E.J., by and through Tom J. and Ruth J., Plaintiffs, v. San Carlos Elementary School District, Defendant, 56 IDELR 215 (N.D. Calif. . 2011)                                              

E.J., a middle school student, was diagnosed in the summer of 2005 as an individual with Pervasive Development Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (PDD NOS), with Asperger’s features.  The neuropsychologist who completed the report before E.J.’s fifth grade year recommended that E.J. receive an IEP and be made eligible for special education services.  In response to these concerns, the school convened a student study team (SST) meeting to address E.J.’s education in December 2005.  At the meeting, E.J. received a number of modifications and accommodations.  However, this was not an IDEA eligibility meeting.  The next school year was rather uneventful for E.J.  During the course of her seventh grade year (2007-2008), E.J.’s mother emailed the school district advising that her daughter was recently tested and found to have “nonverbal learning,” obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), and anxiety disorder.  In response, E.J.’s school held another SST meeting and adopted new modifications.  During the summer before E.J.’s entry into eighth grade, E.J.’s parents advised the school that E.J. was recently diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome and was experiencing anxiety as she anticipated the upcoming school year.  Finally, in November 2008, a meeting was convened where E.J. was referred for evaluation by the school district to determine whether E.J. was eligible for IDEA services.  After the evaluations, meetings were convened in January and February 2009 where E.J. was found eligible for IDEA services via Other Health Impaired (OHI).  After the IEP team meetings, the parents rejected the IEP and privately placed their daughter.  Shortly thereafter, the parents sought reimbursement for private services.  As part of their argument, the parents contended that the school district had failed in its child find obligations.  The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the school district complied with IDEA’s child find procedures regarding E.J.  On appeal, the district court affirmed the ALJ’s decision, finding that school district personnel were responsive to the parents’ concerns and were actively involved in modifying E.J.’s education.  

This case represents an example of how appropriate interaction with parents and responsiveness to parental concerns often ensures that school districts will not be found to be in violation of IDEA.

If you are interested in learning more, or if you have any questions and would like to discuss these developments further, please contact any of Brock Clay’s special education attorneys.

Copyright © 2011 Brock, Clay, Calhoun & Rogers, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
This communication is for general informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation. This communication is not intended to be, and should not be, relied upon by the recipient in making decisions of a legal nature with respect to the issues discussed herein. The recipient is encouraged to consult independent counsel before making any decisions or taking any action concerning the matters in this communication. This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship between Brock, Clay, Calhoun & Rogers, LLC and the recipient.