict, the District Court chose to abstain from deciding the case in order that this court might be allowed an opportunity to construe the statutes. ² Accordingly, the District Court certified to this court pursuant to Sup.Ct. Rule 6 the following two questions:

"1. If the educational programs organized and/or managed by a local school committee fail to provide adequate special education for a resident handicapped child, do the applicable regulations promulgated pursuant to R.I.G.L. S. 16-24-1, 16-24-2 require the school committee to provide free education in another 'special education program approved by the Commissioner of Education'?

"2. If so, are those 'other special education programs' that are approved by the Commissioner of Education pursuant to S. 16-24-1 'special educational programs under the jurisdiction of the board of regents for education' as defined in R.I.G.L. S. 40.1-7-7?"

We note at the outset that the statutes serve different purposes: § 16-24-1 is by its terms educational in nature, while §§ 40.1-7-1 to -9 have a primarily therapeutic purpose, though they include a provision for educational services. Pursuant to § 16-24-1, a school committee has an affirmative obligation to provide the type of special education that will best satisfy the needs of a resident handicapped child whose mental retardation or physical or emotional handicap prevent his normal educational growth and development. ³ Though the predecessor to this statute was enacted in 1952, § 16-24-1 must be viewed in the context of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (the Act), 20 U.S.C.A. §§ 1401-1461 (West 1978). The Act is a funding vehicle through which the federal government channels money to the states to provide full educational opportunities to handicapped children. Loughran v. Flanders, 470 F.Supp. 110, 113 (D.Conn.1979). To be eligible for these federal funds, a state must comply with a number of conditions, such as establishing a policy that assures all handicapped children of a right to a free appropriate public education, developing a plan to implement the policy of providing a full educational opportunity to all handicapped children, and establishing certain procedural safeguards to protect the rights of handicapped children. ⁴ Additionally, the local educational agency ⁵ in each state must establish and annually revise an individualized education program ⁶ for each handicapped child.

The Board of Regents for Education must comply with the federal requirements because the state receives federal funds under the Act. It is evident from the regulations adopted by the board of regents pursuant to § 16-24-2 that the regents have attempted to conform to the Act by making our existing educational system for handicapped children provide special educational services in the manner envisioned by the Act. Under the Act, it is the responsibility of the local educational agency to administer the special education programs. Consistent with this requirement, the regulations adopted by the board of regents require the school committees to provide a free special education for handicapped children either through their own programs or through other private special education programs approved by the Commissioner of Education. ⁷ In the event that the established local educational programs fail to provide an adequate special education for a handicapped child, the regulations of the board of regents would thus require the school committee to "provide for the free education * * * through * * * other special education programs approved by the Commissioner of Education."

The statutory program created within MHRH by G.L. 1956 (1977 Reenactment) §§ 40.1-7-1 to -9 to provide services for emotionally disturbed children relieves the school committee of its obligation to educate handicapped children only in certain limited circumstances. As we stated earlier, this program has a primarily therapeutic purpose of providing "psychiatric care and treatment" to emotionally disturbed children. The educational services to which a child might be entitled as part of his "care and treatment" are thus incidental to the medical and psychiatric services he receives. We believe that the Legislature incorporated a provision for educational services into the definition of "care and treatment" to ensure that an emotionally disturbed child would continue to receive educational services while being treated in the MHRH program. We have previously held that MHRH has only a contingent obligation to provide educational services to handicapped children. The child must first be "emotionally disturbed," which requires that he "be in need of psychiatric care and treatment." G.L. 1956 (1977 Reenactment) § 40.1-7-4(5). If the child is not in need of such treatment, he is not "emotionally disturbed" and is not eligible for the MHRH program. See Naughton v. Goodman, 117 R.I. 113, 117-18, 363 A.2d 1345, 1348 (1976). Secondly, even if a child is eligible for the program, he is not thereby guaranteed treatment. The availability of all benefits under the program is limited by the funding the program has received. When the appropriated funds are exhausted, MHRH need not provide any "care and treatment" or educational services, regardless of a child's eligibility or need for them. Roe v. Affleck, R.I., 390 A.2d 361, 368 (1978). In such a situation the director of MHRH fulfills his responsibility to the eligible handicapped children by placing their names on a waiting list until such time as there are sufficient funds to pay for their care and treatment. See In re Doe, R.I., 390 A.2d 390, 395-96 (1978).

Once an emotionally disturbed child is admitted to the MHRH program, the educational services available as part of the "care and treatment" are further limited by statute in that "care and treatment" includes only "those educational services furnished to a child other than those regular or special education programs under the jurisdiction of the board of regents for education." G.L. 1956 (1977 Reenactment) § 40.1-7-4(1) (Emphasis added). The emphasized language the exclusionary phrase quite clearly excludes from the definition of care and treatment those educational services that are under the jurisdiction of the regents. We believe that the exclusionary phrase was intended to prevent MHRH from duplicating the educational services that are provided through programs under the jurisdiction of the regents. The statute, however, does not define "the jurisdiction of the board of regents." In order to conform with the therapeutic purpose of §§ 40.1-7-1 to -9, we believe that we must construe the jurisdiction of the regents to include those private special education programs which, at public expense, provide the educational services that a school committee, though...