850 F.3d 996
9th Cir.2016Background
- L.J., an elementary-school child, exhibited severe behavioral issues (kicking, hitting, threats) and at least three suicide attempts; diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and ADHD and prescribed psychotropic medications.
- School District repeatedly provided individualized supports (one-on-one paraeducator, behavioral support plans, school-based mental-health services at Lincoln, counseling) but never classified L.J. as eligible for IDEA special education or created an IEP.
- Two IEP-team eligibility meetings (May 30, 2012 and October 9, 2012) concluded L.J. was not eligible; the ALJ and School District upheld that view administratively.
- L.J.’s mother requested records (including Lincoln mental-health records) multiple times; the School District failed to disclose treatment assessments, plans, and progress notes.
- District court found L.J. met three IDEA disability categories (specific learning disability, other health impairment, serious emotional disturbance) but held he did not need an IEP because his performance was satisfactory with the services then being provided, treating many supports as general-education rather than specially designed instruction.
- Ninth Circuit reversed: held L.J. was eligible and needed special education; found the District mischaracterized specially designed services as general education and violated procedural rights by withholding records and failing to perform a health assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether L.J. was a "child with a disability" under IDEA (eligibility) | L.J. argued he met categories: specific learning disability, other health impairment (ADHD), and serious emotional disturbance, and thus was eligible | School District/ALJ argued L.J. did not meet eligibility criteria | Court: L.J. meets the three disability categories; eligibility established |
| Whether L.J. needed special education and related services (necessity) | L.J.: despite some improvement, his functioning depended on individualized supports/medication and suicide hospitalizations and behavioral incidents show need for specially designed instruction | School District: services received were general-education accommodations; academic performance was satisfactory so no IEP required | Court: services provided were specially designed (paraeducator, school-based clinical services, BSPs, accommodations) and L.J. needed an IEP; district court erred in treating those as general education |
| Relevance of out-of-school suicide attempts and hospitalizations to IDEA eligibility | L.J.: hospitalizations and suicidality materially interfered with attendance and learning and are relevant to need for services | School District: incidents occurred outside school and thus less relevant to in-school eligibility | Court: psychiatric hospitalizations and suicide attempts during snapshot period were highly relevant and could not be discounted; they interfered with education |
| Whether procedural violations (failure to disclose Lincoln records; no health assessment) violated IDEA parental-participation/informed-consent rights | L.J.: withholding Lincoln records and failing to assess health deprived parent of informed consent and meaningful participation in IEP process | School District: disclosure/assessment failures were harmless because medications not given at school or because student was academically performing | Court: District violated IDEA procedural safeguards; nondisclosure and failure to perform a health assessment denied meaningful parental participation and could result in loss of educational benefit |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (establishes FAPE inquiry: procedural compliance and IEP reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit)
- Adams v. Oregon, 195 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 1999) (snapshot rule: judge appropriateness at time of evaluation)
- J.G. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., 552 F.3d 786 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for district court factual findings in IDEA appeals)
- J.W. v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 431 (9th Cir. 2010) (gives "due weight" to ALJ decisions in IDEA review)
- Amanda J. v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2001) (courts should not substitute their educational policy judgments for school authorities)
- Doug C. v. Hawaii Dep’t of Educ., 720 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2013) (procedural violations deny FAPE when they result in loss of educational opportunity or infringe parental participation)
- R.B. v. Napa Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 496 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2007) (not all procedural violations deny a FAPE; harmless-error analysis)