It’s such a simple request. Last October, Marcia Barber wanted to help her 15-year-old daughter, Julie, fulfill the requirements of Colorado law to get her driver’s license. Julie had completed a driver’s ed course at a cost of $350. She had obtained a minor’s instruction permit. All she needed now was to complete the required 50 hours behind the wheel so she’d be ready for her driver’s test at 16.
Since Marcia is blind and cannot drive, and because Julie’s father lives in California and does not have a driver’s license, Marcia asked the Division of Motor Vehicles to authorize Julie’s grandfather to supervise her training.
It seems like a no-brainer.
Grandpa has a license. He’s willing to sit through the slow torture of teaching a teenager to drive. Julie gets the opportunity to learn how to drive safely. She’s a better driver when she turns 16.
Everybody wins.
But the clerk at the Colorado Springs DMV office freaked. Under the law, only a parent could ride with her, he said. Grandpa didn’t qualify.
“I guess because it’s a legislative issue, they said I’d have to take it to the attorney general’s office,” Marcia said.
No problem, she thought. She had gone to St. Mary’s High School in Colorado Springs with John Suthers. She reminded him of that when she left a message for him to call her about the issue.
He was no help. The statute says a parent, stepparent or guardian can ride with a beginning driver, he said. It says nothing about grandparents.
He suggested that Marcia go to probate court and relinquish guardianship of her daughter to the teen’s grandfather for the purpose of teaching Julie to drive.
“I was very disappointed,” Marcia Barber said. “I consider myself a responsible, capable parent. I have the best welfare of my children in mind. And up until this point, we’ve managed quite well.”
She continued to negotiate with the state for six months, writing letters and citing federal laws that protect the rights of the disabled. Surely, she thought, someone will realize that this is reasonable – far more reasonable than expecting her to go to court and transfer guardianship of her child just so Julie can learn how to drive.
Instead of help, she got insulted.
In a letter, assistant AG Robert Dodd suggested that her motivation for seeking the arrangement was to provide transportation for the family. Her only option was to relinquish guardianship because, the letter stated, “it is crucial that they (young drivers) be under the direct and immediate supervision of someone with full parental authority.”
Marcia finally did hire an attorney, just like the AG suggested. Only instead of relinquishing her right as guardian for her daughter, she’s suing the state.
Telling her to give up guardianship is “a discriminatory and offensive suggestion,” said her attorney, Amy Robertson. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires the state to “make reasonable modifications” to laws and regulations so that they don’t create hardships and limit opportunities for people with disabilities, she said.
Suthers’ spokeswoman, Kristen Hubbell, insists that the AG “cannot override a state statute.”
Clearly at an impasse, Marcia, Julie and 13-year-old Madeline Barber (who wants to get this issue resolved before she’s learning to drive) are seeking an injunction to get the state to “cease discrimination on the basis of disability in the administration of its driver’s license program.” They also are seeking recovery of attorney’s fees and costs.
“My daughter doesn’t talk about this, but it must be a little bit of a humiliation for her,” Marcia said. “She’s ready, she has the maturity and all her peers are out practicing their driving with their parents. I just think it’s wrong.”
Suthers “took the call personally” and is “very sympathetic to her plight,” Hubbell said.
But the Barbers are way, way beyond being placated with sympathy.
It never should have come to this.
Diane Carman’s column appears Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. She can be reached at 303-820-1489 or dcarman@denverpost.com.
