Spring Branch Indep Sch Dist v. O.W., 938 F.3d 695

Background

O.W., a gifted fifth grader with longstanding behavioral and mental-health issues, returned to the Spring Branch ISD (Nottingham) in 2014 after private therapeutic schooling; parents provided medical letters and prior evaluations.
On October 8, 2014 Nottingham held a §504 meeting, put a Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) in place, and noted Tier 3 concerns; the district did not refer O.W. for a special-education evaluation until January 15, 2015.
A Full Individual Evaluation (Feb. 24, 2015) found Emotional Disturbance; an ARDC adopted an IEP and BIP on March 11, 2015 and placed O.W. in an adaptive program at Ridgecrest (March 23, 2015).
At Ridgecrest staff used recurrent classroom ‘‘Take 5/Take 10’’ disciplines (treated by the district court as time-outs), physically restrained O.W. eight times (each after aggressive incidents), and once called police; staff later shortened and then drastically reduced O.W.’s school day in May 2015.
Parents withdrew O.W. near end of 2015, placed him privately at Fusion Academy (2015–16), and then Little Keswick (2016–17). An administrative hearing found child-find and IEP-implementation violations and ordered tuition/compensatory relief; the district court affirmed; SBISD appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Child-find timeliness (when district knew to evaluate)	W’s: School had notice by Oct. 8, 2014; waiting until Jan. 15, 2015 (99 days) was unreasonable and violated child-find.	SBISD: District may continue regular interventions (RTI) and was not required to expedite referral; expedited-eval rule applies only in discipline contexts.	Held: Child-find and expedited-eval duties are separate; notice began Oct. 8, 2014; delay to Jan. 15, 2015 was unreasonable because district failed to take proactive steps during the period.
2) Whether expedited evaluation requirement governs child-find	W’s: §300.534/§1415(k)(5) required expedited evaluation given discipline and need.	SBISD: Expedited-eval regime applies only in disciplinary-removal contexts and is not a component of child-find.	Held: Child-find and expedited-eval provisions are independent; district court erred to conflate them.
3) IEP implementation — use of time-outs (Take 5/Take 10)	W’s: Recurrent ‘‘Take’’ practices were time-outs not authorized in IEP/BIP and thus a substantial failure to implement IEP.	SBISD: ‘‘Take’’ was in-class desk work with preferred activities, not a time-out under Texas rules.	Held: Take 5/Take 10 were time-outs under Texas law, used recurrently without IEP authorization → substantial failure to implement IEP; harmed O.W.’s progress.
4) IEP implementation — restraints, police, and shortened day; remedies	W’s: Restraints, police involvement, and shortening day violated IEP and denied FAPE; private placement tuition reimbursement and compensatory relief appropriate.	SBISD: Restraints were lawful emergency responses; police involvement was limited and appropriate; initial schedule adjustment was parent/LEA modification; remedy ordering should be limited.	Held: Physical restraints and single police interaction were lawful and did not violate IEP (district court erred there); initial 9:00 a.m. start modification was valid, but the subsequent May 18 three-hour day lacked required written parent–LEA amendment and violated IEP; remedies remanded for recalculation.

Key Cases Cited

Krawietz ex rel. Parker v. Galveston Indep. Sch. Dist., 900 F.3d 673 (5th Cir.) (child-find reasonable-time standard and review of notice-to-referral delay)
Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Woody, 865 F.3d 303 (5th Cir.) (child-find reasonableness depends on district's proactive steps; FAPE/rehab principles)
E.R. ex rel. E.R. v. Spring Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 909 F.3d 754 (5th Cir.) (IDEA summary-judgment standard of review guidance)
Bobby R. v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 200 F.3d 341 (5th Cir.) (analysis for IEP-implementation claims: substantial/significant failure and benefit inquiry)
Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F. ex rel. Barry F., 118 F.3d 245 (5th Cir.) (four-factor framework for IEP adequacy)
Lisa M. v. Leander Indep. Sch. Dist., 924 F.3d 205 (5th Cir.) (response-to-intervention cannot be used to delay or deny evaluation)
Casey K. ex rel. Norman K. v. St. Anne Cmty. High Sch. Dist. No. 302, 400 F.3d 508 (7th Cir.) (tuition reimbursement only while district remains noncompliant)
M.M. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 842 (9th Cir.) (remand for reconsideration of remedies where underlying liability findings change)