O. v. Education, Department of, State of Hawaii, 1:12-cv-00612

Background

Student (14, autistic) had attended Variety School (private, small, no CBI) since 1st grade; DOE had funded placement since 2006–07.
IEP team met April 7, 2011 and began a planned, gradual transition from Variety to Student’s DOE home school (Ilima); monthly transition meetings were held June–December 2011.
December 9, 2011 IEP (the “December IEP”) set out PLEPs, annual measurable goals across academics, behavior, speech/OT, and limited mainstreaming (one elective and recess with nondisabled peers).
Parents opposed continuing the transition after December 2011; Father filed a due process request (Dec. 22, 2011, amended Mar. 29, 2012).
Administrative Hearings Officer held an evidentiary hearing and issued an October 26, 2012 Decision finding the December IEP provided a FAPE, did not predetermine placement, and placed Student in the LRE; district court affirmed on Feb. 5, 2014.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of December IEP PLEPs and goals	PLEPS were vague, failed to describe present levels and measurable goals; goals too general	PLEPS used current sources (Variety reports, EBA, neuropsych), goals were specific, measurable, and tied to PLEPS	Court: IEP PLEPS and goals adequate; measurable and tied to needs; omission re: periodic report timing was de minimis procedural error
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)	DOE failed to place Student in LRE by keeping core academics in self-contained setting and limiting inclusion	DOE considered continuum, parents preferred limited inclusion; placement in one elective/recess was appropriate transitional compromise and reviewable	Court: Placement was reasonably calculated to meet IEP goals and represented an appropriate LRE given Student’s needs and parents’ input
Predetermination of placement / transition process	DOE predetermined placement at Ilima and disregarded parental concerns about harmful effects	DOE conducted observations, monthly transition meetings, EBA, parent training offers; transition was gradual and adjustable	Court: No predetermination; DOE addressed parental concerns and considered potential harmful effects; transition was thoughtful and methodical
Procedural defects (progress reporting)	IEP did not state when periodic progress reports would be provided	DOE had established quarterly reporting practice and parents were aware of it	Court: Failure to state reporting intervals was a de minimis procedural violation that did not deny FAPE

Key Cases Cited

Hoeft ex rel. Hoeft v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist., 967 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1992) (IDEA confers substantive right to public education)
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (U.S. 1988) (IDEA’s purpose and scope)
Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit; not requirement of maximizing potential)
L.M. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 556 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009) (procedural violations require showing of harm to substantively deny FAPE)
J.W. v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 431 (9th Cir. 2010) (IEP must provide a basic floor of opportunity; meaningful benefit standard)
Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. v. Wartenberg, 59 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court should give due weight to hearing officer’s factual findings)
County of San Diego v. Cal. Special Educ. Hearing Office, 93 F.3d 1458 (9th Cir. 1996) (substantial weight to hearing officer when decision is careful and impartial)
Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist. v. Rachel H., 14 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994) (four-factor LRE test)
A.M. ex rel. Marshall v. Monrovia Unified Sch. Dist., 627 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2010) (ultimate appropriateness of IEP reviewed de novo)
Hood v. Encinitas Union Sch. Dist., 486 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2007) (burden of proof on party challenging administrative ruling)