Fuentes v. Board of Education of the City of New York, No. 06-4715 (2d Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 26, 2008.
Download PDF
06-4715-pr Fuentes v. Board of Education of the City of New York 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 August Term 2008 4 (Argued: January 29, 2008 5 Decided: June 15, 2009) Docket No. 06-4715-pr 6 -----------------------------------------------------x 7 JESUS FUENTES, as a Parent of a Disabled Child, 8 Plaintiff-Appellant, 9 -- v. -- 10 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, BARRY 11 MASTELLONE, Administrator of the HHVI of the Board of 12 Education of the City of New York, and DENISE 13 WASHINGTON, Chief Administrator of Impartial Hearing 14 Office of the Board of Education of the City of New 15 York, 16 Defendants-Appellees. 17 -----------------------------------------------------x 18 B e f o r e : WALKER, CALABRESI, and RAGGI, Circuit Judges. 19 Plaintiff-Appellant Jesus Fuentes appealed from an order of 20 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New 21 York (Frederic Block, Judge) dismissing his complaint on behalf 22 of himself and his disabled son, pursuant to the Individuals with 23 Disabilities Education Act, that challenged the adequacy of 1 1 special education services in his son s public school. 2 district court dismissed Plaintiff s complaint on the basis that 3 Plaintiff, as the non-custodial parent of the child, lacked 4 standing to bring such an action. 5 New York Court of Appeals. 6 court, we now AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 The We certified a question to the Having received an answer from that LAWRENCE W. POLLACK, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP (Lisa A. Keenan, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, Rebecca C. Shore and Miranda B. Johnson, Advocates for Children of New York, Inc., and David J. Lansner, Lansner Kubitschek Schaffer & Zuccardy, on the brief) New York, NY, for Petitioner-Appellant. SCOTT SHORR, Senior Counsel, for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, City of New York Law Department, New York, NY, for Respondents-Appellees. PER CURIAM: The facts of this case are set forth in detail in our 25 earlier opinion in this case. See Fuentes v. Bd. of Educ. of 26 City of N.Y.,540 F.3d 145, 146-48 (2d Cir. 2008). 27 part, Jesus Fuentes ( Fuentes ), the biological and non-custodial 28 parent of Mathew Fuentes ( Mathew ), a disabled child, challenged 29 the special education services Mathew received from the New York 30 public schools as inadequate. 31 on Special Education for the Hearing, Handicapped, and Visually 32 Impaired determined that Fuentes, as Mathew s non-custodial Id. at 147. 2 In relevant After the Committee 1 parent, did not have the right to participate in educational 2 decisions affecting Mathew, Fuentes filed a pro se complaint in 3 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New 4 York against the New York City Board of Education under 42 U.S.C. 5 § 1983 and Section 1415(f)(1) of the Individuals with 6 Disabilities Education Act ( IDEA ), 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1) 7 seeking, inter alia, to vindicate rights granted by the IDEA. 8 9 The district court twice dismissed Fuentes s case for lack of standing on the basis that under New York law, a non-custodial 10 parent has no right to make special education decisions for the 11 child. 12 dismissal, although lower court authority strongly indicates 13 that under New York law a non-custodial parent does not retain 14 the right to participate in educational decisions for the child, 15 we could find no controlling New York Court of Appeals authority 16 on point. 17 concern posed by custodial arrangements, we certified the 18 following question to the New York Court of Appeals: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Fuentes, 540 F.3d at 147-48. Id. at 153. On appeal of the second In light of the paramount state Whether, under New York law, the biological and non-custodial parent of a child retains the right to participate in decisions pertaining to the education of the child where (1) the custodial parent is granted exclusive custody of the child and (2) the divorce decree and custody order are silent as to the right to control such decisions. Id. The New York Court of Appeals accepted this case on 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 certification and modified the question as follows: Whether, under New York Law, the non-custodial parent of a child retains decision-making authority pertaining to the education of the child where (1) the custodial parent is granted exclusive custody of the child and (2) the divorce decree and custody order are silent as to the right to control such decisions. Fuentes v. Bd. of Educ. of City of N.Y., 12 N.Y.3d 309, 314 (2009) (emphasis added). 11 On April 30, 2009, it issued its decision answering the 12 question in the negative. See id. The Court of Appeals 13 explained that unless the custody order expressly permits 14 joint decision-making authority or designates particular 15 authority with respect to the child s education, a non- 16 custodial parent has no right to control such decisions. 17 This authority properly belongs to the custodial parent. 18 Id. 19 As we have explained, where a plaintiff does not have 20 the authority to make educational decisions on behalf of [a 21 child], the parent lacks standing to demand a hearing 22 under the IDEA on the appropriateness of defendants IEP 23 evaluation. 24 768, 782 (2d Cir. 2002). 25 question, for standing purposes, is not whether the non- 26 custodial parent may participate in a child s education, 27 but rather, whether such a parent has the right to 28 control educational decisions. Taylor v. Vermont Dep t of Educ., 313 F.3d Consequently, the appropriate 4 Fuentes, 12 N.Y.3d at 1 314. 2 New York law, a non-custodial parent lacks the decision- 3 making authority to control a child s education when 4 neither the custody order nor the divorce decree explicitly 5 provides Fuentes, the non-custodial parent, any authority 6 respecting Mathew s education. 7 York Court of Appeals therefore resolves the present suit, 8 and we conclude that Fuentes lacks standing to sue as a 9 parent under the IDEA. 10 11 The New York Court of Appeals concluded that, under Id. The holding of the New For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
