Ventura De Paulino Navarro Carrillo v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 959 F.3d 519

Two consolidated appeals (Ventura de Paulino; Navarro Carrillo) arose after parents removed their children from one private school (iHOPE) and enrolled them in a new private school (iBRAIN), then sought IDEA "stay‑put" funding for iBRAIN during IEP disputes.
Earlier impartial hearing officers found the parents’ prior unilateral placement at iHOPE appropriate and ordered reimbursement; the City did not appeal those orders.
Parents enrolled the children at iBRAIN for 2018–2019, filed due‑process complaints seeking pendency funding for iBRAIN, and sought immediate relief in federal court.
The district courts reached opposite interim results: Ventura was dismissed; Navarro received a preliminary injunction ordering the City to fund iBRAIN pending the IEP dispute.
The Second Circuit, on de novo review, held parents are not entitled to stay‑put funding for a privately chosen new school even if its program is substantially similar; the school district retains authority to determine how the last agreed‑upon program is provided and funded during pendency.
The court explained parents who unilaterally transfer a child do so at their own financial risk and may pursue Burlington–Carter reimbursement after resolution of the IEP dispute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does alleging a stay‑put violation excuse IDEA administrative exhaustion?	Parents: stay‑put claims fall within exhaustion exceptions; immediate court relief is necessary.	City: parents must exhaust state two‑tier process first.	Held: Alleging a stay‑put violation can invoke exhaustion exceptions; plaintiffs need not exhaust before suing.
Can parents unilaterally enroll a child in a new private school and force the district to fund that school during pendency because it is "substantially similar" to the last agreed program?	Parents: iBRAIN is substantially similar to iHOPE, so stay‑put requires City to fund iBRAIN.	City: stay‑put requires funding the last agreed program, but the district—not parents—decides how/where to provide it; unilateral parent transfer does not convert new school into pendency placement.	Held: No. The district retains authority to determine how the agreed program is provided; parents who unilaterally enroll at a new school assume financial risk.
Is the child’s "operative/then‑current educational placement" the school where the parent enrolled the child when proceedings began?	Parents: operative placement is where the child was enrolled at filing (iBRAIN).	City: operative placement is the last agreed placement (iHOPE); parent enrollment does not change pendency placement.	Held: Operative placement is the last agreed‑upon placement (iHOPE); parental transfer does not change pendency placement.

Concerned Parents v. N.Y. City Bd. of Educ., 629 F.2d 751 (2d Cir. 1980) (defines "educational placement" for pendency as the general type/level of program).
Mackey ex rel. Thomas M. v. Bd. of Educ., 386 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) (pendency funding follows the last agreed placement; consent by operation of law after administrative victory).
T.M. ex rel. A.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 752 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2014) (stay‑put guarantees the same general level/type of services, not identical site/providers).
Zvi D. v. Ambach, 694 F.2d 904 (2d Cir. 1982) (stay‑put functions as an automatic injunction maintaining status quo).
Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1985) (framework for reimbursement when parents unilaterally place a child).
Florence Cty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (U.S. 1993) (parents may obtain reimbursement for private placement that provides FAPE when district fails to do so).