A court case illustrates that a New York district did not deny FAPE to a student with autism whose father kept her out of school, refused to attend IEP meetings, and continually opposed its proposed IEPs. The hearing officer denied Plaintiff's father's request for compensatory education, holding that the District had demonstrated a substantial willingness to provide Plaintiff with a FAPE. Specifically, the hearing officer held that:
[i]n review of the specifics of Mr. French's complaint, above, I have identified a number of procedural violations over the course of [the case's] time span. None of these violations can be thought, by themselves, or in toto, to have caused Plaintiff to miss out on several years of education. In addition, and as the District points out ... a hearing officer confronted by a request for compensatory services must also review the balance of equities that presents itself. My review of the facts of the case leads me to the conclusion that this balance favors the District. In many instances, the District demonstrated a flexibility and willingness to accommodate its practices to Mr. French's expressed concerns. There is no doubt that it did not do so in all instances, but the law does not require it to do so. Mr. French, on the other hand, failed to take advantage of some of that flexibility.
The hearing officer noted that for the most part, the District has demonstrated a substantial willingness to provide the child with a FAPE, and the father’s request for compensatory education was denied. The father appealed the hearing officer’s decision. The District Court noted that the school district went out of its way to accommodate the parent's concerns, and held that the child's failure to receive FAPE was caused by her father's "dilatory tactics and unwillingness to compromise." The parent had alleged that the district denied his daughter FAPE over a period of several years by committing various procedural errors, such as failing to provide prior written notice. The court noted that for a court to find a denial of FAPE on procedural grounds, there must be evidence that the error compromised the student's right to an appropriate education, seriously impeded the parent's opportunity to participate, or caused a deprivation of educational benefits. This law is found at 20 USC 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii).
None of those things occurred here. Although the student went for years without an appropriate program, the source of her dilemma was not the school district, but her father. The District Court recognized that the school district repeatedly attempted to accommodate the parent's concerns. A key piece of evidence consisted of meeting minutes from a 2001 IEP. At that meeting, the team reviewed the father’s written input, discussed his request for updated evaluations, and recommended a home-based program which the father himself had suggested. However, the father would not allow the child to participate in the home-based program and "repeatedly delayed the implementation of Plaintiff's proposed IEPs, regardless of how reasonable they were and regardless of whether they provided every item of relief he requested," U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. wrote. The case is French v. New York State Department of Education et. al., 55 IDELR 128 (2010).
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.