Fry v. Napoleon is a court case that was taken to the Supreme Court after the process of appeals in Michigan Federal Court. This case deals with whether under Individual with Disabilities Education Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, if Elhena Fry is able to bring her service dog to school with her. At the time of the start of the process of this court case Elhena was only five years old and had just received her new service dog that had been trained to help ensure the Elhena was as independent as possible. Her service dog, Wonder, had been trained to assist Elhena with balance, retrieving dropped items, opening and closing doors, turning on the lights, and multiple other daily tasks Elhena could
…show more content…
I think that that should have been seen the first time. Elhena Fry had received her service dog, Wonder, in 2009 to help her be as independent as she could be. Through Fry’s pediatrician, Wonder was suppose to stay with Fry not only to assist her in her daily life but to ensure the Fry and Wonder bonded and were cohesive enough for them to work together properly for the many years to come. With the delay of the dispute between Fry’s parents and the school district, the multiple court dates, and appeals Fry was unable to have her service dog accompany and assist her at school for the entire 2009-2010 school year. While waiting for the court case to finish out, Elhena’s parents transferred her to a different school and school district where she was allowed to be accompanied by Wonder (Wright, 2016). I believe that this was what was best for Elhena and that her parents made the right choice in transferring Elhena to a different school. Elhena needed Wonder to help foster her independence in the class and help her with daily tasks. I think that Fry’s school district was completely out of line to go against Elhena’s pediatrician’s orders, IDEA’s value of free appropriate public education, and the sections of Section 504’s that address who is protected and who by definition is entitled to a free appropriate public education. In Section 504 it states that, “Students (a) having a mental or physical impairment that affects a major life activity, (b) with a record of such an impairment, (c) who are regarded as having such an impairment,” (Yell, 2012). With this definition with Elhena’s diagnoses of cerebral palsy and her pediatrician’s note of being accompanied by her service dog at all times, I do not think her parents should have had to file for the repeal. I think through these definitions Elhena Fry’s parents should have won their court case the first time and not have had go through the process of filing for a
I think that that should have been seen the first time. Elhena Fry had received her service dog, Wonder, in 2009 to help her be as independent as she could be. Through Fry’s pediatrician, Wonder was suppose to stay with Fry not only to assist her in her daily life but to ensure the Fry and Wonder bonded and were cohesive enough for them to work together properly for the many years to come. With the delay of the dispute between Fry’s parents and the school district, the multiple court dates, and appeals Fry was unable to have her service dog accompany and assist her at school for the entire 2009-2010 school year. While waiting for the court case to finish out, Elhena’s parents transferred her to a different school and school district where she was allowed to be accompanied by Wonder (Wright, 2016). I believe that this was what was best for Elhena and that her parents made the right choice in transferring Elhena to a different school. Elhena needed Wonder to help foster her independence in the class and help her with daily tasks. I think that Fry’s school district was completely out of line to go against Elhena’s pediatrician’s orders, IDEA’s value of free appropriate public education, and the sections of Section 504’s that address who is protected and who by definition is entitled to a free appropriate public education. In Section 504 it states that, “Students (a) having a mental or physical impairment that affects a major life activity, (b) with a record of such an impairment, (c) who are regarded as having such an impairment,” (Yell, 2012). With this definition with Elhena’s diagnoses of cerebral palsy and her pediatrician’s note of being accompanied by her service dog at all times, I do not think her parents should have had to file for the repeal. I think through these definitions Elhena Fry’s parents should have won their court case the first time and not have had go through the process of filing for a