603 F. App'x 36
2d Cir.2015Background
- Parents (R.B. and M.L.B.) of D.B., a child with autism, challenged a public-school IEP and sought private-school tuition reimbursement under the IDEA.
- Administrative process: IHO issued a decision (Feb. 28, 2012); SRO reviewed and affirmed (Oct. 17, 2012); district court granted summary judgment for NYC DOE (Mar. 26, 2014).
- Central substantive dispute: the IEP placed D.B. in a 6:1:1 special-class setting with a transitional 1:1 paraprofessional to achieve a 2:1 student-to-adult ratio; parents preferred continuation of their private program’s 8:1:3 ratio.
- Procedural complaints by parents included failure to conduct a functional behavior assessment/behavior plan, lack of meaningful participation in school selection, and omission of parent counseling/training in the IEP.
- District court and Second Circuit found the IEP procedurally adequate (with a procedural omission for parent counseling noted but not outcome-determinative) and substantively appropriate—denying reimbursement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural adequacy of IEP development | Parents: district should have performed a functional behavior analysis and created a behavior intervention plan | DOE: parents failed to administratively pursue this issue; no record developed; IEP procedures otherwise complied | Waived for failure to develop administratively; court declined to consider in the first instance |
| Parents' right to meaningful participation in school selection | Parents: were denied meaningful participation in selecting the specific school (bricks-and-mortar) | DOE: IDEA guarantees participation in placement (program), not choice of specific school; parents did not raise initially | Waived and meritless; participation guarantees program/placement, not specific school |
| Omission of parent counseling/training from IEP | Parents: omission denied procedural adequacy and FAPE | DOE: parent counseling is required by state regs and district remains accountable regardless of IEP content | Procedural violation acknowledged but did not deny FAPE; not outcome-determinative |
| Substantive adequacy and LRE (placement support level) | Parents: recommended 6:1:1 with 1:1 support either insufficient or (on appeal) overly restrictive compared with 8:1:3 private setting | DOE: IEP amended to provide transitional 1:1 paraprofessional preserving 2:1 ratio; placement in special class agreed to by parents; extra support does not change LRE analysis | IEP was substantively appropriate and reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit; additional 1:1 support did not violate LRE requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (Board must provide an IEP reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit)
- Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir.) (IDEA guarantees appropriate education, not everything parents desire)
- T.P. ex rel. S.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247 (2d Cir.) (two-step IDEA adequacy review: procedures then substance)
- R.E. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167 (2d Cir.) (deference to administrative proceedings; limits on district court review)
- T.Y. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 584 F.3d 412 (2d Cir.) (distinguishing placement/educational program from bricks-and-mortar school choice)
- A.C. ex rel. M.C. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 553 F.3d 165 (2d Cir.) (issues requiring specialized expertise are for administrative officers)