N.W. Ex Rel. J.W. v. Boone County Board of Education
763 F.3d 611
6th Cir.2014Background
- N.W. is a nine-year-old autistic child with apraxia; IDEA suit against Boone County Board of Education challenging FAPE provision.
- Parents unilateral placement of N.W. at ABS after dissatisfaction with the district’s offerings; district offered ABS stay-put under dispute.
- Mediation produced a settlement: reimbursements for August 2010–November 2010 and partial tuition/transportation through summer 2011; transition ARC planned for 2011–2012.
- Due-process hearing in March 2012 found no denial of a FAPE and stayed ABS costs at 5.5 hours/day during the 2011–2012 year; ECAB affirmed no FAPE issue but reversed stay-put as ABS not a recognized placement.
- District court ordered reimbursement for ABS costs; court of appeals vacates reimbursement under IDEA §1412(a)(10)(C)(ii); also addresses stay-put scope and placement definition.
- N.W.’s parents did not appeal the district court’s FAPE determinations or unilateral enrollment finding; opinion vacates reimbursement and clarifies stay-put limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reimbursement may be ordered when parents unilaterally enroll. | N.W.’s parents sought reimbursement under IDEA stay-put/fees. | IDEA bars reimbursement absent failure to provide FAPE. | Vacated; reimbursement improper absent a FAPE denial. |
| Whether stay-put applies when placement is not district-approved. | Stay-put should cover ABS as current placement during proceedings. | Placement must be district-approved; ABS not placement. | Vacated stay-put reimbursement; ABS not a district-approved placement. |
| Whether the term 'current educational placement' is governed by 34 C.F.R. § 300.116 and Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. | Thomas defined current placement as the operative placement in dispute. | Regulation 300.116 governs placement and requires district involvement. | ABS not placement under regulation; district approval required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ. of Fayette Cnty. v. L.M., 478 F.3d 307 (6th Cir. 2007) (mixed deference and education expertise in IDEA review)
- School Committee of Burlington v. Department of Education of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1985) (parents’ unilateral private placement risks and reimbursement framework)
- Florence Cnty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (U.S. 1993) (reimbursement framework for private placements when district fails to provide FAPE)
- Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ., 918 F.2d 618 (6th Cir. 1990) (defined 'current educational placement' prior to regulatory updates)
- Tucker ex rel. Tucker v. Calloway Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 136 F.3d 495 (6th Cir. 1998) (statutory/regs context for IDEA placement and reimbursement)