A Burden of Proof Is Put on Parents

Parents who challenge their school district’s program for their disabled child have the burden of proving the program is not appropriate, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The 6-2 decision will make it harder for some parents to win lawsuits that seek compensation for the cost of sending their child to a private school.

However, the justices cautioned that Monday’s ruling will tip the balance in only a small number of cases.

Since 1975, federal law has said children who have disabilities are entitled to a “free appropriate public education.” The law also says school officials and the child’s parents should meet to draw up an “individualized education program.”

Sometimes, the school and the parents disagree on what is needed and appropriate for the child. In these instances, the law calls for a hearing before an impartial arbiter. But the law does not say who bears the burden of proving the case.

“We will conclude that the burden of persuasion lies where it usually falls, upon the party seeking relief,” said Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Usually, that will be the parents, she said. Sometimes, however, school officials go to court to challenge an administrative judge’s order that requires them to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a special program.

The ruling came in the case of Schaffer vs. Weast.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven G. Breyer dissented. They said that because the law requires school systems to provide a “free appropriate public education” for the disabled students, they should be obliged to prove their programs meet that requirement.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. recused himself.