Jacob Winkleman Case Summary

1. Facts: Explain the essential facts of the case. Tell the story of the case.
Jacob Winkleman is a 6-year-old student at Pleasant Valley Elementary School in Parma, Ohio. Jacob was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and is covered under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Act or IDEA), 84 Stat. 175, as amended, 20 U. S. C. §1400 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. IV). His parents, Jeff and Sandee Winkleman, worked together with the school system to develop and write and individualized education plan (IEP). They could not reach an agreement on the IEP and therefore requested a due process hearing per §1415(f)(1)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. IV).
The problem arose when the parents were dissatisfied with the due process hearing;

They appealed the decision to a state level review officer, where again they rejected. They appealed the complaint to the United States District Court for the Northern District Court of Ohio. The challenge from was Jacob was denied FAPE, the IEP was not adequate and the school had failed to follow IDEA procedures. Jacob was enrolled in a private school at parents cost. An attorney was hired to help with parts of the proceeding, but the parents filed the complaint and appeals without the attorney assistance. The Winkelmans’ were seeking reversal of the decision and reimbursement for the private school expense, attorney fees and declaratory

3. Rationale: This is a very important part of the case brief. You must explain the gist of the court ruling, (i.e., why the court arrived at its holding). The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in err for lack of counsel. Parents are entitled to protection of their rights under IDEA; which includes the entitlement to prosecute on their own behalf claims under IDEA. Congress granted these rights to parents under IDEA. It has been proven that children with disabilities are more apt to prosper if parents are involved with their child’s education. IDEA was set up to guarantee parents have the right a greater role in their child’s education and are responsible for participating in meetings and helping with writing their child’s IEP and take part in any decision making. The Supreme Court found that the parents did have the right for parents to protect a child’s FAPE.
4. Holding: The ruling of the