Mr. and Mrs. A. v. NY CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUC.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9475
| S.D.N.Y. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs seek IDEA funds to cover their son D.A.'s private Rebecca School tuition for the 2007-08 year after DOE failed to provide a FAPE.
- An IHO found DOE failed to offer a timely/appropriate placement and awarded prospective tuition funding; the SRO annulled the tuition remedy portion.
- D.A. has autism and related disabilities; CSE evaluated him and recommended a private 12-month program with a specific 6:1:1 ratio and related services.
- CBST process was invoked for private placement; parents claim they were not offered an actual placement and were never contacted by CBST.
- The Rebecca School was chosen by parents after August 2007 CSE, with annual tuition of $84,900; parents paid nominal amounts and entered a payment plan.
- Court now must decide whether § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii) permits retroactive direct payment of tuition to a private school where the family could not pay upfront.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Burlington three-prong test applies to retroactive direct payments | Burlington applies to retroactive direct tuition relief. | Burlington applies only to reimbursements, not direct payments. | Burlington test applies to retroactive direct payments. |
| Whether the SRO's conclusion that direct tuition payment is unavailable is correct as a pure question of law | SRO misapplied legal standard; relief may be direct tuition payment. | SRO correctly held statute does not authorize direct payment when parents can't front funds. | Court de novo review favors direct tuition payment. |
| Whether D.A. was denied a FAPE due to lack of timely placement | DOE failed to offer an interim/permanent placement; violated Burlington prong one. | CBST referral and private options sufficed; no timely placement offered. | DOE denied a FAPE; timely placement not offered. |
| Whether the Rebecca School was an appropriate placement | Rebecca School provided benefits aligned with IEP; substantial progress shown. | Rebecca School not sufficiently supported as appropriate. | Rebecca School was an appropriate placement. |
| Whether equities favor funding D.A.'s private-school tuition | Parents acted in good faith; district failed to provide FAPE; equities favor relief. | Need to weigh parental cooperation and reasonableness of tuition; DOE not at fault for private enrollment. | Equities favor funding of tuition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (U.S. 1993) (unilateral private placements allowed to ensure a free and appropriate education)
- Burlington School Committee v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1985) (retroactive reimbursement and prospective relief under IDEA)
- Forest Grove School Dist. v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484 (U.S. 2009) (reimbursement/remedies under 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii) not limited by 1412 amendments)
- Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2007) (independent review with deference to administrative decisions)
- Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516 (U.S. 2007) (parents have enforceable rights to FAPE under IDEA)
- Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006) (Burlington framework and standard of review)
- Susquenita Sch. Dist. v. Raelee S., 96 F.3d 78 (3d Cir. 1996) (prospective direct payment considerations for stay-put/pendency)