C.F. v. New York City Department of Education
746 F.3d 68
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Plaintiffs CF and his parents seek IDEA tuition reimbursement for the 2008-2009 school year after unilateral placement at McCarton following a Department-initiated IEP.
- The IHO granted reimbursement; the SRO reversed; the district court affirmed; Plaintiffs appeal challenging the IEP and placement.
- The 2008-2009 IEP proposed a 6:1:1 classroom with speech and OT services, but no functional behavioral assessment was produced and parent training was not provided.
- CF has autism with serious behavioral issues; witnesses from McCarton described 1:1 services as necessary; Department staff described a 6:1:1 setting and absence of a formal FBA.
- The court applies the Burlington/Carter three-part test: (1) FAPE via the district’s proposed plan, (2) appropriateness of the private placement, (3) equities; and remands for resolution.
- The court ultimately vacates and remands for judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether procedural defects denied CF a FAPE | CF alleges procedural violations (parent input, FBA/BIP, parent training) foreclosing adequate education. | Department maintained IEP satisfied procedures; some issues not raised in complaint were foreclosed. | Procedural violations found; they contributed to substantive inadequacy on 1:1 needs. |
| Whether the IEP’s failure to include parent counseling and a proper FBA/BIP violated IDEA | Department failed to provide required parent training and an adequate behavioral plan. | A functional behavioral assessment is not required by the IDEA; retrospective testimony cannot cure deficiencies. | Procedural violations (lack of parent training and vague BIP were established; retrospective evidence cannot cure them). |
| Whether the IEP properly considered 1:1 placement given CF’s needs | CF required 1:1 instruction to address severe behaviors; 6:1:1 was inappropriate. | IF evidence suggested 1:1 in Department settings, it is not dispositive; placement can be justified by overall plan. | IEP failed to adequately account for 1:1 placement; substantive inadequacy found. |
| Whether CF’s private placement at McCarton was appropriate | McCarton provided the necessary 1:1 ABA/related services aligned with CF’s needs. | Private placement need not meet IDEA standards; district placement only must be reasonably calculated to provide benefit. | McCarton was deemed appropriate; equity favored reimbursement. |
| Whether equities support reimbursement | Given repeated communications issues and lack of timely access, private placement was reasonable. | Equities not favoring reimbursement unless the district’s plan failed. | Equities favor CF; reimbursement warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006) (IDEA requires IEPs to provide a basic floor of opportunity)
- R.E. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2012) (prospective evaluation of IEP; retrospective evidence not allowed)
- M.H. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2012) (deference to SRO/IHO; 1:1 instruction considerations; substantive adequacy)
- Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2007) (circumscribed federal review; deference to state determinations)
- Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (1985) (Burlington/Carter three-part test for reimbursement)
- Carter ex rel. Carter v. Florence Cnty. Sch. Dist. Four, 510 U.S. 7 (1993) (framework for reimbursement under IDEA)
- Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998) (appropriate education standard and reasonable expectations)
- M.W. ex rel. S.W. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 725 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2013) (functional behavior assessment necessity and IEP adequacy)