J. M. v. Summit City Board of Education

Summary

**Search Terms**: IDEA child-find duty; specific learning disability evaluation; severe-discrepancy vs. response-to-intervention; rule-out diagnosis; post-hoc evidence; snapshot rule; Rehabilitation Act § 504. The Third Circuit held that a school district did not breach its child-find obligation under the IDEA by declining to use the severe-discrepancy approach (which it was not required to consider) and by relying on a response-to-intervention method showing the child made progress. A “rule-out” diagnosis alone does not compel a school district to evaluate for autism or ADHD. The court also ruled that post-hoc evidence—reports created after the eligibility determination—is irrelevant to proving a child-find breach; the snapshot rule limits review to information available at the time of the decision. Because the IDEA claim failed, the companion § 504 Rehabilitation Act claim also failed.

Holdings

1. Summit did not breach its child-find duty because it was not required to use the severe-discrepancy approach, and the response-to-intervention approach showed C.M. was making progress.
2. Summit did not breach its child-find duty because it did not have notice of behavior likely to indicate autism or ADHD, and the rule-out diagnosis alone did not trigger a duty to evaluate further.
3. The District Court did not abuse its discretion because the post-hoc reports were irrelevant to the child-find breach under the snapshot rule.
4. No error because the parents identified no nontestimonial, extrinsic evidence contradicting those determinations.
5. No error because those issues were not raised in the due process complaint and thus not exhausted.
6. No error because the parents' IDEA claim fails and they offered no additional evidence for the § 504 claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Summit breached its child-find obligation under the IDEA by not finding a specific learning disability.
2. Whether Summit breached its child-find obligation by not evaluating C.M. further for autism and ADHD.
3. Whether the District Court improperly excluded post-hoc evidence.
4. Whether the District Court erred in crediting the hearing officer's credibility determinations.
5. Whether the District Court erred in rejecting the claim for declaratory judgment regarding IEP amendments and private-school tuition.
6. Whether the District Court erred in rejecting the § 504 claim.

Disposition

affirmed