Los Angeles County Office of Educ. v. C.M
| Decision Date | 22 April 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No. CV 10-4702 CAS (RCx) |
| Parties | LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION v. C.M., ADULT STUDENT; ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
VANESSA DEL RIO
Deputy Clerk
WIL WILCOX
Court Reporter / Recorder
N/A
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Marlon Wadlington
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Tania Whiteleather
Proceedings:
LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (filed 02/01/11)
C.M.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (filed 02/01/11)
On June 24, 2010, the Los Angeles County Office of Education ("LACOE") filed the instant action appealing an administrative decision issued by the Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH") on June 15, 2010, in OAH Case No. 2010040050. In its complaint, LACOE names as defendants: C.M., a nonconserved adult student ("C.M."); the Los Angeles Unified School District ("LAUSD"); the California Department of Education ("CDE"); and the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health ("DMH"). On December 22, 2010, the Court dismissed defendants DMH, CDE, and LAUSD. See Dkt. 48.
On February 1, 2011, LACOE and C.M. filed the instant cross-motions for summary judgment. On March 11, 2011, the parties filed oppositions. LACOE replied on April 8, 2011. Although the filings are styled as motions for summary judgment, the parties agreed that the proper procedure is a bench trial on a stipulated record.
This case arises from a dispute regarding which public agency is responsible for providing and funding C.M.'s free and appropriate public education ("FAPE") by placing her in a residential treatment center ("RTC"). C.M. is a nonconserved adult who is eligible for special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) because she suffers from a learning disability and emotional disturbance. Administrative Record ("AR") 168-69, 319.
At all relevant times, C.M. was incarcerated at Central Juvenile Hall ("Central"), where she was detained until May 2010.2 AR 169. While she was incarcerated at Central, C.M. attended the Central Juvenile Hall School, which is operated by LACOE. AR 171, 235. Prior to her detention, C.M. had not attended public school for five years. AR 171. Before being placed in juvenile hall, C.M. was last enrolled as an eighth grader at Harrison Middle School in the Los Angeles Unified School District ("LAUSD"). AR 169, 171, 178.
LACOE convened an individualized education program ("IEP") team meeting for C.M. on September 25, 2009. AR 302-18. During the meeting, LACOE referred C.M. to DMH to conduct an additional assessment. AR 306. The DMH assessment found that C.M. was eligible for mental health services, and recommended that she be placed in a RTC. AR 322. On February 24, 2010, LACOE convened a special IEP team meeting to review the results of C.M.'s mental health assessment. AR 319-28. C.M.'s IEP team authorized the recommended RTC placement, and began the process to search for an appropriate RTC placement for C.M. AR 322.
At a subsequent IEP team meeting on March 25, 2010, LACOE took the position that it was not responsible for providing C.M. a FAPE after she was released from juvenile hall. AR 215-16. At an IEP team meeting on May 7, 2011, a representative from DMH recommended a specific RTC placement for C.M. at Devereux in Texas. AR 369. LACOE indicated that it would request an IEP team meeting with C.M.'s district of residence to confirm which local educational agency would be responsible for funding C.M.'s RTC placement. AR 369.
On March 30, 2010, C.M. filed a due process complaint with the OAH, naming LACOE as the sole respondent. AR 1-13. The issue for administrative determination, as phrased in C.M.'s due process complaint, was: "Whether LACOE is the LEA responsible for providing [C.M.] with a FAPE."3 AR 11. Subsequently, LACOE filed a motion to add LAUSD as a party to the administrative proceeding. AR 52-57. The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), Richard T. Breen, denied LACOE's motion. AR 90. The ALJ ruled that:
Whatever [LAUSD's] obligations may be to [C.M.] in the future were not raised by [C.M.] in her due process hearing request. In particular, [C.M.] only seeks clarification of LACOE's responsibility to provide her FAPE by implementing a recommended residential placement. LACOE has no right to independently request a due process hearing against another public entity under Government Code section 7586, subdivision (d). To the extent LACOE raises as a defense the legal issue of what its responsibility is to [C.M.] upon her release from juvenile hall, it is not necessary that the [LAUSD] be a party.
AR 90.4 On May 20, 2010, the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles issued an order in Case No. VJ 38080 permitting implementation of C.M.'s RTC placement, as provided for in her February 24, 2010 IEP, "upon determination of the agency responsible for the educational services to the minor...." AR 102.
On May 24, 2010, the ALJ presided over C.M.'s due process hearing. AR 135. On June 15, 2010, the ALJ issued a final decision holding that LACOE was responsible for placing C.M. in the RTC. AR 135-140. The ALJ further held that LACOE's responsibilities included "coordinating efforts between agencies, signing any necessary contracts, providing any necessary funding, and providing transportation to [C.M.]." AR 139. With respect to LACOE's argument that LAUSD was C.M.'s district of residence after her release from juvenile hall by operation of Education Code section 56041, the ALJ concluded that:
... as of the date of the hearing, prior to [C.M.'s] actual release from Juvenile Hall, there was no way to determine what other agency or local school district, if any, would be responsible to pay for [C.M.'s] education. In particular, it cannot be said with any certainty that [C.M.'s] prior school district (who was not a party to the due process hearing) is responsible for [C.M.'s] education when according to LACOE's own IEP, [C.M.] had not been enrolled in school for five years prior to the September 25, 2009 IEP. Accordingly, any such determination would be purely speculative and not ripe for adjudication. The ALJ is unaware of any statutory authority, and LACOE has produced none, to support LACOE's position that it has no present duty to implement placement in a RTC when recommended by DMH, or that LACOE's duty to provide a FAPE is limited or qualifiedbased on the possibility that another agency may have financial responsibility for [C.M.'s] education upon her release from Juvenile Hall.
AR 138-39. The ALJ further held that after LACOE satisfied its responsibility of implementing C.M.'s RTC placement, "it may use whatever legal process it deems appropriate to attempt to shift responsibility for the provision of a FAPE to another public agency." AR 139.
The IDEA, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., was enacted to ensure that children with disabilities have access to a FAPE that meets their unique needs. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 309 (1988). Each state that receives federal special education funding must ensure that local educational agencies ("LEA") are in compliance with the IDEA. Id. at 310-11; Gadsby v. Grasmick, 109 F.3d 940, 943 (4th Cir. 1997). A LEA is generally responsible for providing a FAPE to students with disabilities residing within its jurisdictional boundaries. See Cal. Educ. Code §§ 48200, 56028 (the residency statutes); see also Orange County Dep't of Educ. v. A.S., 567 F. Supp. 2d 1165, 1167 (C.D. Cal. 2008); Union Sch. Dist. v. Smith, 15 F.3d 1519, 1525 (9th Cir. 1994). Education Code section 56026.3 defines a LEA as a "school district, a county office of education, a nonprofit charter school participating as a member of a special education local plan area, or a special education local plan area." Cal. Educ. Code § 56026.3. In California, a county office of education is responsible for the provision of a FAPE to individuals who are confined in juvenile hall schools within that county during the pendency of their detention. Cal. Educ. Code §§ 48645.1, 48645.2, 56150.
To meet the requirements of the IDEA, LEAs must implement an IEP for each special needs student and provide services directly to students. Cal. Educ. Code § 56347; 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d); see also Honig, 484 U.S. at 311-12. Each state agency-in California, the CDE-is responsible for determining specific policies and procedures for compliance and for administering funds to the local agencies. Id. Pursuant to the IDEA, each state agency is ultimately responsible for providing services directly to students when the local education agencies are "unable to establish and maintain programs of free appropriate public education that meet the requirements" of the IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1413(g)(1)(B); see also Honig, 484 U.S. at 329 (); Gadsby, 109 F.3d at 953 ("where an LEA is either unable or unwilling to establish and maintain programs in compliance with IDEA, the is responsible for directly providing the services to disabled children in the area.").
The IDEA also requires participating states and local educational agencies to "establish and maintain procedures... to ensure that children with disabilities and their parents are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of a [FAPE]...." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(a). For example, whenever there is a proposal, or refusal, to initiate a change relating to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of a child, or the provision of a FAPE, parents "have an opportunity for an impartial due process hearing, which shall be conducted by the State educational agency or by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial