12 F.4th 1355
11th Cir.2021Background
- Child (pseudonym Molly) had an early ADHD diagnosis; performed well in 6th grade but declined in 7th–8th (notably in math) and exhibited behavioral problems.
- School provided classroom interventions (one-on-one help, problem-solving team, separating twins) and later referred Molly for special-education evaluation; an IEP was finalized in March of 8th grade.
- Molly’s mother filed an administrative complaint seeking compensatory education for an alleged child-find failure; the hearing officer initially dismissed as premature but, on remand, found a child-find violation and denied compensatory services for lack of evidence about need/remedyability.
- The district court affirmed: it agreed a child-find violation occurred but held mother failed to prove the violation caused a substantive denial of FAPE or that compensatory services were required; it also denied attorney’s fees, finding mother not a prevailing party because the IEP process had begun before litigation.
- Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding compensatory education is not automatic for procedural (child-find) violations and that a parent must show substantive educational harm remediable by compensatory services; attorney’s fees denial affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether compensatory education is an automatic remedy for a child-find violation | Compensatory education should follow from the child-find violation | Compensatory relief is not automatic; must show substantive harm caused by the procedural violation | Not automatic; plaintiff must prove substantive harm and that compensatory services can remedy it |
| What burden/evidence is required to obtain compensatory education | Mother relied on grades, behavior, and notices to teachers as sufficient proof of need | Parent must show education would have been different but for the violation and identify remediable deficits/services | Parent must show causation (but-for) and that specific compensatory services are necessary; conclusory evidence insufficient |
| Whether plaintiff is a prevailing party eligible for attorney’s fees | Mother claims victory because remand and hearing-officer child-find finding | Defendant: no substantive relief obtained; IEP process began before suit; no benefits from litigation | Mother is not a prevailing party; no substantive benefit obtained, so fees denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable appropriate progress)
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) (IEP is centerpiece of IDEA delivery system)
- Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005) (burden of proof rests with party seeking relief under IDEA)
- Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2008) (compensatory education remedies past deficient programs)
- R.L. v. Miami-Dade Cty. Sch. Bd., 757 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2014) (compensatory education is available equitable relief under IDEA)
- Leggett v. District of Columbia, 793 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (procedural violation entitles relief only if it causes substantive harm)
- School Bd. of Collier Cty. v. K.C., 285 F.3d 977 (11th Cir. 2002) (courts must assess impact of procedural defects, not the defects per se)
- Durbrow v. Cobb Cty. Sch. Dist., 887 F.3d 1182 (11th Cir. 2018) (child-find duty triggered when disability is suspected)
- L.M.P. ex rel. E.P. v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cty., 879 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2018) (procedural violations require showing substantive harm to obtain relief)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (prevailing-party standard requires obtaining some of the relief sought)