M. S. v. L. A. Unified Sch. Dist.

• Citation: 913 F.3d 1119
• Decision Date: 24 January 2019
• Docket Number: No. 16-56472,16-56472
• Parties: M. S., a minor, BY AND THROUGH her guardian ad litem R.H., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a Public Entity, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

913 F.3d 1119

M. S., a minor, BY AND THROUGH her guardian ad litem R.H., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a Public Entity, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-56472

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted December 4, 2018 Pasadena, California

Filed January 24, 2019

Barrett K. Green (argued) and Cristen R. Hintze, Littler Mendelson P.C., Los Angeles, California; Mary Kellogg, Assistant General Counsel II; Devora Navera Reed, Chief Administrative Law & Litigation Counsel; David Holmquist, General Counsel; Office of General Counsel, Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellant.

Allison Barret Holcombe (argued), Los Angeles, California; Shawna L. Parks, Law Office of Shawna L. Parks, Los Angeles, California; Janeen Steel, Learning Rights Law Center, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Summer D. Dalessandro and Howard J. Fulfrost, Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP, Carlsbad, California; D. Michael Ambrose and Elaine M. Yama-Garcia, California School Boards Association/Education Legal Alliance, West Sacramento, California; for Amicus Curiae California School Boards Association’s Educational Legal Alliance.

Selene Almazan-Altobelli, Ellen Saideman, and Alexis Casillas, Catherine Merino Reisman Counsel of Parent Attorneys and Advocates Inc., Towson, Maryland, for Amici Curiae Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates Inc. and California Association for Parent-Child Advocacy.

Suge Lee, Carly J. Munson, and Ben Conway, Disability Rights California, Oakland, California, for Amicus Curiae Disability Rights California.

Before: Dorothy W. Nelson and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges, and Robert W. Pratt,^* District Judge.

ORDER

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) appeals from the district court’s Memorandum and Order reversing the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) decision in an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) action asserting the denial of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 – 1482.

The district court correctly concluded that M.S. was denied a FAPE because LAUSD was required to consider whether a residential placement should be offered to M.S. for educational purposes as part of her individualized education plan (IEP) notwithstanding that another county agency, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), had residentially placed her for mental health treatment under state law, and pursuant to a Juvenile Court order. In a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, the district court concluded that the LAUSD "had an independent obligation to ‘ensure that a continuum of alternative placements [was] available to meet [M.S.’s educational] needs,’ 34 C.F.R. § 300.115(a) —and to consider whether a residential placement was ‘[ ] necessary for educational purposes’ and not merely ‘necessary quite apart from the learning process.’ " See Clovis Unified Sch. Dist. v. Cal. Office of Admin. Hearings , 903 F.2d 635, 643 (9th Cir. 1990).

We agree with the district court’s conclusion, and affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s Memorandum and Decision, reissued January 9, 2019, and attached hereto as Appendix A.

AFFIRMED.

Appendix A

                                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                         CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
                                            CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL
                Case No.   2: 15-cv-05819-CAS-MRW               Date January 9, 2019
                Title      M. S. v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
                ===================================================
                ======================
                Present: The Honorable    CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
                ___________________________  _________________________________  ____________
                    Deputy Clerk                  Court Reporter/Recorder         Tape No
                  Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:        Attorneys Present for Defendants
                              N/A                                      N/A
                Proceedings:  CORRECTED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON APPEAL
                               FROM ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S DECISION
                

On September 12, 2016, the Court issued an order in the above-captioned case reversing in part the administrative law judge's decision.See Case No. CV 15-5819 CAS, Dkt. No. 47. The Court issues the following corrected order.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the "IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 4100,et seq. On July 31, 2015, plaintiff M.S., a minor, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, R.H. (collectively, "plaintiff or "M.S."), filed suit against defendant Los Angeles Unified School District ("the District" or "LAUSD"), alleging violation of the IDEA and seeking reversal of the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") May 4, 2015 decision as to three issues.¹

Presently before the Court is M.S.'s administrative appeal. A hearing Was held on June 3, 2016. Plaintiff presents the following three primary issues for determination. (1) Whether the District denied plaintiff of a Free and Appropriate Public Education under the IDEA by failing to discuss placement at a residential treatment facility at the October 21, 2014 IEP meeting,see Student Issue 1(A)(5): (2) Whether the District dented plaintiff of a Free and Appropriate Public Education under the IDEA by predetermining the question of placement at a residential treatment facility at the October 21, 2014 IEP meeting,see Student Issue 1(A)(7); and (3) Whether the District denied plaintiff of a Free and Appropriate Public Education under the IDEA by failing to offer placement at a residential treatment facility in the February 26, 2014 IEP and October 21, 2014 IEP meetings,see Student Issue 1(A)(11).

Having carefully considered the parties' arguments, the Court finds and concludes as follows.

II. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

The IDEA grants federal funds to state and local agencies to provide a special education to children with disabilities. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a);Ojai Unified Sch. Dist. v. Jackson, 4 F.3d 1467, 1469 (9th Cir. 1993). To this end, schools are charged with the responsibility of identifying and assessing all children who are suspected of having disabilities and are in need of special education and related services. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.111;see also Cal. Educ. Code § 56302.

The purpose of the IDEA is, among other things, to provide all children with disabilities

a free appropriate public education [(FAPE)] that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further employment and independent living; [] to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected; [] and to assist States, localities, educational service agencies, and Federal agencies to provide for the education of all children with disabilities.

20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A)-(C).

This purpose is implemented through the development of an individualized education plan ("IEP"). An IEP is crafted by a team that includes a student's parents, teachers, and the local educational agency. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d). The IEP contains the student's present level of performance, annual goals, short and long term objectives, specific services to he provided, the extent to which the student may participate in regular educational programs, and criteria for measuring the student's progress.Id.

The IDEA requires that educators also guarantee certain procedural safeguards to children and their parents, including: notification of any changes in identification, education and placement of the student; parental presence at the IEP meeting; and a mechanism for parents to bring complaints about issues relating to the student's education and placement, which may result in a mediation or a due process hearing conducted by a local or state educational agency hearing officer. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)-(i). If, for example a parent objects to certain proposed changes in a child's placement, the IDEA's "stay put provision" may, when invoked, permit the student to remain in his or her current educational placement until the dispute is resolved.See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j) ("[D]uring the pendency of any proceedings conducted pursuant to this section ... the child shall remain in the then-current educational placement of the child.").

Furthermore, a party may bring a civil action in state or federal court in the event that it is dissatisfied with the decision of an agency hearing officer. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2). "The burden of proof in the district court rest[s] with ... the party challenging the administrative decision."Hood v. Encinitas Union Sch. Dist., 486 F.3d 1099, 1104 (9th Cir 2007). The court in considering a request for review of a hearing officer's decision, must base its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, and grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(c).

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The decision below contains detailed and thorough factual findings.See AR 1751-1823 (ALJ Decision). With the exception of those factual findings that are more appropriately construed as conclusions of law, the Court concludes that the factual findings in the decision below are accurate, and adopts them as they are set out.² Additionally, since the factual findings encompass matters no longer pursued in this appeal, and to provide context for the Court's decision, the Court summarizes the relevant facts.

M.S. is a seventeen-year-old girl who has experienced emotional trauma since at least the age of four years old, when she witnessed her mother's death from a brain aneurism. After her mother passed away, M.S. lived with her maternal grandparents, as her father was not actively involved in her life. In 2010, when M.S. was eleven years old, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services ("DCFS") removed M.S. from her grandparents' care due to allegations of physical abuse and caretaker incapacity. M.S. has been a ward of the Los Angeles County Superior Court and DCFS ever since. As a result, DCFS is...