642 F.3d 478
4th Cir.2011Background
- T.H. is a moderate-to-severe autistic, non-verbal student; IEPs for 2005-06 and 2006-07 required ABA therapy hours of 15 and 27.5 per week, respectively.
- Fall 2005 District provided only 7.5–10 hours of ABA weekly, resulting in self-harm and incontinence at school.
- January 2006 Painter (board-certified ABA therapist) joined the autism classroom, leading to behavioral improvement; lead teacher resignation occurred March 2006.
- August 2006 James led the autism classroom without ABA training; ABS conducted a three-day ABA training in September 2006 but problems persisted; ABS terminated its contract.
- September 26, 2006 parents removed T.H. from Bates; Painter reassessed, and the parents privately employed an ABA line therapist at home for about 30 hours per week; controversy over program adequacy arose, leading to due process proceedings.
- The district court found denial of a FAPE for part of 2005-06 and that the home placement was appropriate; this appeal followed challenging both the FAPE determination and the home placement decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District denied FAPE in 2005-06 by underproviding ABA hours | Parents contend the District failed to implement the IEPs | District argues remaining ABA provided some benefit | Yes, denial of FAPE for 2005-06 based on material IEP non-implementation. |
| Whether post-removal improvements show capacity to provide FAPE by the due-process date | Remedial improvements suggest potential capability | Improvements not sufficiently proven at hearing | District court did not clearly err in finding lack of demonstrated capability at hearing. |
| Whether home placement was appropriate stay-put after the district’s failure | Home placement should be stayed as appropriate and beneficial | Home placement is overly restrictive and not sufficiently evidence-based | Yes, home placement appropriate and duly considered as reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit. |
| Whether the private home program provides educational benefit and meets TH's needs | Home program lacks detailed objectives and measurement; not adequately designed | ABA at home plus community interactions suffices | Remand for detailed fact-finding on contents and sufficiency of home program. |
| Role of LRE/relaxation of LRE in private placement context | N/A (concerns whether LRE strictness applies to private placement) | Relaxed LRE still a factor in evaluating placement | Correct approach supports considering restrictiveness as a factor, not dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (FAPE standard: reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit)
- MM ex rel. DM v. School Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 303 F.3d 523 (4th Cir. 2002) (FAPE benefit standard; no perfection required)
- Van Duyn ex rel. Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist. 5J, 502 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2007) (material failure to implement IEP violates IDEA)
- Neosho R-V Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 315 F.3d 1022 (8th Cir. 2003) (must show substantial/Significant IEP elements failed)
- Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2000) (implementation of essential IEP elements; de minimis failure not enough)
- Carter ex rel. Carter v. Florence Cnty. Sch. Dist. Four, 950 F.2d 156 (4th Cir. 1991) (private placement may be appropriate even if not LRE)
- M.S. ex rel. Simchick v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 553 F.3d 315 (4th Cir. 2009) (home/private placement considered for benefit and appropriate under IDEA)
- A.K. ex rel. J.K. v. Alexandria City Sch. Bd., 484 F.3d 672 (4th Cir. 2007) (private placement effectiveness evaluated for educational benefit)
- Hall ex rel. Hall v. Vance Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 774 F.2d 629 (4th Cir. 1985) (educational progression cannot be trivial)