Y.B. v. Howell Township Board of Educa
4 F.4th 196
3rd Cir.2021Background
- S.B., a child with Down syndrome, moved from Brooklyn to Lakewood, NJ; Lakewood determined it could not provide a FAPE in-district and adopted an IEP placing S.B. at the private School for Children with Hidden Intelligence (SCHI) and reimbursed tuition.
- The family later moved within New Jersey to Howell. Howell reviewed Lakewood’s IEP, met with the family, and told them it could implement the IEP in-district; the parents continued sending S.B. to SCHI and Howell terminated his enrollment.
- Appellant (parent) filed an IDEA due process request and later a federal complaint seeking enforcement of the IEP (stay-put relief) and reimbursement for SCHI tuition; an ALJ and the District Court ruled for Howell; the parent appealed.
- The controlling statutory conflict: the IDEA stay-put provision (20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)) preserves a child’s current placement during disputes, while the intrastate-transfer provision (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(2)(C)(i)(I)) requires a receiving district to provide services comparable to those in the previously held IEP until it adopts or develops a new IEP.
- The Third Circuit reviewed the matter under the modified de novo standard and affirmed: stay-put does not apply to voluntary intrastate transfers; Howell’s offered services were comparable; parent was not entitled to tuition reimbursement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IDEA "stay-put" provision controls a child who voluntarily transfers districts within the same state | Stay-put applies and requires continuation of the existing IEP/placement (SCHI) during proceedings | Intrastate-transfer provision governs voluntary transfers and requires only "comparable services," not automatic continuation of the prior IEP | Stay-put does not apply to voluntary intrastate transfers; transferee district must provide comparable services per § 1414(d)(2)(C)(i)(I) |
| Whether parent is entitled to reimbursement for private SCHI tuition paid during the interim | Parent seeks reimbursement for SCHI tuition because Howell refused to implement the prior placement | No reimbursement because parent unilaterally kept child at SCHI and Howell offered comparable services; parents who unilaterally change placement assume financial risk | No reimbursement; when district meets intrastate-transfer obligations, parents cannot recover tuition for unilateral private placements (parents bear financial risk) |
Key Cases Cited
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) (describing stay-put’s purpose to limit schools’ unilateral authority over disabled students)
- Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017) (IDEA creates enforceable substantive right to FAPE)
- Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (1985) (parents who unilaterally change placement do so at their financial risk when districts meet IDEA obligations)
- Michael C. ex rel. Stephen C. v. Radnor Twp. Sch. Dist., 202 F.3d 642 (3d Cir. 2000) (state-to-state transfer context holding prior IEP need not continue automatically in new state)
- Ms. S. v. Vashon Island Sch. Dist., 337 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2003) (status quo ends when parent voluntarily transfers districts)