M.C. Ex Rel. M.N. v. Antelope Valley Union High School District
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9359
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- M.C., a blind child with developmental delays (Norrie Disease), had an IEP signed by his mother M.N.; she signed but noted she did not agree it provided a FAPE.
- The IEP initially listed 240 minutes/month of Teacher of the Visually Impaired (TVI) services; the District later purported to amend it (without notifying M.N.) to a weekly amount and witnesses gave varying accounts at hearing (240/week or 300/week).
- The IEP initially indicated no assistive technology (AT); the District later amended the checkbox to "yes" but failed to specify which AT devices/services would be provided.
- The District never filed a required response to M.N.’s due process complaint within the IDEA 10-day period (and in fact never filed one at all).
- An ALJ denied plaintiffs’ claims; the district court affirmed and afforded substantial deference to the ALJ. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding multiple procedural violations and remanding for further proceedings on substantive claims and prejudice/relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy/documentation of TVI services in IEP | District failed to document or notify M.N. about the actual TVI offer, denying her meaningful participation and enforcement ability | Issue waived; ALJ restated issues and omitted TVI adequacy; burden on plaintiff to show inadequacy | Not waived; unilateral amendment without notice was a procedural IDEA violation that denied parental participation and thus FAPE-related prejudice (remand to allow District to justify services) |
| Failure to identify AT devices in IEP | Omitting specific AT devices rendered the IEP unenforceable and prevented M.N. from monitoring provision | At meeting AT was discussed; thus plaintiff knew the services | Court: omission violated IDEA; IEP must identify particular devices where required and failure denied FAPE by undermining enforcement |
| Failure to respond to due process complaint | District’s complete failure to answer deprived plaintiffs of notice and unfairly hindered hearing preparation | District did not dispute missing answer; district court found no FAPE denial from that omission | Court: failure to answer violates IDEA; ALJ should not proceed without response; remand to determine prejudice and award appropriate relief/cost-shifting |
| Substantive adequacy of IEP (goals, O&M, social skills, progress standard) | IEP lacked measurable goals in key life-skills areas and insufficient related services | District argued waiver or that plaintiffs failed burden to show denial of meaningful benefit | Remanded: apply Endrew F. standard (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable appropriate progress in light of child’s circumstances); burden may shift to District where procedural violations prevented parents from knowing offered services |
Key Cases Cited
- Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (established IEP-tailored FAPE framework and importance of procedural participation)
- Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (burden of proof generally on the party challenging adequacy of services)
- Union Sch. Dist. v. Smith, 15 F.3d 1519 (IEP formal written offer requirement; specificity of services)
- J.L. v. Mercer Island Sch. Dist., 592 F.3d 938 (parental participation and proof about knowledge of offered services)
- Amanda J. v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877 (procedural safeguards and meaningful parental participation)
- J.W. ex rel. J.E.W. v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 431 (limits on deference to ALJ findings when not thorough and careful)
- Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. v. Wartenberg, 59 F.3d 884 (elements for IEP to confer FAPE)
- Park v. Anaheim Union High Sch. Dist., 464 F.3d 1025 (definition of prevailing party for attorneys’ fee awards under IDEA)
- Ash v. Lake Oswego Sch. Dist., 980 F.2d 585 (prevailing party principles supporting fee awards)
- R.P. ex rel. C.P. v. Prescott Unified Sch. Dist., 631 F.3d 1117 (compensatory education to redress denial of FAPE)