Before The
State Of Wisconsin
DIVISION OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

A prehearing conference was held by telephone on August 11, 1997, at which time Ms. Knasinski raised an objection to these proceedings on grounds that the [Parents] did not have proper standing to request a due process hearing because their son, [Student], is aged eighteen, and no longer a minor. Ms. Knasinski agreed to forward a letter to the undersigned administrative law judge setting forth the District's objections no later than August 13, 1997. Mr. Stadler was directed to respond to the District's objections no later than August 18, 1997.

On April 24, 1997, [Student] turned eighteen. In May and June of this year, [Student] was evaluated by the District in order to determine whether he had any exceptional educational needs. An M-team report dated June 16, 1997, concluded that [Student] did not have a disability. The [Parents] disagreed with that finding and therefore requested a due process hearing on June 26, 1997. During the August 11, 1997, prehearing conference, the parties reported that they were unable to reach a settlement in this matter and subsequently requested that a hearing date be set.

Under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), disabled children are entitled to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). Additionally, the IDEA entitles parents and students to an impartial due process hearing with respect to any matter relating to the provision of a free, appropriate public education including, but not limited to, identification, evaluation, and placement issues. Section PI 11.16, Wis. Admin. Code provides that once a child with exceptional education needs turns eighteen years old he or she will have all the rights and responsibilities that were formerly provided to his or her parents.

Whether [Student] is a child with exceptional education needs is the primary issue of this due process request. Because that issue is in dispute, it is seemingly impossible to transfer the rights and responsibilities of his parents to him. Even assuming, arguendo, that the [Parents] do not have a right to a due process hearing on behalf of their son, it would be a practical impossibility to attempt to divide the rights between parent and child in this process. Moreover, because [Student]'s interests and those of his parents appear to be the same, the purposes of the IDEA is best served by permitting both [Student] and his parents to pursue this appeal.

NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the District's request to dismiss this case is DENIED. It is further ordered that [Student] shall be given leave to join in his parents' due process request.

Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 5th day of September, 1997.