A.S. v. Five Town Community School District (2008)

By Matthew Chin

Overview

A.S v. Five Town Community School District deals with the topic of an incomplete Individualized Education Program (IEP) and a disabled child’s rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The appellate court reaffirms the district court’s decision that the parents interfered with the IEP, rendering it incomplete, and therefore are not entitled to reimbursement from the district for placing their daughter in a private residential school.

Summary

*The Plaintiffs are only referenced by their initials. A.S. refers to the teenage girl with an emotional disability, and the parents will be referenced as C.G. and B.S.

This case revolves around a teenage girl who has an emotional disability in Camden, Maine, under the Five Town Community School District. The parents filed for an IEP for their daughter, which had to go through an evaluation process to see if she is eligible. Before the IEP process began, on March 3, 2004, due to an undisclosed, yet urgent issue, the parents of A.S. moved her to a private residential placement outside of Maine. These private residential placements are similar to boarding schools but offer additional support for students with disabilities. In this case, A.S. was transferred here to receive additional therapy for her emotional disability alongside her education and the IEP process was put on pause. In the period before the process was resumed, unbeknownst to the defendant, A.S. returned to Maine, enrolled in another private residential placement facility, and remained unaffiliated for 2 months. In June of 2005, A.S. attempted to request a due process hearing under IDEA, but the hearing was delayed as the School District attempted to resume its eligibility discussions for an IEP for A.S. 

The process began with the establishment of a Peer Evaluation Team (PET) composed of teachers, parents, and school administrators to evaluate the child’s eligibility for an IEP and then develop their personalized IEP. After being evaluated by a doctor, A.S. qualified for an IEP. In developing A.S.'s IEP, the PET began laying out a plan while consulting A.S., her therapist, and her parents throughout the process. The major issue came when the PET and parents were discussing placements. The two options presented were Camden Hills Regional High School (CHRHS), which A.S. had attended before moving out of Maine, and the Zenith program. Immediately, the parents opposed sending A.S. back to CHRHS but were open to hearing other options, including the Zenith option [1]. The October 12th, 2005, meeting ended, and the PET sent a document laying out the core components of the IEP, however, some aspects were left open for future development, like where A.S. will be placed to receive the services she needs. The next meeting on October 20th was contentious as the parents were insistent on not placing A.S. anywhere but a therapeutic residential setting despite the PET’s explanations that a public school would suffice to deliver all of A.S.'s necessary services [1]. The parents ended the meeting by declaring that they would place A.S. in FL. Chamberlin School, which is an out-of-state residential school [1]. With the parents ending the IEP process, their due process hearing was moved forward.

The district court had already ruled against the parents, ultimately concluding that the Five Town School District is not responsible for reimbursing A.S.’s parents for placing her in a private institution under IDEA. The parents appealed, arguing that the district court applied the “improper legal rule” when coming to a decision on their case [1]. The job of the appellate court is to first identify what IDEA permits and then whether the parents deserve the reimbursement for the placement in the private institution for the failed IEP.

IDEA

The purpose of IDEA is to ensure that all states have the ability to provide disabled kids with Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), which includes special education and support services free of charge [1]. IDEA requires that school systems provide programs to these disabled students that are “reasonably calculated” to deliver “educational benefits” as established by Hendrick Hudson Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207 (1982) and Lt. T.B. v. Warwick Sch. Comm., 361 F.3d 80, 83 (1st Cir. 2004) [1]. In summary, IDEA requires the school district to make its best effort to formulate a plan to integrate the disabled child into classrooms with nondisabled children while also giving them the services the disabled child needs to succeed. For the IEP’s specifically, IDEA requires them to have “information about the child’s disabilities, a statement of educational goals, a description of the measures that will be used to determine whether the child has met those goals, and a compendium [a comprehensive collection of information] of special education and related services that will be furnished to the child [1].” IDEA also requires this process of developing the IEP to be collaborative with the parents as well as all related teachers and officials who have some expertise with either the disability or the specific services that are needed. Through this effort, if the parents find an issue with how the school is handling the IEP or the IEP itself, they can request a due process hearing. Typically, when a case like this comes up, they would examine the final, full version of the IEP as well as examine how the child performed in the IEP to determine the educational benefit. This is not the case with A.S’s situation, as the IEP remains incomplete, forcing the court to look at what caused the incomplete IEP and evidence outside the IEP. 

Incompleteness of the IEP

The district court concluded in its decision on October 16th, the parents had disrupted the IEP process, resulting in an incomplete IEP. It should be noted that the court does not allow parents to prevail if the incomplete IEP was caused by their own obstruction [1]. In response, the parents argued that the School District’s special education director, Cindy Foreman, stated that the IEP drafted on October 18 was “final [1].” The appellate court backs up the district court’s decision as they find no clear errors in their judgment, as it was blatantly clear that the IEP drafted on October 18 was incomplete, as only the things that were confirmed in the IEP were the main components, including the decision to accommodate A.S. in a non-residential setting[1]. Foreman’s use of “final” can’t be taken literally, as the court reasons that the spoken language can be ambiguous at times and that words’ meaning changes based on how they are used and the circumstances in which they are used [1]. That said, the court must consider evidence beyond the IEP to determine whether the parents are entitled to reimbursement from the school district.

Obstructive Conduct

The district court found that the primary reason for the incompleteness of the IEP was the fault of the parents for their disruptive behavior in an attempt to have their daughter placed in a residential school. The appellate court found no error in its analysis and upheld its decision. As it was found that the parents undermined the process of what the court considered a promising IEP, this reasoning alone justifies the denial of reimbursement under IDEA, as the parents failed to cooperate until the IEP’s completion, preventing the school from exhausting that option to provide A.S. with her FAPE. 

Substantive Adequacy

The parents bring another claim that they suspended the IEP process because they saw it as an exercise in futility due to the “many wrong choices” that would inevitably lead to them finding an inadequacy [1]. The question the court now needs to answer is whether the School District arbitrarily ruled out residential placement. The court finds that, based on the evidence provided by the school and the independent evaluator’s recommendations, the parent’s argument that residential placement is necessary is shaky at best. In fact, it was found that residential placement would see more difficulties in delivering the necessary disability services to A.S. compared to a public nonresidential school.

Conclusion

The appellate court upheld the district court’s decision, finding no errors in their logic leading to their final ruling. They do acknowledge that in some circumstances, IDEA does provide reimbursement to parents who place their disabled children in private residential schools, but it requires that the parents actively pursue a solution through an IEP before this can happen. If the parents unilaterally decide to end the process without giving it a chance, they should be aware that IDEA does not provide reimbursement for their actions. The court finds no violations by the school district in fulfilling its duty to create an IEP for A.S., and the suspension of the IEP process by the parents is too great to overcome, leading to the rejection of the reimbursement for placing A.S. in a private residential school. 

Impact

The reason why IDEA was signed into law was to help disabled children receive the necessary resources to experience the same quality of education as nondisabled children, however, it won’t help if it is not allowed to run its course. A.S.’s parents obstructed the IEP process because they believed a private institution was the only viable option for their daughter, despite the PET's explanations that a public school setting would be just as effective. IDEA requires school districts and parents to collaborate to develop an appropriate educational plan. School districts’ primary responsibility is to ensure that every child has access to and benefits from a quality education, and regulations like IDEA ensure that disabled children receive the same educational benefits as their nondisabled classmates. Parents, on the other hand, must do their part by actively working with the school district and trusting that the district is taking their interests into account when crafting their child’s IEP. The PET would not recommend a public school setting if anything would inhibit A.S.’s education, and if something were to happen down the line, the school district would not hesitate to place A.S. in a different setting. It would be best to let the IEP run its course, and if the parents are still unsatisfied with the results, then they should bring that to the district's attention. 

Court Documents

[1] C.G. and B.S., As Parents and Next Friends of A.S., A Minor v. Five Town Community School District et. al. 513 F.3d 279 (1st Cir. Jan 18, 2008). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/07-1708/07-1708-01a-2011-02-25.html