933 F. Supp. 2d 193
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiffs challenge the hearing officer’s denial of a FAPE under IDEA for A.M. after a due process hearing (May 2011) and the court’s de novo review of the administrative record.
- A.M. is a ten-year-old with Mixed Receptive/Expressive Language Disorder who attended DC Prep in kindergarten/1st grade; initial IEP in 2009-2010 proposed 10 hours of special education.
- Mother enrolled A.M. at Kingsbury (Aug 2010) as non-attending so DCPS would develop a public-education placement/IEP; four Brookland MDT meetings (Aug 2010, Sep 2010, Oct 2010, Dec 2010) and drafts leading to an Jan 2011 IEP.
- Final January 2011 IEP provided 7.5 hours reading, 7.5 hours math, 5 hours written expression, 2 hours speech, 120 minutes behavioral support, 30 minutes OT outside GE; proposed Brookland placement.
- DCPS visited Brookland in Feb 2011; Davenport filed due process on Mar 17, 2011; the hearing officer found DCPS offered a FAPE and denied Kingsbury funding; the district court adopted the magistrate’s R&R denying relief to plaintiffs.
- The decision rests on whether the state complied with IDEA procedures, whether the IEP reasonably benefits the child, and whether the district placed the student in least restrictive environment; the court affirmed as to all grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predetermination of hours or placement | Davenport shows predetermination of hours/placement without input | DCPS sought input; placement was discussed with Davenport | No predetermination; input occurred and hours were set in IEP meetings. |
| Credibility determinations | Hearing officer biased against parents; credibility undermined | Hearing officer properly weighed testimony; no bias | Credibility findings supported; no reversible error. |
| IEP adequacy and goals | IEP lacked sufficient goals/hours per Kingsbury proposals | IEP provided educational benefit; many Kingsbury goals incorporated | IEP reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit; overall appropriate. |
| Bias or incompetence of hearing officer | Officer rushed or asleep; biased | No evidence of bias or incompetence; proper conduct | No bias or incompetence established; decision upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (parental involvement and basic floor of opportunity standard)
- Deal v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2004) (parental participation must be more than a form)
- Lunceford v. District of Columbia Bd. of Educ., 745 F.2d 1577 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (educational placement refers to general program, not location)
- A.W. ex rel. Wilson v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 372 F.3d 674 (4th Cir. 2004) (educational placement meaning, not bricks and mortar)
- T.Y. v. N.Y. City Dep't of Educ., 584 F.3d 412 (2d Cir. 2009) (placement vs. location for implementation)
- Jenkins v. Squillacote, 935 F.2d 303 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (inappropriateness not cured by private placement if public program is appropriate)
- Roark ex rel. Roark v. District of Columbia, 460 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.D.C. 2006) (least restrictive environment and educational benefit)