Blount County Board of Education v. Melinda Bowens, 762 F.3d 1242

J.B., diagnosed with autism before age three, received Early Intervention services in Alabama; the local school (Blount County Board of Education) was notified to begin transition planning for services after his third birthday.
Transition meetings in April and May 2009 involved Bowens (mother), an Early Intervention coordinator, and Jan Sullivan (Blount County speech pathologist); the Board offered three public placement options that Bowens found inappropriate.
Bowens independently applied and, as a backup, paid deposits and tuition to enroll J.B. at Mitchell’s Place (a private school specializing in autism); Sullivan later told Bowens Mitchell’s Place was an excellent option and did not propose alternatives.
In October 2009 an IEP meeting produced an IEP reflecting Mitchell’s Place placement, consultation services from the district, and signatures acknowledging Mitchell’s Place would implement the IEP; reimbursement was not discussed then.
Bowens requested reimbursement in May 2010; the Board denied it. An administrative hearing officer found the Board failed to offer a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and had acquiesced to Mitchell’s Place placement, ordering reimbursement for Oct. 2009–July 2010. The district court affirmed on summary judgment; the Board appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Board failed to offer FAPE before child turned three	Bowens: Board’s proposed public options were inappropriate; Board acquiesced to Mitchell’s Place	Board: Offered options; Bowens unilaterally placed child	Court: Board failed to offer FAPE and effectively agreed/acquiesced to private placement
Whether Bowens’ failure to give pre-removal notice bars reimbursement under §1412(a)(10)(C)(iii)	Bowens: No duty to give notice because Board approved placement; even if unilateral, notice rule is discretionary	Board: Lack of notice deprived district of chance to remedy and should limit reimbursement	Court: Notice limitation inapplicable because Board acquiesced; even if applicable it's discretionary and district did not abuse discretion awarding reimbursement
Whether district court abused discretion in weighing equities for reimbursement	Bowens: Equities favor reimbursement for 2009–2010 year	Board: Equities (lack of notice, opportunity to remedy) weigh against reimbursement	Court: District court properly weighed relevant factors and did not abuse discretion; affirmed reimbursement for Oct 2009–July 2010
Whether Bowens may recover for 2010–2011 school year on appeal	Bowens: Seeks reimbursement for subsequent year	Board: Administrative denial not appealed to district court	Court: Issue waived — Bowens did not appeal administrative denial to district court and cannot raise it for first time on appeal

Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir.) (standard: review for abuse of discretion of district court equitable relief under IDEA)
Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1985) (federal courts may order reimbursement when public school fails to provide FAPE)
Florence Cnty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (U.S. 1993) (courts weigh equities when awarding private-school tuition reimbursement)
Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (U.S. 2009) (private-school tuition reimbursement available even if child not previously enrolled in public school)
Loren F. v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 349 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir.) (definition and obligations surrounding FAPE under IDEA)
Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.) (appellate courts will not consider arguments raised for first time on appeal)