omm case: statements from ocs, mcwhirters, autism society of nc

Here are the statements from various parties involved (or not, as the case may be) in the case OMM v. Orange County Schools.

Orange County Schools, via attorney Rachel B. Hitch with Schwartz & Shaw. Click on each page to get a larger view.


















































Here is the statement from the McWhirters:

On Friday, we had a very productive IEP meeting with representatives of the Orange County Public Schools. We unanimously agreed upon extended year service plan for Owen. I am disheartended and dissapointed at the County's release of a press statement. We were moving forward, appeal or not, communicating well, and focusing on what was important: Owen's education.
It is important to note that regardless of what the county wants the public to focus on, which is the much controversial issue of "appropriate" vs best" this case was about a whole lot more, including substantive deprivations of federal rights. Contrary to the County's claim that the proposed IEP was developed by the team, the County admitted in testimony and the Judge clearly found as fact that the IEP was delegated to non-team members outside of the room. On page 39 of her final decision, Judge
Lassiter writes, “In doing so here, Respondent violated that procedural requirement of the IDEA. The procedural violation was not a "technical failure" and it was neither trivial nor inconsequential. Because of Respondent's improper delegation of decision making authority over OMM's services and placement. NM and AM were deprived of their rightto participate meaningfully in the decision-making process with respect to OMM s IEP placement and services.” The county denied our son a free and appropriate public education, and the judge ruled that we are entitled to equitable remedies.
To prevail in its appeal the County will have to overturn five separate rulings made by Judge Lassiter in her decision. While the County has every right to appeal, we think that there are better ways to spend taxpayer money then this.

Here's an e-mail I received from Scott Badesch, CEO of the Autism Society of North Carolina, responding to the use of a quote from one of their staffers in the OCS release:

1. The Autism Society of North Carolina’s staff person quoted in the New and Observer article is a parent advocate who informed us that she was not responding to the case mentioned in the article, but rather about the legal responsibility of Public School Systems when it comes to providing education for people living with a developmental disability.
2. The Autism Society of North Carolina does know about the case mentioned in the article and fully supports the rights of a parent to advocate fully for assuring that his or her child is provided all rights that he or she is allowed under the law. In the case you mentioned, the issue has more to do, we are told, with due process of law than about defining appropriate.
3. Unfortunately, the Orange County School District chose to use a quote of an Autism Society of North Carolina staff member to appear to justify its position. We feel that might imply our approval of the actions that the School District is taking in this case. The Autism Society of North Carolina fully supports the rights of all parents to advocate for what their child is legally entitled to and to the right of due process in seeking an appropriate education for their child.
4. This case is more about the civil rights that a person living with autism is allowed under the law. Just as the right of appeal is allowed under law, so is the right to due process and the right for an appropriate education for a child living with autism.