I suspect the question is posed the way it is ("can a child be too BAD.....") to incite emotion and elicit responses, and I understand that approach in the context of generating public interest in the blog. However, I think (or hope!) most of us know that children are not bad, even though sometimes they make unwise choices which have very unfortunate consequences. IDEA affirms state responsibility to serve children with disabilities in both juvenile detention facilities and adult correctional facilities (§300.2). In §300.324 IDEA does place some exceptions on the provision of a FAPE to children who have been convicted as adults and are incarcerated in adult prisons (i.e., "children" who are being treated as adults.) These limitations on FAPE are specific and practical, driven by the nature of the incarceration, and likely apply to only a portion of children convicted as adults and incarcerated in adult prisons. The language of the IDEA regulation clearly indicates that any modification of a FAPE is a strategy of last resort (i.e., that the state must "demonstrate a bona fide security or compelling penological interest that cannot otherwise be accommodated.") IDEA includes no such limitations on the provision of a FAPE for children who are confined to juvenile detention facilities.
Too many children who fall on the wrong side of the law are dealing with less than ideal family situations, perhaps heritable disabilities, whether mental illness, learning problems, or substance abuse. None of these are excuses sufficient to remove the only foundation such a child may have to provide something solid for his future as a productive adult. I am aware of cases where FAPE is the only thing in some children's lives that is not dysfunctional or punitive, and IF they continue to receive FAPE and find even one supportive mentor or adult who influences them toward a useful life, we may occasionally rescue a child for the future. Unfortunately, too much of American education and juvenile justice is punishment-oriented to the exclusion of any sense of justice or Big Picture thinking. Thanks for keeping the34 Big Picture and sense of justice where they belong, Jim.
This Special Education Law Blog is intended for educational purposes only. Nothing said in the posts, comments or elsewhere in this blog should be construed as legal advice. If you have a dispute or any other legal problem, you should confer with an attorney who is licensed to practice law in your state. Any reference or description of individuals that resembles actual persons or any reference to what appears to be personally identifiable information is purely coincidental and unintentional. All comments, posts or other discussion should be accepted in the spirit of philosophical debate rather than as instruction or advice of any kind. Any abusive, profane, offensive or defamatory language of any kind is strictly prohibited and will not be tolerated. Disclosure Policy(FTC) (effective 05/23/2014) This blog is a personal and business blog written and edited by Jim Gerl. For questions about this blog, please contact jimgerl@gmail.com. Since January 1, 2017, this blog accepts paid advertising, sponsorship and/or paid insertions. I write for my own purposes and also for exposure of my business. However, it is possible that I may be influenced by my background, occupation, religion, political affiliation or experience.Since January 1, 2017, the owner of this blog receives compensation from advertisers. This blog may contain content which could present a conflict of interest; such content will be identified in the post in which it occurs.
I suspect the question is posed the way it is ("can a child be too BAD.....") to incite emotion and elicit responses, and I understand that approach in the context of generating public interest in the blog. However, I think (or hope!) most of us know that children are not bad, even though sometimes they make unwise choices which have very unfortunate consequences. IDEA affirms state responsibility to serve children with disabilities in both juvenile detention facilities and adult correctional facilities (§300.2). In §300.324 IDEA does place some exceptions on the provision of a FAPE to children who have been convicted as adults and are incarcerated in adult prisons (i.e., "children" who are being treated as adults.) These limitations on FAPE are specific and practical, driven by the nature of the incarceration, and likely apply to only a portion of children convicted as adults and incarcerated in adult prisons. The language of the IDEA regulation clearly indicates that any modification of a FAPE is a strategy of last resort (i.e., that the state must "demonstrate a bona fide security or compelling penological interest that cannot otherwise be accommodated.") IDEA includes no such limitations on the provision of a FAPE for children who are confined to juvenile detention facilities.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
DeleteThank you for your comment.
JG
Too many children who fall on the wrong side of the law are dealing with less than ideal family situations, perhaps heritable disabilities, whether mental illness, learning problems, or substance abuse. None of these are excuses sufficient to remove the only foundation such a child may have to provide something solid for his future as a productive adult. I am aware of cases where FAPE is the only thing in some children's lives that is not dysfunctional or punitive, and IF they continue to receive FAPE and find even one supportive mentor or adult who influences them toward a useful life, we may occasionally rescue a child for the future. Unfortunately, too much of American education and juvenile justice is punishment-oriented to the exclusion of any sense of justice or Big Picture thinking. Thanks for keeping the34 Big Picture and sense of justice where they belong, Jim.
ReplyDeleteMichelle,
DeleteThnk you for your comment.
JG