Wise v. Ohio Dept. of Educ., 1:92CV0138.
| Decision Date | 30 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:92CV0138.,1:92CV0138. |
| Citation | 863 F. Supp. 570 |
| Parties | Leslie WISE, et al., Plaintiffs v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Lois J. Robinson and Susan L. Gragel, Gold, Rotatori, Schwartz & Gibbons, Cleveland, OH, for plaintiffs.
Karin Elaine Wilson, Office of the Asst. Atty. Gen.; Lauren M. Ross, Joseph M. Zaccaria, Office of the Atty. Gen., Columbus, OH, Abraham Lieberman, Jay C. Marcie, Michael J. Loughman, Warhola, O'Toole, Loughman, Alderman & Stumphauzer, Lorain, OH, Thomas M. Mangan, Office of the Pros. Atty., Elyria, OH, and Andrew A. Paisley, and Richard T. Prasse, Hahn, Loeser & Parks, Cleveland, OH, for defendants.
This case is before this Court on the cross-motions for summary judgment filed by all parties. This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jack B. Streepy for a report and recommended decision. Magistrate Judge Streepy has submitted his report and recommendation, recommending that the Court (1) declare that the State of Ohio is legally responsible to pay for the education of the plaintiff minor children at Murray Ridge School, and (2) enjoin the State of Ohio from requiring defendant Our Lady of the Wayside Children's Home to pay tuition for the schooling under Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 3323.141. For the reasons which follow, the Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation.
The plaintiffs in this case are (1) two minor children, Leslie Wise and Sarah Waters, who reside at Our Lady of the Wayside Children's Home in Avon, Ohio, and (2) their parents, David and Patricia Wise of Phoenix, Maryland and Lloyd Waters and Barbara Dinkgrave of Michigan. Defendants are the Ohio Department of Education ("ODOE"), the Lorain County Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities ("MR/DD Board"), Avon Local Board of Education ("ALBE"), and Our Lady of the Wayside Children's Home ("OLW").
The complaint contends that since 1982, the plaintiff children have been residents of OLW, a state licensed residential facility providing long-term care to developmentally disabled children. Their parents retain legal custody of the children and pay OLW for their care. OLW is in the Avon school district, and the ALBE has evaluated the children and placed them at Murray Ridge School, which is operated by the MR/DD Board.
Pursuant to Ohio Rev.Code Ann. §§ 3323.09(C) and 3323.141, the MR/DD Board has billed OLW for tuition for the children for school years 1989-90, 1990-91, and 1991-92, in the total amount of approximately $90,000. The plaintiff parents believe that if OLW is liable for the tuition, the parents will be required to reimburse OLW. Plaintiffs assert that the children are entitled to a free and appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400, et seq., and demand injunctive relief to preclude defendants from enforcing the Ohio statutes. Plaintiffs demand (1) a declaratory judgment that Ohio Rev.Code Ann. §§ 3323.09 and 3323.141 conflict with the requirements of IDEA, (2) injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from collecting or attempting to collect tuition under the Ohio statutes, and (3) attorney's fees and costs.
The MR/DD Board answered and cross-claimed against OLW for the tuition costs for each of the children. OLW counterclaimed against the plaintiffs, asserting that they are liable to OLW for the tuition costs.
Each party has moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs contend that IDEA requires all states which receive federal funding for the education of children with disabilities to provide such education free of charge to all children in the state. Defendants argue that IDEA does not prohibit a residency requirement, and children who reside in "homes" in Ohio and whose parents or guardians are out-of-state are not residents of Ohio. Defendants also argue that the plaintiff parents are ultimately liable for all of the children's tuition because they unilaterally placed their children at the school without invoking the administrative appeal provision available under IDEA to challenge their prior placement and without following the placement procedures in their home states. The MR/DD Board also seeks judgment on its cross-claim against OLW; OLW seeks summary judgment on its counterclaim against the plaintiffs.
The material facts in this case are few and undisputed. The plaintiff children live at OLW, a home in the State of Ohio, but are subject to the legal custody of their parents, who have lived out-of-state since their children were born. The children have both lived at OLW since 1982, and their parents have stated that they have no present intention to change their placement there. OLW placed one child, Sarah Waters, in Murray Ridge School in 1982; the other child was placed there in 1985. Although it is not clear how the placements were made initially, the ALBE evaluated the children twice (in 1984 and 1991) and recommended that they be placed at Murray Ridge. The MR/DD Board now demands payment from OLW for the plaintiff children's tuition pursuant to Ohio Rev.Code Ann. §§ 3323.09 and 3323.141; OLW demands reimbursement from the plaintiff parents.1
The issue presented is whether the Ohio statutes which permit the MR/DD Board to charge tuition to OLW2 are consistent with the IDEA.
Having so framed the issue, it is important to note what is not in dispute. There is no dispute the ALBE and the MR/DD Board have provided the plaintiff children with an education. The only issue is whether, consistent with the requirements of the IDEA, they can require OLW to pay for that education because the children are "not in the legal or permanent custody of an Ohio resident or a government agency in this state and their parents are not known to have been residents of this state subsequent to the child's birth." The Court also notes plaintiffs do not question the constitutionality of this "residency" requirement; their sole argument is that the requirement is inconsistent with the IDEA. With these factors in mind, the Court will turn to the requirements of the Ohio statutes and the IDEA.
Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 3323.141 provides, in pertinent part:
(A) When a child who is not in the legal or permanent custody of an Ohio resident or a government agency in this state and whose parents are not known to have been residents of this state subsequent to the child's birth is a resident of a home as defined in section 3313.64 of the Revised Code and receives special education and related services from a school district or county board of mental retardation and developmental disabilities, the home shall pay tuition to the board providing the special education.
§ 3323.09(C)(1) additionally provides that the home must pay tuition to the board within thirty days after it receives a statement from the Board regarding the child. The parties agree that OLW is a "home" under § 3313.64.
Magistrate Judge Streepy concluded these statutes were not consistent with the IDEA. The Magistrate Judge stated the IDEA required the State of Ohio to provide free, appropriate public education to all handicapped children within the state, and it was inconsistent with this requirement to demand that a home pay tuition on behalf of children "within" the state whose parents were out-of-state. The Magistrate Judge concluded that because Ohio had accepted federal funding under the IDEA, it was required to provide free, appropriate education to the plaintiff children, and could not charge OLW for their tuition. Defendants object to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation.
The IDEA provides federal funds to assist state and local governments in educating handicapped children. To qualify for federal funding, the state must submit a detailed plan that demonstrates "the State has in effect a policy that assures all children with disabilities the right to a free appropriate public education." 20 U.S.C. § 1412(1) (emphasis added). The state must also submit a plan which ensures, among other things, (a) "a free appropriate public education will be available for all children with disabilities between the ages of three and eighteen within the State ...," and (b) "all children residing in the State who are disabled, ... are identified, located, and evaluated, ...." § 1412(2)(B) & (C) (emphasis added). Thus, the question is whether the Ohio statutes deny a "free" education to children "within the State" or "residing in the State."
Residency.
The IDEA requires states which receive federal funding to provide free education to disabled children who reside in the state. Defendants ODOE, the MR/DD Board, and ALBE all argue that the plaintiff children are not residents of Ohio because, although they live in a "home" in Ohio, they are "not in the legal or permanent custody of an Ohio resident or a government agency in this state and their parents are not known to have been residents of this state subsequent to the child's birth."
The MR/DD Board discusses at length the many public policy justifications for residency requirements. The Court does not question the legitimacy of residency requirements in general, and plaintiffs do not challenge them. The issue here is the much more specific question whether the State of Ohio may impose a residency requirement which irrebuttably presumes that a child is a nonresident if his or her parents or legal guardians have never resided in Ohio. The Court finds that it may not.
The United States Supreme Court has held that a strict standard of "residency" may not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andree ex rel. Andree v. County of Nassau
...pay for services that are mandated to be provided free of charge to such students is a violation of IDEA. See Wise v. Ohio Dept. Of Educ., 863 F.Supp. 570, 574 (N.D.Ohio 1994) ("It is clear that IDEA does not permit a state which receives federal funding to charge the parents or guardians o......
-
Wise v. Ohio Dept. of Educ., s. 94-4045
...It seems to me that the District Court carefully, thoroughly and accurately decided the case in its opinion Wise v. Ohio Department of Education, 863 F.Supp. 570 (N.D.Ohio 1994). I adopt the opinion of the District Court as my dissenting opinion * Judge Gilmore would grant rehearing for the......