Ruderman & Knox, LLP

Last chance to register for these 3 day workshops. These workshops will include basic rights and important information every parent should know to effectively advocate for their child. Including mock IEP meetings with extensive discussion on strategies parents can use to ensure their child receives a FAPE. Reviewing your child's IEP and writing a parental addendum to address concerns and provide consent. Email [email protected] for a registration form. Registration is required

Last chance to register for these 3 day workshops. These workshops will include basic rights and important information every parent should know to effectively advocate for their child. Including mock IEP meetings with extensive discussion on strategies parents can use to ensure their child receives a FAPE. Reviewing your child's IEP and writing a parental addendum to address concerns and provide consent. Email [email protected] for a registration form. Registration is required

In order to take suggested precautions to limit the spread of COVID-19, our office attorneys and some staff will be working remotely. If you try to call our office and are unable to reach us, please e-mail your attorney directly. For new potential clients, please call and leave a voicemail and e-mail us through our website. We apologize for any delay in our response time in the coming weeks.

We are pleased to welcome Geralyn Clancy to our firm. Geralyn M. Clancy is a highly acclaimed attorney who has been specializing in the area of special education for over 15 years. She brings a wealth of information, experience, and working knowledge to our firm. She was previously a partner in the firm of Varma & Clancy, in the Sacramento area, and then continued as a sole practitioner. She has represented children of all disabilities and placement needs from full inclusion to residential placements. She has successfully litigated many federal court cases, including the often cited case of Amanda J. v. Clark County School District 260 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2001), amended 267 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2001). Ms. Clancy enjoys spending time with her two children.

Brian D. McFarlin received his Juris Doctorate, cum laude, from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 2008. In 2004, he received his bachelor degrees in History and Political Science from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Prior to joining Ruderman & Knox, Mr. McFarlin represented elders and their families in cases of abuse and neglect against hospitals and nursing homes. He enjoys playing with his two year old son, preparing for the birth of his daughter. In his spare time he enjoys going on backpacking trips.

We are pleased to announce the addition of two new attorneys to our firm. Individual posts with bios to follow.

Exciting news!!!! Watch your news feed. We will post it next week!!Exciting news!!!! Watch your news feed. We will post it next week!!

Great Decision for M.C. and All Special Education Students out of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Highlights: 1. Burden of Proof... Normally, the parent has the burden of proof in a special education due process hearing. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the burden of proof shifts to the school district to establish the substantive reasonableness of the IEP if the parent does not know the kind or duration of services by reading the IEP. 2. District's Failure to Respond to the Complaint When the school district fails to file a timely response to a special education complaint, the judge must not go forward with the hearing. Instead, the judge must order a response and shift the cost of the delay to the school district, regardless of who is ultimately the prevailing party. 3. Judge's Restatement of the Issues The judge should not restate and reorganize the issues presented by the parties where the complaint states the issues intelligibly. 4. Parent's Procedural Right to Enforce the IEP Parental enforcement of the IEP is of equal importance as parental participation in the formation of the IEP. When a parent cannot monitor how services are being provided from the IEP, the child is being denied a free appropriate public education. 5. Assistive Technology Documentation The IEP must document the specific assistive technology devices. Failure to do so infringes on the Parent's opportunity to participate in the IEP process and is a denial of a free appropriate public education. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov//opini/2017/03/27/14-56344.pdf

Keeping proper documentation, and available, is essential when attending and participating in your child's IEP. If you do not have your child's records request copies of your child's educational records. Submit your request in writing. The school has 5 business days upon receipt of your request. https://www.facebook.com/Understood/videos/1555076741185353/

Waiting for the decision but I am pretty sure this will be a win for the student after nearly four years of waiting.

Christian Knox at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Another day at the office. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php

If your student was denied ESY due to lack of reported regression and recoupment then don't forget to ask that your school take clear, concise and objective data upon return to ensure that your student is not regressing. Clear and objective data should be the main measure of reporting the need, or lack of need, for ESY. https://govt.westlaw.com//I332E1190DEDE11E3B1CDC211BAD8AD2

Last chance to register for these 3 day workshops. These workshops will include basic rights and important information every parent should know to effectively advocate for their child. Including mock IEP meetings with extensive discussion on strategies parents can use to ensure their child receives a FAPE. Reviewing your child's IEP and writing a parental addendum to address concerns and provide consent. Email [email protected] for a registration form. Registration is required