Orange County Department of Education v. California Department of Education
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25900
9th Cir.2011Background
- A.S., a California minor with IDEA eligibility, was placed at Cinnamon Hills in Utah beginning July 28, 2006, with Orange County fronting educational costs.
- Lori Hardy, A.S.’s de facto foster parent, resided in Orange within the Orange Unified School District and was authorized to make A.S.’s educational decisions.
- Multiple agencies were identified as potentially responsible for funding A.S.’s out-of-state education (Orange County, LAUSD, Charter Oaks USD, and CDE).
- The central issue was which California public agency is responsible for funding A.S.’s education under California Education Code, particularly regarding who is a ‘parent’ for purposes of section 48200 when A.S. is placed out of state.
- California law includes 2005, 2007, and 2009 versions of § 56028 defining ‘parent’; the 2009 amendment expands applicability to § 48200, triggering a period-by-period evaluation of responsibility.
- The district court held CDE responsible for July 2006–October 2007, and for subsequent periods the court addressed which entity was responsible based on the various § 56028 versions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 56028 define ‘parent’ for § 48200 prior to 2009? | Hardy did not qualify under 2005/2007 definitions; CDE bears default responsibility. | 2005/2007 versions should be read to define ‘parent’ for § 48200 in special education contexts. | 2005/2007 definitions apply to § 48200 for special education. |
| Who is the funding agency from July 28, 2006 to October 9, 2007? | No person met § 56028 parental definitions; CDE should be responsible by default. | If § 56028 applies, the appropriate agency should be determined by those definitions. | CDE is responsible for July 2006–October 2007. |
| Who is the funding agency from October 10, 2007 to December 2008? | Hardy qualifies as a ‘parent’ under the 2007 version; CDE should not be responsible. | If Hardy qualifies, the Orange Unified SD or other local district should bear responsibility. | Hardy is a parent under the 2007 version; CDE not responsible. |
| Who is the funding agency from January 2009 to April 19, 2009? | Hardy remains a valid guardian authorized to educate decisions; CDE should not be responsible. | 2009 version extends § 56028 to include guardians; responsibility rests with Hardy’s district. | Hardy is a parent under the 2009 version; CDE not responsible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Orange Cnty. Dep't of Educ. v. A.S., 567 F.Supp.2d 1165 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (default funding by state agency when no local parent defined)
- Katz v. Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High Sch. Dist., 117 Cal.App.4th 47 (Cal. App. 2004) (residency governs pupil's school district under § 48200)
- In re Conservatorship of Whitley, 50 Cal.4th 1206 (Cal. 2010) (statutory construction and public policy considerations)
- City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal.4th 905 (Cal. 2008) (statutory interpretation guidelines and ordinary meanings)