Ashley Krawietz v. Galveston Independent Sc, 900 F.3d 673

Ashley, identified previously as eligible for special education, reenrolled in Galveston ISD (GISD) in 2013; GISD could not locate prior records and assumed she had been dismissed from services.
In 2013–2014 Ashley received Section 504 accommodations for PTSD, ADHD, and OCD but no behavioral plan; she passed freshman year but struggled academically in 2014 and was hospitalized after incidents involving theft.
Ashley’s family requested an IDEA due process hearing in February 2015; GISD conducted a full individual evaluation (FIE) completed April 21, 2015 and found Ashley eligible for special education.
A special education hearing officer (SEHO) found GISD violated its Child Find duty by failing to timely evaluate and provide a FAPE, ordered corrective relief (IEP per FIE), but denied requested residential placement and private-placement reimbursement.
The district court affirmed the SEHO, found Ashley (and/or her mother) a prevailing party under the IDEA, and awarded approximately $70,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether GISD violated its Child Find duty by failing to evaluate Ashley within a reasonable time after notice of suspected disability	Ashley: GISD should have suspected need for special education by Oct 2014 based on declining grades, hospitalization, and thefts; failure to evaluate until Feb/Apr 2015 was an unreasonable delay	GISD: Hospitalization alone (or other facts) did not put it on notice; any delay was not unreasonable and delay calculation should end when consent to evaluate was requested	Court: Affirmed — taken together the facts should have prompted suspicion by Oct 2014; four- to six-month delay was unreasonable and violated Child Find
Whether Ashley is a "prevailing party" entitled to attorneys’ fees under the IDEA	Ashley: SEHO’s order materially altered the legal relationship with GISD and secured relief furthering IDEA purposes, so she prevailed	GISD: Ashley did not obtain the primary relief sought (residential placement/reimbursement), so she is not a prevailing party	Court: Affirmed — obtaining administrative relief that alters the legal relationship and furthers the IDEA qualifies as prevailing party; need not obtain all requested relief

Seth B. v. Orleans Par. Sch. Bd., 810 F.3d 961 (5th Cir. 2016) (IDEA’s FAPE purpose described)
Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (U.S. 2009) (explaining Child Find and FAPE objectives)
Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Woody, 865 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2017) (Child Find timing standard: reasonable time after notice)
D.K. v. Abington Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2012) (unreasonable Child Find delay may be procedural IDEA violation)
Jason D.W. v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 205 (5th Cir. 1998) (prevailing party test: alters legal relationship and furthers IDEA)
El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Richard R., 591 F.3d 417 (5th Cir. 2009) (administrative success can entitle party to attorneys’ fees)
Alief Indep. Sch. Dist. v. C.C., 713 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 2013) (prevailing party need only obtain some of the benefit sought)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (attorney-fee principles; benefits obtained guide fee awards)