|
J.M.,
a twenty-two year old male diagnosed with mild to moderate mental
retardation and a variety of other mental disabilities, received
special education services through the Vernon Board of Education
("Board") and the Department of Mental Retardation ("DMR") and was
eventually placed in a group home in New Britain, Connecticut. After
exhibiting dangerous behaviors, J.M. was removed from this home,
hospitalized for a period of time, and then temporarily placed in
a converted lounge in an administrative building on the campus of
DMR. At a meeting of J.M.’s planning and placement team (PPT), R.M.,
J.M.’s mother, requested that J.M. be moved to a more appropriate
placement, but both the Board and DMR denied the request. R.M. then
requested a hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA), and after the hearing officer dismissed her complaint,
she filed this action for a preliminary injunction in District Court
under the IDEA, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The District
Court concluded that in an action seeking a preliminary injunction,
the plaintiff must establish that 1) "the injunction is necessary
to prevent irreparable harm," and 2) ". . . the likelihood of success
on the merits. . ." or ". . .serious questions going to the merits
of the claim as to make it fair grounds for litigation. . . ." The
court added, though, that when a plaintiff requests a positive act
to alter the status quo, the plaintiff is held to a higher standard
of review. In such a situation, a preliminary injunction is only
issued where the evidence clearly demonstrates that the plaintiff
is entitled to relief or where serious damage will result if the
relief is not granted. The court determined that J.M.'s case did
not even meet the requirement of irreparable harm necessary for
granting an injunction, let alone the higher standard required in
this case where the plaintiff requested a positive change in the
status quo, and therefore the court denied the plaintiff’s claim.
This
case may be accessed at the United States District Court, District
of Connecticut’s web site at http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/.
(GG 7/02)
|
