Summary
The Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court judgment under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act finding that Sumter County School District 17 denied T.H. a free appropriate public education by materially failing to implement his individualized education plans. The court also held that T.H.’s home-based applied behavioral analysis program was an appropriate parental placement, despite its restrictive nature, because it was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefits. Judge Wynn concurred in part and dissented in part, disagreeing that the record sufficiently established the appropriateness of the home placement.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district's failure to provide the ABA therapy and other material services required by T.H.'s 2005-06 IEP denied him a FAPE under the IDEA.
- Whether the district court properly evaluated the state administrative findings and applied the IDEA's due-weight standard.
- Whether the evidence supported the conclusion that the district was capable of providing a FAPE by the December 2006 due-process hearing.
- Whether the parents' home placement was appropriate under the IDEA despite not satisfying the least-restrictive-environment requirement applicable to public-school placements.
Holdings
- A material failure to implement an IEP, including failure to implement a material portion of the IEP, violates the IDEA. The district's failure to provide the required ABA therapy and properly implement material portions of the 2005-06 IEP denied T.H. a FAPE.
- The district court properly gave due weight to the local hearing officer's and state review officer's regularly made findings while independently determining whether the district complied with the IDEA.
- The district court did not clearly err by declining to find that the district had established its capability to provide T.H. a FAPE by December 6, 2006.
- A parental placement is not inappropriate solely because it does not satisfy the IDEA's least-restrictive-environment requirement for public-school placements. Restrictiveness may be considered as one factor in determining whether the private placement was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefits.
- The evidence, though limited, supported the district court's finding that the parents' home placement was reasonably calculated to enable T.H. to receive educational benefits and was therefore appropriate under the IDEA.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, we conclude that a material failure to implement an IEP, or, put another way, a failure to implement a material portion of an IEP, violates the IDEA.” (484)
“Thus, while a parental placement is not inappropriate simply because it does not meet the least-restrictive-environment requirement, it is nonetheless proper for a court to consider the restrictiveness of the private placement as a factor when determining the appropriateness of the placement.” (487-488)
“Under these circumstances, we believe the evidence was sufficient, if barely, to support the district court's conclusion.” (489)
Factual background
T.H., a child on the moderate-to-severe autism spectrum, had IEPs requiring substantial weekly applied behavioral analysis therapy. During the 2005-06 school year, the school district provided materially fewer therapy hours than required and used staff who lacked adequate ABA training, coinciding with severe behavioral problems and educational regression. After similar problems recurred in the 2006-07 school year, T.H.'s parents removed him from school and arranged approximately 30 hours per week of home-based ABA therapy, under which he improved educationally and behaviorally.
Procedural history
After the district failed to provide the ABA therapy required by T.H.'s IEPs, the parents removed him from public school, arranged home-based ABA therapy, and initiated IDEA due-process proceedings. The local hearing officer found entitlement to compensatory services but deemed the home placement inappropriate. The state review officer found a denial of FAPE, found the home placement appropriate, and remanded for further remedial proceedings. The federal district court upheld the state review officer's conclusions, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.