The goal of my special education law practice is to represent children with special needs to ensure they receive the education and services they need to receive a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Children with disabilities are among the most vulnerable students in our school systems. They are often provided an inadequate education and are frequently placed in inappropriate settings. When these children are not able to function in the real world after graduation from high school, school officials are quick to blame the student and/or his/her disability, rather than attribute the problem to inadequate educational services.
Parents know their children best and work hard to develop a legal strategy that will secure the relief they want for their child. However, I discourage parents from representing their children in administrative due process hearings or mediation. I also discourage them from asking a lay advocate to represent them in such matters, as public schools are often able to take advantage of parents that are not represented by an attorney. The records of the Connecticut Department of Education show that a parent rarely wins a due process hearing if they are not represented by a special education lawyer.
I disagree with those attorneys and advocates who advise parents to avoid due process hearings because informal settlement discussions are always superior to the more formal due process hearing process. While my own experience shows that although the vast majority of cases can be resolved through settlement, some cases cannot be resolved successfully without proceeding to hearing. In still other cases, parents will be forced to accept an inadequate or marginal settlement unless the Board of Education understands that it will be forced into a hearing if it does not offer a fair settlement.
The Law Office of David C. Shaw, LLC provides comprehensive and effective representation of children with special education needs. I frequently represent children with learning disabilities, children with dyslexia, children on the autism spectrum, children with multiple disabilities, children with intellectual disabilities, children with social and emotional disturbance, and children with neurological impairments. I have also represented many children who present with other disabilities that do not easily fit into the categories specified in the IDEA, such as children with Lyme Disease, children with Cochlear Implants, children with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD and ADHD), children with severe medical disabilities, children with Bipolar Disorder, and children with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
I have also filed lawsuits and been successful in securing money damages for children and their parents against school and public officials where those children with special education needs have been physically or emotionally injured due to the wrongful or discriminatory conduct of school or public officials.
In addition, systemic change has been sought and obtained in a number of significant class action lawsuits to eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities from publicly funded service delivery systems. For example, I was lead counsel in the P.J. v. State of Connecticut, No. 2:91CV00180 (RNC), case that secured inclusion or regular class placements for over 1500 school age children with intellectual disabilities in Connecticut. I was lead counsel in Messier v. Southbury Training School, 562 F.Supp. 2d 294 (D.Conn. 2008), and C.A.R.C. v. Thorne, No. H78-653 (TEC), that secured the opportunity to move from Connecticut institutions to community living arrangements for over two thousand children and adults with intellectual disabilities, autism, neurological impairments, and a broad range of other disabilities. Similarly, I was lead counsel in Arc Connecticut v. O'Meara, No. 3:01CV1871 (JBA), which secured funding to support over one thousand children and adults in their own homes and in supported living arrangements. In Hillburn v. Maher, 725 F.2d 252 (2nd Cir. 1986) an order was secured from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals requiring Connecticut to provide adaptive wheelchairs for 400 of the most severely disabled individuals living in nursing homes. In Lelsz v. Kavanaugh, I represented the Association for Retarded Citizens of Texas. Following a trial, Judge Barefoot Sanders held the State of Texas in contempt. See, Lelsz v. Kavanaugh, 815 F.2d 1034 (5th Cir. 1987). In Young v. Coleman, Civ. No. H76-21, I secured a settlement requiring Connecticut to purchase only wheelchair accessible standard size buses for the Hartford, New Haven and Stamford urbanized areas.
