R.A. Ex Rel. Habash v. West Contra Costa Unified School District
696 F. App'x 171
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- R.A., a ten-year-old autistic student, was up for reassessment by West Contra Costa Unified School District under IDEA and California law in 2013.
- The District attempted behavior and psychoeducational assessments; R.A.’s mother required she be able to see and hear her son during testing, creating an impasse with the District examiner’s protocols.
- The District updated R.A.’s IEP and proposed placement discussions during two IEP meetings; the proposed placement was at Anova, a nonpublic placement.
- Anova did not have a representative at the second IEP meeting, a procedural omission the ALJ found but the parents did not show caused prejudice.
- Administrative proceedings (OAH) found the District provided a FAPE; district court granted summary judgment for the District; R.A. and his parents appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to complete behavior and psychoeducational assessments denied a FAPE | Mother’s testing-room condition requirements prevented assessments; District’s failure to assess denied FAPE | No legal duty to allow parent to see/hear testing; impasse caused noncompletion; updating IEP need not wait for due process | No denial of FAPE — no legal requirement to permit parent observation and no obligation to halt IEP updates |
| Whether District predetermined placement (steering) | District steered child to Anova, predetermining placement before IEP | Placement was discussed as part of IEP process; not a take-it-or-leave-it offer | No denial of FAPE — no predetermination; although procedural error (no Anova rep) occurred, parents showed no prejudice |
| Whether absence of Anova representative at IEP meeting denied meaningful parental participation | Parents argue missing Anova rep violated implementing regulations and their participation | District concedes procedural violation but argues no effect on parents’ opportunity to participate | No denial of FAPE — procedural violation lacked a demonstrated harmful effect |
| Whether proposed placement satisfied Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) requirement | Parents’ proposed one-on-one instruction in public school was less restrictive | Evidence showed parents’ proposal would be more restrictive; experts agreed mainstreaming was not appropriate | No denial of FAPE — District’s Anova placement was as or less restrictive and reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit |
Key Cases Cited
- Union Sch. Dist. v. Smith, 15 F.3d 1519 (9th Cir. 1994) (standard of review and deference to ALJ factual findings)
- M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High Sch. Dist., 852 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2017) (degree of deference to administrative findings)
- K.D. ex rel. C.L. v. Dep’t of Educ., Hawaii, 665 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2011) (predetermination/steering analysis)
- JG v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., 552 F.3d 786 (9th Cir. 2008) (examples of impermissible take-it-or-leave-it placements)
- Poolaw v. Bishop, 67 F.3d 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (plaintiff’s burden in IDEA challenges)
- R.P. ex rel. C.P. v. Prescott Unified Sch. Dist., 631 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2011) (educators’ discretion to select methods reasonably calculated to provide benefit)
- Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & Cty. of San Francisco, 979 F.2d 721 (9th Cir. 1992) (appellate responsibility to develop arguments)