Blog

Disability Rights Maryland (DRM) celebrates Caitlin McAndrews and the McAndrews Law Offices, P.C. for their compassionate representation of DRM’s clients at no cost to the families in the area of special education.  This past year alone, Ms. McAndrews and McAndrews Law represented six children from DRM and furthered their special education claims.

Based originally in Pennsylvania, McAndrews Law has grown from its modest beginnings in 1983 to include 4 offices in Pennsylvania, 2 offices in Delaware, and an office in Alexandria, Virginia that serves Maryland and Washington, DC clients. McAndrews Law provides services not only in special education law, but in estate planning, administration and probate for individuals with and without disabilities, elder law, long-term medical care planning, guardianship, and personal injury.

Caitlin McAndrews began working at McAndrews Law Offices, P.C. when she was still in high school. From that experience, she developed a keen interest in serving people with disabilities and became a special educator in Pennsylvania. She went on to pursue her J.D. at George Mason University School of Law, and now practices in the area of special education law and estate planning, including special needs trusts and powers of attorney.

McAndrews Law Offices, P.C. requires its attorneys to engage in community outreach by providing free presentations to groups, participating in legal walk-in clinics, and attending presentations for educators. Although none of this time is billable, it helps to advance Caitlin and her fellow attorneys as advocates.

Caitlin looks for the mutual benefits in her pro bono service – the win-wins. She has found that pro bono work helps to expand her skill-set and practical knowledge in special education law. Without the constraints of a typical, hourly fee arrangement, Caitlin finds clients are willing to consider creative solutions to problems and Caitlin feels more freedom to plan her advocacy accordingly. Her clients appreciate her time and efforts, and this, in turn, fulfills Caitlin’s desire to serve others. DRM is thrilled and grateful that Caitlin McAndrews participates in DRM’s Pro Bono Program to serve families in need and improve lives.

A Recent Success Story!  Caitlin stepped in to represent Spencer, an 18 year old student with Autism Spectrum Disorder. The school had scheduled Spencer for graduation even though he could not perform many simple life skills such as tying his shoes. In addition, the school had failed to develop a transition plan for Spencer to pursue a career or pursue post-secondary education. Caitlin and her team were able to obtain evaluations (some independently derived and some through the School District) and $8,000 in compensatory services, extend Spencer’s eligibility to remain in school through the age of 21, and secure Spencer’s enrollment in a much-desired technical training program.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals issued an opinion in Hosford v. Chateau Foghorn, LP holding that Maryland landlord-tenant law is not preempted by federal law and policy that requires federally subsidized landlords to include lease provisions that permit landlord to evict tenants for the use or possession of marijuana.

Under Maryland law, to evict a tenant, a landlord must prove that i) there was a breach; ii) the breach was material; and iii) the breach was so substantial that it warrants eviction. In Hosford v. Chateau Foghorn, LP a federally subsidized landlord argued that they need not produce evidence that the breach was substantial and warrants eviction because of federal law requiring certain lease terms that permit landlords to evict tenants for the use or possession of controlled substances on the premises.[1]

The Court of Special Appeals rejected the landlord’s argument and held, in part:  “To require a state court, as a matter of law, to evict a disabled member of that class [low-income persons] out of the home had had resided in for 24-25 years for having one marijuana plant in his bathtub, for his own medical use, with no evidence of distribution or attempted distribution, further no Congressional intent that we have been able to identify.”

This decision builds on an earlier success by Disability Rights Maryland in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City.  Similar to Hosford, the landlord in DRM’s case argued that a jury could not consider whether a breach was substantial and warranted eviction when a poor disabled tenant admitted to drug use, even though there was evidence of rehabilitation and treatment on the part of the tenant. DRM defeated the landlord’s legal argument in that case and later settled the matter.

Regardless, these decisions together are a very strong bulwark against the third-party policing policies that deprive and shut too many persons with disabilities from much needed assistance. As the Maryland courts and legislature have made evident, there is room for compassion in the context of federally subsidized landlords and the critical need for housing.

Protecting the Maryland landlord tenant law requiring a review of an individual’s circumstances to determine whether an eviction is substantial and warrants eviction is all the more critical as medical practitioners become more aware of the connection between disability, pain control, and substance abuse. While the decision in no way sanctions the use and abuse of controlled substances, it makes clear that a Court’s duty is not to rubber-stamp a landlord’s complaint for possession.

Perhaps a happier solution to complex problems for individuals is not reactionary, indiscriminate evictions in all cases, but a more nuanced approach that permit individuals who struggle with drug abuse to seek the help they need and continue to be successful in the community.

[1] IN October 2015, Maryland decriminalized the possession of Marijuana in small amounts.

Author: David Prater, Attorney 
September 12, 2016