O'CONNELL

Levi v. O'CONNELL

Good Law
144 Cal. App. 4th 700·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1749·2006 Daily Journal DAR 14717·50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 691·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10317
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 7, 2006C051722California4,079 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cantil-Sakauye, J.

In this case we consider whether the California Department of Education (CDE) is required to pay for the college education of an extremely gifted student under the age of 16. We conclude it is not. We shall affirm the judgment of dismissal of plaintiffs’ action entered following the trial court’s sustaining of CDE’s demurrer without leave to amend.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 9, 2004, Leila J. Levi (Levi) filed an original complaint against CDE on behalf of herself and as guardian ad litem for her 13-year-old son Levi M. Clancy (Clancy) (together plaintiffs). After the trial court sustained CDE’s general demurrer with leave to amend, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. The first amended complaint alleges Clancy, bom on October 12, 1990, is a highly gifted child required, as a minor under the age of 16, to attend school under the compulsory education law. (Ed. Code, § 48200 et seq.) The first amended complaint alleges, “Clancy cannot attend a traditional K-12 school because the schools operated by CDE, and Clancy’s local district, are ill-equipped and unsuitable for highly gifted children and will actually cause more harm to him than if he…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.