# Wake Cares, Inc. v. Wake County Board of Education

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 1, 2009 · 363 N.C. 165

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9581815

## Case

- **Full name:** WAKE CARES, INC.; PATRICE LEE, Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem of Her Minor Children, IAN LEE, DELANEY LEE, MARGARET LEE, and BAILEY LEE; KATHLEEN BRENNAN, Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem of Her Minor Child, ELIZABETH BRENNAN; SCOTT P. HAVILAND and GIHAN I. EL-HABBAL, Individually and as Guardians Ad Litem of Their Children, AHMED HAVILAND, AYAH HAVILAND, and IMAN HAVILAND; MICHAEL JOHN STANTON and ANGELA MARIE STANTON, Individually and as Guardians Ad Litem of Their Children, JACOB STANTON, ALEXIS STANTON, DANIELLE STANTON, DALLAS STANTON, and JORDAN STANTON; And KIMBERLY SINNOTT and JOHN NADASKY, Individually and as Guardians Ad Litem of Their Children, REID NADASKY, SEAN NADASKY, and JAMES NADASKY, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated v. WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION AND LORI MILBERG, HORACE J. TART, CAROL PARKER, ROSA GILL, SUSAN PARRY, PATTIE HEAD, ELEANOR GOETTEE, RON MARGIOTTA, and BEVERLEY CLARK, in Their Official Capacities as Members of the WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** May 1, 2009
- **Citations:** 363 N.C. 165; 675 S.E.2d 345; 2009 N.C. LEXIS 351
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Edmunds
- **Judges:** Brady, Edmunds, Martin, Newby, Timmons-Goodson
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9581815

## Opinion text

Justice EDMUNDS
concurring.
I concur with the majority holding affirming the Court of Appeals reversal of the trial court’s order. However, while I acknowledge the grave difficulties faced by defendant Wake County Board of Education and detailed in the majority opinion, I write separately to emphasize that this Court’s decision is compelled by the applicable constitutional provisions and statutes.
Nevertheless, plaintiffs are not without recourse. The record includes affidavits from individual plaintiffs establishing that mandatory year-round schools will be inordinately disruptive in their family lives. Under section 115C-369, parents or guardians of any student *174 assigned to a year-round school may seek reassignment and apply for a mandatory hearing if the request is denied. N.C.G.S. § 115C-369(a) (2007). At such a hearing, one of the factors that “shall” be considered is “the best interest of the child.” Id. § 115C-369(c) (2007). I cannot believe that “best interest” does not include at least some of the factors raised by plaintiffs, such as sibling placement, family schedules, and the like.
Moreover, plaintiffs have the ultimate remedy of the ballot box. Id. § 115C-37 (2007) (mandating election of county boards of education). While boards of education must make difficult choices as to how to allocate scarce resources, those boards are responsible to the voters, who have the power both to elect candidates of their choice and to unseat incumbents.
For the reasons given above, I concur in the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9581815. Public record. Not legal advice.