Doug C. Ex Rel. Spencer C. v. State of Hawaii Department of Education
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11904
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Spencer C., an 18-year-old with autism, was served under Hawaii DOE’s special education program since fifth grade at Horizons Academy (private).
- November 9, 2010 IEP meeting changed Spencer’s placement to Maui High School’s Workplace Readiness Program without Doug C.’s participation.
- Doug C. requested rescheduling to participate, offering dates before the annual deadline; DOE proceeded with the meeting in his absence.
- The December 7 follow-up meeting occurred after the IEP was already completed; Doug C. had rejected the completed IEP.
- The district court upheld the DOE, and Appellant Doug C. timely appealed alleging a denial of FAPE due to lack of parental participation.
- The remand addresses whetherDoug C. is entitled to reimbursement for Horizons Academy tuition if that placement was proper under the Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOE violated IDEA by holding the IEP without parental participation | Doug C. sought to attend; not affirmatively refusing | DOE prioritized meeting deadlines and schedules | Yes, DOE violated IDEA by excluding parent participation |
| Whether procedural violation denied Spencer a FAPE | Procedural failure harmed education and participation | Procedural error not severe if educational benefits preserved | Yes, denial of FAPE due to missed parental participation and impact on placement review |
| Whether stay-put and timing considerations justified excluding parent | Parent participation should take precedence over deadlines | Deadline urgency permitted non-participation | No; prioritization of deadlines over participation was unreasonable |
| Whether Horizon Academy placement was proper andEligible for reimbursement | Private placement appropriate if meets needs | Need to determine proper placement under Act first | Remand to assess whether Horizons was proper; if so, reimbursements may be warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Shapiro v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 317 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2003) (parental participation required; no excluding parent to prioritize schedules)
- Florence Cnty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (U.S. 1993) (stay-put and reimbursement framework for private placement)
- Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (two-part FAPE inquiry: procedures and reasonably calculated benefits)
- Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (U.S. 2005) (core IDEA collaborative process between parents and schools)
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (U.S. 1988) (importance of parental participation in IEP development and assessments)
- Amanda J. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2001) (procedural safeguards; parental input essential for comprehensive IEP)
- A.M. v. Monrovia, 627 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2010) (delays in deadlines do not automatically deny educational benefit; context matters)
- Anchorage Sch. Dist. v. M.P., 689 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2012) (agency cannot blame parents for failure to comply with IDEA procedures)
- Target Range Sch. Dist. No. 23, 960 F.2d 1479 (9th Cir. 1992) (agency cannot prioritize schedules over parental participation)
- M.L. v. Federal Way Sch. Dist., 394 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2003) (procedural error can create a denial of educational opportunity)