Sedona.Biz – The Voice of Sedona and The Verde ValleySedona.Biz – The Voice of Sedona and The Verde Valley
    Sedona.Biz – The Voice of Sedona and The Verde Valley Sedona.Biz – The Voice of Sedona and The Verde Valley
    • Home
    • Sedona News
    • Business Profiles
    • Opinion
    • Mind & Body
    • Arts
    • Elections
    • Gift Shop
    • Contact
    • Advertise
    Sedona.Biz – The Voice of Sedona and The Verde ValleySedona.Biz – The Voice of Sedona and The Verde Valley
    Home » Parent Without an Attorney Wins Federal Court Case Against Northern Arizona School District
    Letter to The Editor

    Parent Without an Attorney Wins Federal Court Case Against Northern Arizona School District

    March 28, 20161 Comment
    Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Email Reddit WhatsApp
    Share
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email Reddit WhatsApp

    Healing Paws

    Three year battle for a disabled children’s rights to an education culminates in victory

    By Matthew Oskowis
    (March 28, 2016)

    On Tuesday, March 22nd, a Senior United States District Judge, James A. Tielborg, of the U.S. District Court of Arizona filed a judgement in favor of the pro se parent Plaintiff, Matthew C Oskowis, and against the Defendant, Sedona Oak-Creek Unified School District (“SOCUSD”) in the federal case CV-14-08166- JAT. In his associated Order filed the same day, Judge Tielborg also awarded to Mr. Oskowis 200 hours of Special Education Services and twelve hours of Occupational Therapy to be provided by SOCUSD to Mr. Oskowiss autistic son.

    SOCUSD was represented by attorneys from Hufford, Horstman, Mongini, Parnell & Tucker law firm based out of Flagstaff.

    This was the first federal lawsuit against SOCUSD that has been filed by either an attorney or lay advocate since the SOCUSD inception nearly twenty years ago. Due to the extreme expense of hiring an attorney, Mr. Oskowis has been representing himself and his autistic son in federal court; a right guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) the federal regulation governing the education of children with disabilities.

    “It took a lot of time and sacrifice to be able to understand the ins and outs of the federal court system and the IDEA, but I would encourage parents not be dissuaded by the cost of an attorney and pursue justice for their disabled children on their own. I have just proved it possible!” – Mr. Oskowis

    Sedona Gift Shop

    “The importance in this case is that it holds a school district responsible for the appropriate implementation of a childs Individual Education Plan (IEP), particularly in regards to moving a child through his Short Term Objectives (STOs) in a timely manner. Our hopes is that this case will provide parents with the legal precedence to keep their school district from stalling or delaying their child with a disabilities progress through his educational and functional needs.” – Mr. Oskowis

    “Our family is ecstatic at Judge Tielborgs ruling and look forward to provide SOCUSD the opportunity to fulfill its past obligations toward my sons education,” Mr. Oskowis concluded.

    Mr. Oskowis still has a second U.S. District Court complaint (CV-15-08064-DJH) against SOCUSD in which final briefs were just filed this month and is anxious to see the results of his efforts in that case as well.

    Mr. Oskowis has also gone as far as to receive certifications in “Teaching Language to Children with Autism or Other Development Delays” and “Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills” so that he can better advocate for his child with a disability. Mr. Oskowis also belongs to the Council of Parent Attorney and Advocates (COPAA), an independent, nonprofit, national organization that seeks to protect the legal and civil rights of students with disabilities and their families.

    1 Comment

    1. Lin Ennis on April 5, 2016 12:43 pm

      This is a triumph that should not have occurred. It should not have been needed. The school district should have provided appropriate education without being sued.

      I know the District is strapped for funds, as all schools in Arizona are. Parents and school employees should persistently bombard the legislature for better funding. AZ wants to “bribe” companies to move here? Why would they when there won’t be a well-educated workforce to employee in those companies? Large employers will have to hire headhunters to cast a wide net for highly-skilled workers who will serve for Arizona wages.

      We have sunshine. We need more than that.


    City Council Weighs ATV Ban Ordinance Proposal
    By Tommy Acosta
    The Sedona City Council at its May 23, 2023 meeting took no action on a proposed ordinance that would ban all off-road vehicles from being driven on state-owned public roads or streets owned by the city. The ordinance, spearheaded by Sedona Mayor Scott Jablow on the premise that such vehicles pose a risk to the health, safety and welfare of the community, would impose heavy fines to anyone driving the ATVs or OHVs on city streets, including S.R. 179 and S.R. 89A. ATV rental companies have admitted that such vehicles are not intended or designed to be driven on paved roads, yet, in Arizona, they are allowed to do so under Arizona Revised Statute 28-1174 (4B). Opponents against the ordinance argued at the meeting that if adopted the ban would cripple the ATV rental industry in Sedona and cause much hardship to the owners and employees, as it would effectively, as written, destroy their livelihood. Read more→
    Recent Comments
    • JB on DORR Hosts Talk on Gun Violence Prevention
    • Mary on No Legal Traction on OHVs
    • Michael Schroeder on DORR Hosts Talk on Gun Violence Prevention
    • JB on Sedona Mayor Scott Jablow talks OHV Ordinance
    • JB on City Council Weighs ATV Ban Ordinance Proposal
    Categories
    © 2023 All rights reserved. Sedona.biz.

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.