481 F. App'x 887
5th Cir.2012Background
- D.G. had ADHD diagnosed in fifth grade and behavior issues in ninth grade leading to SDGC placement.
- 504 accommodations were provided beginning January 2009 for ADHD; the team determined eligibility for 504, not IDEA, services.
- B.G. sought IDEA evaluation in spring 2009; consent for IDEA evaluation was not given until August 2009.
- ARDC concluded in November 2009 that D.G. was not eligible for IDEA services; dispute escalated to formal due-process hearing in December 2009.
- D.G. was later diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis in November 2009 and placed in IDEA special education (shortened day); he has remained in such placement.
- District court found FBISD violated IDEA’s Child Find by not timely evaluating, awarded compensatory education and attorney’s fees, but Fifth Circuit vacated and held no eligibility, no timing violation under Child Find.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did FBISD violate Child Find by not timely evaluating? | B.G. argues failure to evaluate during 2008-09 violated Child Find. | FBISD contends D.G. was not IDEA-eligible in ninth grade; evaluation not required if not needed. | No violation; D.G. was not IDEA-eligible in ninth grade. |
| Was B.G. entitled to attorney’s fees as prevailing party? | B.G. seeks fees for the Child Find violation and related relief. | No prevailing-party status since FBISD did not violate IDEA. | B.G. cannot recover fees; FBISD did not violate IDEA for purposes of prevailing-party status. |
| What is the appropriate standard of review and scope for evaluating Child Find/eligibility? | Arguments focus on district’s compliance with Child Find and eligibility determination. | Eligibility must be determined under IDEA; procedural defects alone do not prove a denial of FAPE unless educational opportunity is lost. | Court independently assesses on preponderance; procedural defects not a standalone violation absent impact on education. |
Key Cases Cited
- Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. TA, 557 U.S. 230 (U.S. 2009) (Child Find requires identifying and evaluating children with disabilities to ensure needed services)
- Adam J. ex rel. Robert J. v. Keller Indep. Sch. Dist., 328 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 2003) (Procedural defects alone do not violate FAPE unless they cause loss of educational opportunity)
- Alvin Indep. Sch. Dist. v. A.D. ex rel. Patricia F., 503 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2007) (No IDEA eligibility, relief focused on eligibility; no need to reach procedural errors)
- Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. V.P. ex rel. Juan P., 582 F.3d 576 (5th Cir. 2009) (De novo review of district court’s mixed questions of law and fact; deferential to factual findings)
- Gary G. v. El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist., 632 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2011) (Prevailing-party status for IDEA fees requires a remedy that alters legal relationship and advances IDEA goals)