C.B v. Garden Grove Unified School District
575 F. App'x 796
9th Cir.2014Background
- C.B., a special-education student in Garden Grove Unified School District, appealed the district court’s affirmance of an ALJ decision under the IDEA.
- C.B. sought supplementation of the administrative record with meeting transcripts; recordings of the meetings were already in the record.
- Alleged procedural defects included: failure to assess or set goals for anxiety, lack of a specific reading-comprehension goal, insufficiently specific baselines, missing accommodations section, and inadequate transition services.
- Parents argued district personnel predetermined placement and denied meaningful participation in the IEP process; district presented a placement offer after consulting parents’ providers and developing individualized goals.
- Substantive challenge: whether the District’s proposed placement (small-group interim placement) provided a FAPE in the least restrictive environment given C.B.’s prior one-on-one instruction and limited district observations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court should supplement the administrative record with meeting transcripts | Transcripts are necessary to show what was or was not discussed at IEP meetings | Recordings of meetings already in the administrative record made transcripts cumulative | Court affirmed denial of supplementation as within district court discretion |
| Whether failure to assess or set goals for anxiety denied a FAPE | Lack of anxiety-specific assessment/goals deprived C.B. of appropriate services | District addressed anxiety via weekly counseling and offered reevaluation after observation | No denial of FAPE; services adequately addressed anxiety |
| Whether absence of a specific reading-comprehension goal, inadequate baselines, missing accommodations section, or imperfect transition services denied a FAPE | These omissions rendered the IEP substantively and procedurally defective | IEP discussed reading needs; baselines were sufficient to measure progress; accommodations were discussed and recorded; transition issues were not prejudicial given student’s time remaining | None of these allegedly procedural defects resulted in a denial of FAPE |
| Whether district predetermined placement or denied parent meaningful participation | Parent alleges predetermination of placement | District solicited and incorporated parent/provider input and altered aspects of program accordingly | No predetermination; parents had meaningful participation |
| Whether the proposed small-group interim placement provided a FAPE in the least restrictive environment | Parent contended less restrictive setting might be appropriate | District argued small-group interim placement was appropriate given prior one-on-one instruction, limited observation opportunity, and need for interim evaluation | Placement was a FAPE in the least restrictive environment; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ojai Unified Sch. Dist. v. Jackson, 4 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir. 1993) (trial court has discretion to admit additional evidence in IDEA appeals)
- E.M. ex rel. E.M. v. Pajaro Valley Unified Sch. Dist. Office of Admin. Hearings, 652 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2011) (additional evidence on review must be relevant, noncumulative, and admissible)
- R.P. ex rel. C.P. v. Prescott Unified Sch. Dist., 631 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2011) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit)
- Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (two-step IDEA review: procedural compliance then substantive adequacy of IEP)
- Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2001) (procedural inadequacies that cause loss of educational opportunity deny FAPE)
- J.L. v. Mercer Island Sch. Dist., 592 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2010) (no predetermination where district modified program based on parent/expert recommendations)
- Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. B.S., 82 F.3d 1493 (9th Cir. 1996) (de novo review of whether district offered a FAPE)
- Adams ex rel. Adams v. Oregon, 195 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 1999) (evaluate IEP in light of information available when developed)
- Ms. S. ex rel. G. v. Vashon Island Sch. Dist., 337 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2003) (interim IEP and evaluation before full program implementation can be appropriate when student is new to district)