Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
May
7
On death by denial
Filed Under Politics | 3 Comments
Please read this and then return.
You can lie if you want; I’ll never know.
_____________
Almost exactly four years ago, I was standing in my kitchen when the phone rang. It was Margie Ross. I didn’t know Margie and had never heard of Margie, but she proceeded to apologize profusely for having skipped out on substituting at tennis for me a week or two before. I’d been away for Passover and the ladies with whom I play tennis had arranged for Margie to sub for me. However, apparently, as she started to tell me, she’d ended up being unable to go, herself. And she began to tell me why.
She’d recently had what I think she said was her first-ever mammogram, now that she was 43, and it turned out that the doctors needed her to stay for more tests. That’s why she couldn’t make it to the tennis game for which she was supposed to sub for me.
Then she told me that it appeared that she had breast cancer. She spoke quickly and I held my breath as tears began to well in my lower lids. I was turning 40 that summer, but I’d been getting mammograms regularly since I was 28. Still, the thought that it should be me with the diagnosis entered my mind every time I learned about someone I knew, or as with this case didn’t know, was diagnosed.
In fact, just several months before this call, I’d learned that the wife of a dear friend (half of a couple that lives in Canton, the other hald being the only GOPper I’d ever vote for – because I trust him so deeply) – was battling breast cancer. And she was only 35. Why wasn’t it me? Shouldn’t it be me by now?
I told Margie about my mother’s success in the 1980s against breast cancer, even though my grandmother had died of it in the 1960s (and her aunt and a cousin before her). I’d been through genetic counseling, knew that my mom didn’t carry any of the already ID’d mutations and kept going to mammograms.
Margie sounded hyper-ly cheery, in a “Oh, I know, I know! I know everything’s going to be okay.”
I didn’t hear too much about Margie over the last four years. I think I might have asked one of the tennis ladies about Margie, how was she doing, a year or so ago and I only recall that there was nothing remarkable said to me. No news seemed to be good news.
Then, this morning, standing again in my kitchen, reading the PD’s Sunday Metro section, there it was. Margery Holdstein Ross. I let out a cry of Oh My God. Several times. I started to actually cry. My husband thought I was nuts. My voice trembled. I couldn’t believe that I’d missed her obituary. She’d died 4/9/06. I often scan the obits now, with friends losing parents, and sometimes spouses or children. I ran downstairs to the computer and searched the PD death notices.
Goddamnit.
Margie Ross’s death notice appeared on the day before Passover, 4/11, the day I left town for Connecticut, the day I drove six hours and slept when I wasn’t driving. I never read the paper that day.
It was an hour or more this morning before I could get through the “Life Story.” I still cried as I read it.
47 years old. Two kids. A husband. Parents, siblings, nieces, nephews.
The vacuum left behind.
I failed to get my mammogram on time this year and it’s been more than two years since I saw the breast cancer specialist I’m supposed to see at least once a year. This summer I’ll turn the age my mother was when she received her diagnosis.
I kept thinking as I read Margie’s life story, no one, let alone myself, will ever forgive me if I get diagnosed this year. Denial could in fact kill me.
It’s extremely unlikely that I’ve got anything right now. I was checked properly less than six months ago at my annual ob/gyn appointment.
But I should know better. And I am sick to my stomach to think that the death of this person who clearly gave so much, whom I heard from at the very beginning of what turned out to be a four year span of illness, is what may save my life.
Major shame on me. And please, don’t let you be me.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:55 pm May 7th, 2006 in Politics | 3 Comments
Print This Post
May
7
Benefits bloggers: front page news
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
From Employee Benefits News: a longish story about this blog niche, followed by a list of must-read blogs for that industry.
The story starts with an anecdote about how a commenter to Benefitsblog voiced objection to a link on the website. It then describes how Janell Grenier started that blog and ERISAblog about three years ago. Good for her. I’m always trying to convince people of blogvalue, no matter what you’re looking for. Nice to see that the MSM in this particular industry takes blogs seriously.
[Why would I know or care about these blogs? My husband practices in this area of law; I couldn't help but see the "Benefits bloggers" supratitle staring up at me in our favorite substitute for a library room.]
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:43 pm May 7th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
May
7
On death by denial
Filed Under Politics | 3 Comments
Please read this and then return.
You can lie if you want; I’ll never know.
_____________
Almost exactly four years ago, I was standing in my kitchen when the phone rang. It was Margie Ross. I didn’t know Margie and had never heard of Margie, but she proceeded to apologize profusely for having skipped out on substituting at tennis for me a week or two before. I’d been away for Passover and the ladies with whom I play tennis had arranged for Margie to sub for me. However, apparently, as she started to tell me, she’d ended up being unable to go, herself. And she began to tell me why.
She’d recently had what I think she said was her first-ever mammogram, now that she was 43, and it turned out that the doctors needed her to stay for more tests. That’s why she couldn’t make it to the tennis game for which she was supposed to sub for me.
Then she told me that it appeared that she had breast cancer. She spoke quickly and I held my breath as tears began to well in my lower lids. I was turning 40 that summer, but I’d been getting mammograms regularly since I was 28. Still, the thought that it should be me with the diagnosis entered my mind every time I learned about someone I knew, or as with this case didn’t know, was diagnosed.
In fact, just several months before this call, I’d learned that the wife of a dear friend (half of a couple that lives in Canton, the other hald being the only GOPper I’d ever vote for – because I trust him so deeply) – was battling breast cancer. And she was only 35. Why wasn’t it me? Shouldn’t it be me by now?
I told Margie about my mother’s success in the 1980s against breast cancer, even though my grandmother had died of it in the 1960s (and her aunt and a cousin before her). I’d been through genetic counseling, knew that my mom didn’t carry any of the already ID’d mutations and kept going to mammograms.
Margie sounded hyper-ly cheery, in a “Oh, I know, I know! I know everything’s going to be okay.”
I didn’t hear too much about Margie over the last four years. I think I might have asked one of the tennis ladies about Margie, how was she doing, a year or so ago and I only recall that there was nothing remarkable said to me. No news seemed to be good news.
Then, this morning, standing again in my kitchen, reading the PD’s Sunday Metro section, there it was. Margery Holdstein Ross. I let out a cry of Oh My God. Several times. I started to actually cry. My husband thought I was nuts. My voice trembled. I couldn’t believe that I’d missed her obituary. She’d died 4/9/06. I often scan the obits now, with friends losing parents, and sometimes spouses or children. I ran downstairs to the computer and searched the PD death notices.
Goddamnit.
Margie Ross’s death notice appeared on the day before Passover, 4/11, the day I left town for Connecticut, the day I drove six hours and slept when I wasn’t driving. I never read the paper that day.
It was an hour or more this morning before I could get through the “Life Story.” I still cried as I read it.
47 years old. Two kids. A husband. Parents, siblings, nieces, nephews.
The vacuum left behind.
I failed to get my mammogram on time this year and it’s been more than two years since I saw the breast cancer specialist I’m supposed to see at least once a year. This summer I’ll turn the age my mother was when she received her diagnosis.
I kept thinking as I read Margie’s life story, no one, let alone myself, will ever forgive me if I get diagnosed this year. Denial could in fact kill me.
It’s extremely unlikely that I’ve got anything right now. I was checked properly less than six months ago at my annual ob/gyn appointment.
But I should know better. And I am sick to my stomach to think that the death of this person who clearly gave so much, whom I heard from at the very beginning of what turned out to be a four year span of illness, is what may save my life.
Major shame on me. And please, don’t let you be me.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 4:55 pm May 7th, 2006 in Politics | 3 Comments
Print This Post
May
7
Benefits bloggers: front page news
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
From Employee Benefits News: a longish story about this blog niche, followed by a list of must-read blogs for that industry.
The story starts with an anecdote about how a commenter to Benefitsblog voiced objection to a link on the website. It then describes how Janell Grenier started that blog and ERISAblog about three years ago. Good for her. I’m always trying to convince people of blogvalue, no matter what you’re looking for. Nice to see that the MSM in this particular industry takes blogs seriously.
[Why would I know or care about these blogs? My husband practices in this area of law; I couldn't help but see the "Benefits bloggers" supratitle staring up at me in our favorite substitute for a library room.]
By Jill Miller Zimon at 4:43 pm May 7th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
May
7
On death by denial
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
Please read this and then return.
You can lie if you want; I’ll never know.
_____________
Almost exactly four years ago, I was standing in my kitchen when the phone rang. It was Margie Ross. I didn’t know Margie and had never heard of Margie, but she proceeded to apologize profusely for having skipped out on substituting at tennis for me a week or two before. I’d been away for Passover and the ladies with whom I play tennis had arranged for Margie to sub for me. However, apparently, as she started to tell me, she’d ended up being unable to go, herself. And she began to tell me why.
She’d recently had what I think she said was her first-ever mammogram, now that she was 43, and it turned out that the doctors needed her to stay for more tests. That’s why she couldn’t make it to the tennis game for which she was supposed to sub for me.
Then she told me that it appeared that she had breast cancer. She spoke quickly and I held my breath as tears began to well in my lower lids. I was turning 40 that summer, but I’d been getting mammograms regularly since I was 28. Still, the thought that it should be me with the diagnosis entered my mind every time I learned about someone I knew, or as with this case didn’t know, was diagnosed.
In fact, just several months before this call, I’d learned that the wife of a dear friend (half of a couple that lives in Canton, the other hald being the only GOPper I’d ever vote for – because I trust him so deeply) – was battling breast cancer. And she was only 35. Why wasn’t it me? Shouldn’t it be me by now?
I told Margie about my mother’s success in the 1980s against breast cancer, even though my grandmother had died of it in the 1960s (and her aunt and a cousin before her). I’d been through genetic counseling, knew that my mom didn’t carry any of the already ID’d mutations and kept going to mammograms.
Margie sounded hyper-ly cheery, in a “Oh, I know, I know! I know everything’s going to be okay.”
I didn’t hear too much about Margie over the last four years. I think I might have asked one of the tennis ladies about Margie, how was she doing, a year or so ago and I only recall that there was nothing remarkable said to me. No news seemed to be good news.
Then, this morning, standing again in my kitchen, reading the PD’s Sunday Metro section, there it was. Margery Holdstein Ross. I let out a cry of Oh My God. Several times. I started to actually cry. My husband thought I was nuts. My voice trembled. I couldn’t believe that I’d missed her obituary. She’d died 4/9/06. I often scan the obits now, with friends losing parents, and sometimes spouses or children. I ran downstairs to the computer and searched the PD death notices.
Goddamnit.
Margie Ross’s death notice appeared on the day before Passover, 4/11, the day I left town for Connecticut, the day I drove six hours and slept when I wasn’t driving. I never read the paper that day.
It was an hour or more this morning before I could get through the “Life Story.” I still cried as I read it.
47 years old. Two kids. A husband. Parents, siblings, nieces, nephews.
The vacuum left behind.
I failed to get my mammogram on time this year and it’s been more than two years since I saw the breast cancer specialist I’m supposed to see at least once a year. This summer I’ll turn the age my mother was when she received her diagnosis.
I kept thinking as I read Margie’s life story, no one, let alone myself, will ever forgive me if I get diagnosed this year. Denial could in fact kill me.
It’s extremely unlikely that I’ve got anything right now. I was checked properly less than six months ago at my annual ob/gyn appointment.
But I should know better. And I am sick to my stomach to think that the death of this person who clearly gave so much, whom I heard from at the very beginning of what turned out to be a four year span of illness, is what may save my life.
Major shame on me. And please, don’t let you be me.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:55 pm May 7th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
May
7
Benefits bloggers: front page news
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
From Employee Benefits News: a longish story about this blog niche, followed by a list of must-read blogs for that industry.
The story starts with an anecdote about how a commenter to Benefitsblog voiced objection to a link on the website. It then describes how Janell Grenier started that blog and ERISAblog about three years ago. Good for her. I’m always trying to convince people of blogvalue, no matter what you’re looking for. Nice to see that the MSM in this particular industry takes blogs seriously.
[Why would I know or care about these blogs? My husband practices in this area of law; I couldn't help but see the "Benefits bloggers" supratitle staring up at me in our favorite substitute for a library room.]
By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:43 pm May 7th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
May
7
NYT covers Cleveland Bar misstep re: special education advocacy [updated]
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
Update: Here’s a link to a letter from the Cleveland Bar Association, published in the Plain Dealer on Friday, 5/5/06.
This issue is complicated, there’s no question and I no longer am as up to date on the IDEA as I once was. This post from Friday has all the relevant links.
But, because of my education and experience, I know a few things about parents and special needs kids for whom those parents must work with the child’s school in order to be sure the child receives a free and appropriate education.
So, after I read this New York Times story from yesterday’s paper, I emailed Adam Liptak and shared some of those perspectives with him. I’d intended to copy the text before signing off but, having been whipped into a frenzy as I tried to collect my thoughts at 10pm on a Saturday night, well, I forgot.
However, I did email the Cleveland Bar Association’s president, Subodh Chandra (a member of the Bar’s board of trustees; the PD’s article Friday said that the board hadn’t approved the Bar’s suit against the parents for alleged unauthorized practice of law) and Ann Zimmerman of the Bar’s legal counsel department (and a law school classmate from Case). Here’s what I wrote:
Dear Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Chandra and Ms. Zimmerman,
I’m writing to you (Mr. Tompkins, as the Bar president, Mr. Chandra because he is a member of your board of trustees with whom I’m acquainted, and Ms. Zimmerman because she is legal counsel to the Bar and a classmate of mine from law school) to offer my perspective, based on the media’s coverage plus some first-person research I’ve done, on the allegations that Mr. Woods’ was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
First, let me say, I haven’t a clue as to who Mr. Woods is. I only learned of your complaint againt him when I read about it in the Plain Dealer on 4/27/06.
Second, I have a joint degree in law and social work from Case (’92), though I am currently registered as inactive as an attorney. I maintained my law and social work licenses through 2004 and worked at Bellefaire JCB from 1992-2000 in a variety of capacities (Ombudsman, Director of Risk Management and independent contractor). During that time, I handled several cases (as in, individuals receiving services from Bellefaire, as opposed to legal complaints) that involved education law, and even more specifically, IDEA, due process hearings and so on. I occasionally sat in on IEP conferences and also communicated with well-known education lawyers such as Margaret Cannon on education law questions.
Additionally, I am the parent of a profoundly gifted child and have been the member of a parent volunteer group for over seven years in the Orange School District that brings informational presentation to parents of gifted and/or special needs students.
Why am I writing you?
First, I want to say that I am pleased that you’ve dropped your case against Mr. Woods at this point in time. I don’t know what he’s done – I’m not suggesting that he hasn’t commited the unauthorized practice of law. But what I do know is that as a parent – and a legally trained individual who has spent many years in and around juvenile and domestic relations courts, I find it offensive for other attorneys to assert that parents, similarly situated to Mr. Woods, should not represent their children in court because they lack a law license.
First, in my experience, parents of such children often have an excellent understanding of the law. Assisting their children, and the schools, requires them to have that understanding. In fact, Ohio dependency, abuse and neglect laws could conceivably penalize a parent for not knowing that law and allowing a child who needs an IEP to languish. The fact the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court has an intervention program in place to identify which kids coming into the detention center have unmet or undetected learning disabilities and special education needs indicates that someone somewhere believes that a significant youth population isn’t served. And I have to believe that’s partially due to parents who fail to pursue the schools for those services.
Second, if there are so many lawyers lined up to offer their skills for these types of clients at cost-effective rates, they’re doing a lousy job of revealing themselves.
Why not just acknowledge that there is a dearth, that the parents are forced to learn the law if they want to get their children a proper education and that as a system, perhaps, we need to improve?
True, it’s a bit of an esoteric, regulation-laiden section of law, but sadly, more and more parents and more and more children seek the services. Yes, that puts a strain on the school districts. Believe me, I see the people moving into my district just to get the special needs services offered.
But to pit the schools against the parents in no way benefits the child. And to throw the lawyers in on top of that? How is that helpful?
Everyone can recognize resource strains. But this is Ohio. We’ve got some serious education problems as a big picture. Is the construction of even more hurdles for parents to jump in order to get their kids what they need helpful for anyone in the long run?
Finally, does the Bar truly mean to threaten the existence of entities such as H.O.P.E. Mentoring, an enterprise through which two parents with experience dealing with educating exceptional kids share their expertise? Although they may not enter courtrooms with the intention of representing clients, is what they do provide any different from what the Woods or Winkelmans are doing?
In sum, I support your dismissal of the action, but I pray that in the future, the Association will apply its resources to assist parents and children in need of special education law advice, especially if SCOTUS either leaves the 6th Court of Appeals decision in place, or decides on its own that parents cannot represent their children in such cases.
Thank you very much for your time and attention.
Very truly yours,
Jill Miller Zimon, JD, MSSA
Extremely coincidentally, while I was digressing from the email to Liptak and writing the email to the Bar, I received an email from Brian Woods, the parent whom the Bar alleges has commited the unauthorized practice of law. I do not know Mr. Woods, but I appreciated the information he forward to me and I’m seeking permission from him to share it.
Finally, I should add that I’m a bit uncomfortable with what H.O.P.E. Mentoring is doing. They charge for services that myself and many, many other parents with knowledge and experience volunteer for free through district-oriented groups. I applaud them for organizing and assisting, but I’m not totally copacetic with it. Crains Cleveland Business had an article about the enterprise in the 4/10-16/06 issue.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:09 pm May 7th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
May
7
NYT covers Cleveland Bar misstep re: special education advocacy [updated]
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
Update: Here’s a link to a letter from the Cleveland Bar Association, published in the Plain Dealer on Friday, 5/5/06.
This issue is complicated, there’s no question and I no longer am as up to date on the IDEA as I once was. This post from Friday has all the relevant links.
But, because of my education and experience, I know a few things about parents and special needs kids for whom those parents must work with the child’s school in order to be sure the child receives a free and appropriate education.
So, after I read this New York Times story from yesterday’s paper, I emailed Adam Liptak and shared some of those perspectives with him. I’d intended to copy the text before signing off but, having been whipped into a frenzy as I tried to collect my thoughts at 10pm on a Saturday night, well, I forgot.
However, I did email the Cleveland Bar Association’s president, Subodh Chandra (a member of the Bar’s board of trustees; the PD’s article Friday said that the board hadn’t approved the Bar’s suit against the parents for alleged unauthorized practice of law) and Ann Zimmerman of the Bar’s legal counsel department (and a law school classmate from Case). Here’s what I wrote:
Dear Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Chandra and Ms. Zimmerman,
I’m writing to you (Mr. Tompkins, as the Bar president, Mr. Chandra because he is a member of your board of trustees with whom I’m acquainted, and Ms. Zimmerman because she is legal counsel to the Bar and a classmate of mine from law school) to offer my perspective, based on the media’s coverage plus some first-person research I’ve done, on the allegations that Mr. Woods’ was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
First, let me say, I haven’t a clue as to who Mr. Woods is. I only learned of your complaint againt him when I read about it in the Plain Dealer on 4/27/06.
Second, I have a joint degree in law and social work from Case (’92), though I am currently registered as inactive as an attorney. I maintained my law and social work licenses through 2004 and worked at Bellefaire JCB from 1992-2000 in a variety of capacities (Ombudsman, Director of Risk Management and independent contractor). During that time, I handled several cases (as in, individuals receiving services from Bellefaire, as opposed to legal complaints) that involved education law, and even more specifically, IDEA, due process hearings and so on. I occasionally sat in on IEP conferences and also communicated with well-known education lawyers such as Margaret Cannon on education law questions.
Additionally, I am the parent of a profoundly gifted child and have been the member of a parent volunteer group for over seven years in the Orange School District that brings informational presentation to parents of gifted and/or special needs students.
Why am I writing you?
First, I want to say that I am pleased that you’ve dropped your case against Mr. Woods at this point in time. I don’t know what he’s done – I’m not suggesting that he hasn’t commited the unauthorized practice of law. But what I do know is that as a parent – and a legally trained individual who has spent many years in and around juvenile and domestic relations courts, I find it offensive for other attorneys to assert that parents, similarly situated to Mr. Woods, should not represent their children in court because they lack a law license.
First, in my experience, parents of such children often have an excellent understanding of the law. Assisting their children, and the schools, requires them to have that understanding. In fact, Ohio dependency, abuse and neglect laws could conceivably penalize a parent for not knowing that law and allowing a child who needs an IEP to languish. The fact the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court has an intervention program in place to identify which kids coming into the detention center have unmet or undetected learning disabilities and special education needs indicates that someone somewhere believes that a significant youth population isn’t served. And I have to believe that’s partially due to parents who fail to pursue the schools for those services.
Second, if there are so many lawyers lined up to offer their skills for these types of clients at cost-effective rates, they’re doing a lousy job of revealing themselves.
Why not just acknowledge that there is a dearth, that the parents are forced to learn the law if they want to get their children a proper education and that as a system, perhaps, we need to improve?
True, it’s a bit of an esoteric, regulation-laiden section of law, but sadly, more and more parents and more and more children seek the services. Yes, that puts a strain on the school districts. Believe me, I see the people moving into my district just to get the special needs services offered.
But to pit the schools against the parents in no way benefits the child. And to throw the lawyers in on top of that? How is that helpful?
Everyone can recognize resource strains. But this is Ohio. We’ve got some serious education problems as a big picture. Is the construction of even more hurdles for parents to jump in order to get their kids what they need helpful for anyone in the long run?
Finally, does the Bar truly mean to threaten the existence of entities such as H.O.P.E. Mentoring, an enterprise through which two parents with experience dealing with educating exceptional kids share their expertise? Although they may not enter courtrooms with the intention of representing clients, is what they do provide any different from what the Woods or Winkelmans are doing?
In sum, I support your dismissal of the action, but I pray that in the future, the Association will apply its resources to assist parents and children in need of special education law advice, especially if SCOTUS either leaves the 6th Court of Appeals decision in place, or decides on its own that parents cannot represent their children in such cases.
Thank you very much for your time and attention.
Very truly yours,
Jill Miller Zimon, JD, MSSA
Extremely coincidentally, while I was digressing from the email to Liptak and writing the email to the Bar, I received an email from Brian Woods, the parent whom the Bar alleges has commited the unauthorized practice of law. I do not know Mr. Woods, but I appreciated the information he forward to me and I’m seeking permission from him to share it.
Finally, I should add that I’m a bit uncomfortable with what H.O.P.E. Mentoring is doing. They charge for services that myself and many, many other parents with knowledge and experience volunteer for free through district-oriented groups. I applaud them for organizing and assisting, but I’m not totally copacetic with it. Crains Cleveland Business had an article about the enterprise in the 4/10-16/06 issue.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:09 am May 7th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
May
7
NYT covers Cleveland Bar misstep re: special education advocacy [updated]
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
Update: Here’s a link to a letter from the Cleveland Bar Association, published in the Plain Dealer on Friday, 5/5/06.
This issue is complicated, there’s no question and I no longer am as up to date on the IDEA as I once was. This post from Friday has all the relevant links.
But, because of my education and experience, I know a few things about parents and special needs kids for whom those parents must work with the child’s school in order to be sure the child receives a free and appropriate education.
So, after I read this New York Times story from yesterday’s paper, I emailed Adam Liptak and shared some of those perspectives with him. I’d intended to copy the text before signing off but, having been whipped into a frenzy as I tried to collect my thoughts at 10pm on a Saturday night, well, I forgot.
However, I did email the Cleveland Bar Association’s president, Subodh Chandra (a member of the Bar’s board of trustees; the PD’s article Friday said that the board hadn’t approved the Bar’s suit against the parents for alleged unauthorized practice of law) and Ann Zimmerman of the Bar’s legal counsel department (and a law school classmate from Case). Here’s what I wrote:
Dear Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Chandra and Ms. Zimmerman,
I’m writing to you (Mr. Tompkins, as the Bar president, Mr. Chandra because he is a member of your board of trustees with whom I’m acquainted, and Ms. Zimmerman because she is legal counsel to the Bar and a classmate of mine from law school) to offer my perspective, based on the media’s coverage plus some first-person research I’ve done, on the allegations that Mr. Woods’ was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
First, let me say, I haven’t a clue as to who Mr. Woods is. I only learned of your complaint againt him when I read about it in the Plain Dealer on 4/27/06.
Second, I have a joint degree in law and social work from Case (’92), though I am currently registered as inactive as an attorney. I maintained my law and social work licenses through 2004 and worked at Bellefaire JCB from 1992-2000 in a variety of capacities (Ombudsman, Director of Risk Management and independent contractor). During that time, I handled several cases (as in, individuals receiving services from Bellefaire, as opposed to legal complaints) that involved education law, and even more specifically, IDEA, due process hearings and so on. I occasionally sat in on IEP conferences and also communicated with well-known education lawyers such as Margaret Cannon on education law questions.
Additionally, I am the parent of a profoundly gifted child and have been the member of a parent volunteer group for over seven years in the Orange School District that brings informational presentation to parents of gifted and/or special needs students.
Why am I writing you?
First, I want to say that I am pleased that you’ve dropped your case against Mr. Woods at this point in time. I don’t know what he’s done – I’m not suggesting that he hasn’t commited the unauthorized practice of law. But what I do know is that as a parent – and a legally trained individual who has spent many years in and around juvenile and domestic relations courts, I find it offensive for other attorneys to assert that parents, similarly situated to Mr. Woods, should not represent their children in court because they lack a law license.
First, in my experience, parents of such children often have an excellent understanding of the law. Assisting their children, and the schools, requires them to have that understanding. In fact, Ohio dependency, abuse and neglect laws could conceivably penalize a parent for not knowing that law and allowing a child who needs an IEP to languish. The fact the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court has an intervention program in place to identify which kids coming into the detention center have unmet or undetected learning disabilities and special education needs indicates that someone somewhere believes that a significant youth population isn’t served. And I have to believe that’s partially due to parents who fail to pursue the schools for those services.
Second, if there are so many lawyers lined up to offer their skills for these types of clients at cost-effective rates, they’re doing a lousy job of revealing themselves.
Why not just acknowledge that there is a dearth, that the parents are forced to learn the law if they want to get their children a proper education and that as a system, perhaps, we need to improve?
True, it’s a bit of an esoteric, regulation-laiden section of law, but sadly, more and more parents and more and more children seek the services. Yes, that puts a strain on the school districts. Believe me, I see the people moving into my district just to get the special needs services offered.
But to pit the schools against the parents in no way benefits the child. And to throw the lawyers in on top of that? How is that helpful?
Everyone can recognize resource strains. But this is Ohio. We’ve got some serious education problems as a big picture. Is the construction of even more hurdles for parents to jump in order to get their kids what they need helpful for anyone in the long run?
Finally, does the Bar truly mean to threaten the existence of entities such as H.O.P.E. Mentoring, an enterprise through which two parents with experience dealing with educating exceptional kids share their expertise? Although they may not enter courtrooms with the intention of representing clients, is what they do provide any different from what the Woods or Winkelmans are doing?
In sum, I support your dismissal of the action, but I pray that in the future, the Association will apply its resources to assist parents and children in need of special education law advice, especially if SCOTUS either leaves the 6th Court of Appeals decision in place, or decides on its own that parents cannot represent their children in such cases.
Thank you very much for your time and attention.
Very truly yours,
Jill Miller Zimon, JD, MSSA
Extremely coincidentally, while I was digressing from the email to Liptak and writing the email to the Bar, I received an email from Brian Woods, the parent whom the Bar alleges has commited the unauthorized practice of law. I do not know Mr. Woods, but I appreciated the information he forward to me and I’m seeking permission from him to share it.
Finally, I should add that I’m a bit uncomfortable with what H.O.P.E. Mentoring is doing. They charge for services that myself and many, many other parents with knowledge and experience volunteer for free through district-oriented groups. I applaud them for organizing and assisting, but I’m not totally copacetic with it. Crains Cleveland Business had an article about the enterprise in the 4/10-16/06 issue.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 6:09 am May 7th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
