920 F. Supp. 2d 168
D. Me.2013Background
- SM, a student diagnosed with ADHD, transferred to RSU 51 in fall 2007 with an expired prior IEP from May 2007; the district relied on a Section 504 plan rather than timely reevaluating for IDEA eligibility.
- The district had an obligation to locate, identify, and provide appropriate services for IDEA-eligible students, including when a student moves from private to public school within the district.
- The Hearing Officer found a violation of the district’s child-find/referral duties during SM’s sixth and seventh grades (2007-08 and 2008-09) leading to a comprehensive IEP delay until eighth grade.
- Eagle Hill School was placed as a private residential program for SM’s 2010-11 school year, with tuition and related costs paid by the Parents, after a period of insufficient services under the district’s IEP/504 framework.
- SM later attended Brewster Academy for 2011-12; the partial success at Brewster informed the court’s view of needs for ongoing, intensive supports and daily advising.
- Judgment was entered in favor of the Parents on the District’s appeal and in favor of the District on the Parents’ cross-appeal; the Parents’ request for attorney fees and costs was deferred pending final adjudication of the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district’s withholding of safeguards toll the statute of limitations? | District contends withholding was not intentional and safeguards were not required. | Parents bear burden to prove applicability of withholding exemption; safeguards must have been provided. | Yes, withholding was properly applied; safeguards missing due to de-identification and continued eligibility, tolling the limit. |
| Did the district violate child-find/referral duties in sixth/seventh grade? | District argues 504 plan adequately served SM; no IEP required. | Failure to identify/reevaluate violated IDEA; 504 plan insufficient as substitute for IEP. | Yes, there was a violation; 504 alone did not substitute for needed IEP and services. |
| Was tuition reimbursement for Eagle Hill proper compensatory education? | District deprived SM of timely FAPE; reimbursement appropriate. | Tuition reimbursement not authorized or should be limited; placement may be inappropriate. | Yes, reimbursement proper as compensatory education for past FAPE deprivation. |
| Was the 2011-12 IEP reasonably calculated to provide a FAPE? | District failed to provide adequate supports; 2011-12 IEP insufficient. | IEP provided multiple supports; not every detail must be exact; lacks only minor specifics. | Yes, the 2011-12 IEP was reasonably calculated to provide a FAPE. |
| Is Eagle Hill an appropriate placement for compensatory relief? | Eagle Hill offered targeted structure and supports aligning with needs. | Placement not necessary or lacking essential services. | Yes, Eagle Hill was proper and appropriate to provide educational benefits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hampton Sch. Dist. v. Dobrowolski, 976 F.2d 48 (1st Cir. 1992) (court may accord deference to agency findings but retains independent role in fact and law)
- Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (U.S. 2005) (burden of persuasion in IDEA challenges rests with party seeking relief)
- Burlington v. Department of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1985) (compensatory relief is appropriate for IDEA violations; not limited to damages)
- Lenn ex rel. M.L. v. Portland Sch. Comm., 998 F.2d 1083 (1st Cir. 1993) (articulates standards for FAPE and educational benefit under IDEA)