Carrie I. ex rel. Greg I. v. Department of Education
869 F. Supp. 2d 1225
D. Haw.2012Background
- Greg I. has autism and Landau-Kleffner Syndrome, diagnosed as disabled under IDEA with IQ estimates between 46 and 60, and has a history of seizures and behavioral issues.
- Since 1999 Greg I. has attended Loveland, a private mental health treatment facility with a school component, at DOE expense, largely off public-campus settings.
- DOE proposed moving Greg I. from Loveland to a public placement at Aiea High School for the 2010-2011 school year, with an IEP dated July 19, 2010.
- The July 19, 2010 IEP was developed largely from Loveland input, without a DOE reevaluation or formal DOE evaluations of Greg I.
- The IEP included a transition-services section that purportedly set postsecondary goals but lacked age-appropriate transition assessments and did not invite the DVR to participate.
- Carrie I. challenged the July 2011 decision, arguing procedural missteps, lack of proper evaluation, and harmful-effects concerns regarding the proposed LRE at Aiea High.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did DOE violate IDEA procedures in selecting Aiea High as the LRE without considering potential harmful effects? | Carrie I. contends the IEP failed to assess harms of Aiea High and to consider placement consequences. | DOE argues location is a component of placement and was appropriately determined with available services; no specific harm discussion required for location alone. | Yes; violations found for failing to consider harmful effects in selecting LRE. |
| Did lack of a formal DOE reevaluation before a significant placement change violate IDEA requirements? | Carrie I. asserts no comprehensive reevaluation occurred prior to the change to Aiea High. | The record shows no clear statutory requirement within IDEA to conduct a reevaluation before every placement change; § 504 context does not apply here. | No actionable IDEA violation shown; § 504 arguments rejected as not controlling here. |
| Were transition services properly addressed in the July 19, 2010 IEP, including age-appropriate transition assessments and DVR involvement? | Carrie I. argues the IEP lacked age-appropriate transition assessments, measurable postsecondary goals, and DVR participation. | The IEP failed to meet post-2004 transition requirements and DVR was not invited; not fully compliant with law. | Yes; transition-services requirements violated; assessments and DVR invite lacked compliance. |
| Were the procedural violations harmless, i.e., did they still deny Greg I. a FAPE? | Procedural lapses deprived the parents of meaningful participation and resulted in lost educational opportunity. | Procedural errors must be shown to have caused denial of a FAPE; some errors could be harmless if not impacting education. | No; violations were not harmless; they denied a FAPE and infringed parental participation. |
| Should the court grant relief given a denial of FAPE and determine the appropriate placement/remedy? | Carrie I. seeks reversal and judgment for her client; Loveland remains appropriate currently under stay-put. | DOE argues for upholding the IEP’s offer and limiting remedies accordingly. | Yes; the July 2011 decision is reversed; Loveland remains the stay-put placement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Educ. of Nat. City v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (preponderance standard; deference to state decisions)
- Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. v. Wartenberg, 59 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 1995) (procedural violations must cause loss of educational opportunity or impair parental participation)
- Gregory K. v. Longview Sch. Dist., 811 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir. 1987) (careful findings; deference balanced with independent review)
- City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (deferential review of agency action; not free-form policy substitution)
- Hood v. Encinitas Union Sch. Dist., 486 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2007) (fact-intensive, deferential review in IDEA cases)
- Dracut Sch. Comm. v. B.S. ex rel. K.E., 737 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D. Mass. 2010) (transition assessments and related procedural requirements tied to denial of FAPE)