B.H. v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 20 May 2019
• Docket Number: B281864
• Citation: 247 Cal.Rptr.3d 501,35 Cal.App.5th 563
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: B.H., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MANHATTAN BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent.

35 Cal.App.5th 563

247 Cal.Rptr.3d 501

B.H., Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.MANHATTAN BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent.

B281864

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.

Filed May 20, 2019

Grey & Grey and David M. Grey for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost, Lynn Beekman and Christopher J. Fernandes, Carlsbad.

WILLHITE, J.

The essence of this appeal is whether a school district may be permitted to avoid its responsibility to provide special education and related services to an eligible student to fund the placement of a child with severe disabilities in a residential treatment center, where that placement was necessary to enable the child to access a meaningful educational benefit, because the child’s adoptive parents happened also to have funding available for that residential placement through a noneducational governmental agency program.

Federal law creates a comprehensive framework for the provision of educational services to children with disabilities, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ( 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. ; IDEA). Within the IDEA’s framework in California, local education agencies under the responsibility of the state Department of Education are tasked with furnishing special education services to all eligible children at no cost to their parents or guardians. ( 20 U.S.C §§ 1401(9), (29), 1412(a)(1)(A) ; Ed. Code, §§ 56000, et. seq., esp. § 56040, subd. (a).) These statutory schemes guarantee a "free appropriate public education," commonly referred to as a "FAPE," for disabled students.¹

Appellant B.H., a former foster child, has severe disabilities, and is eligible for special education and related services. His adoptive parents (Parents) reside within the geographical boundaries of respondent Manhattan Beach Unified School District (MBUSD). Generally, under the California scheme, the school district in which the parents of the disabled student reside is responsible for preparing an "individualized education plan," referred to as an "IEP," for the disabled child under the IDEA, and for paying for the costs of implementing that plan. ( Ed. Code, §§ 48200, 56028.) Consistent with this rule, MBUSD prepared an IEP for B.H.

In the meantime, Parents arranged for B.H.’s placement, later agreed to by MBUSD and consistent with B.H.’s IEP, at a residential treatment center and its affiliated nonpublic school in Sonoma County. They received financial assistance for the placement through the Adoptive Assistance Program (AAP) administered by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Such assistance is provided by the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 ( 42 U.S.C. § 670, et seq. ) and implementing provisions of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Parents were entitled to such aid as the adoptive parents of a child formerly under the supervision of DCFS whose special needs preexisted his adoption.

After learning of the financial aid received by Parents, MBUSD refused to implement B.H.’s IEP and fund his placement in Sonoma County. MBUSD asserted that because Parents received funding through DCFS after the individual education plan was finalized, MBUSD was not responsible for the costs of B.H.’s education. Parents initiated an administrative hearing challenging MBUSD’s decision. At issue was whether MBUSD was responsible for paying Parents’ transportation costs related to the Sonoma County placement.

The administrative law judge sided with MBUSD. The judge ruled that MBUSD had not placed B.H. in the Sonoma County facility under MBUSD’s individual education plan for B.H. Rather, the judge concluded that DCFS had, in effect, made the placement by requiring Parents to comply with certain eligibility criteria for financial assistance associated with the placement, including proof that the Sonoma County facility qualified for AAP aid.

The judge relied on Education Code sections 56155 and 56156.4, subdivision (a), which provide an exception to the general rule that the school district of the parents’ residence is responsible for funding the costs of a disabled child’s education. Under those provisions, if a disabled child is "placed in a licensed children’s institution ... by a court, regional center for the developmentally disabled, or public agency, other than an educational agency " ( Ed. Code, § 56155, italics added), then the "special education local plan area [rather than the school district of the parents’ residence] shall be responsible for providing appropriate education [to the child] residing in licensed children’s institutions ... located in the geographical area covered by the local plan" ( Ed. Code, § 56156.4, subd. (a) ).

The judge concluded that DCFS was a "public agency, other than an educational agency" under Education Code section 56155, that DCFS had placed B.H. in the Sonoma facility, and that therefore, under Education Code section 56156.4, subdivision (a), MBUSD was not responsible for the costs of MBUSD’s education. (Implicitly, though not expressly stated, the judge’s reasoning meant that the "special education local plan area" ( Ed. Code, § 56156.4, subd. (a) ), in Sonoma County in whose geographical boundaries B.H. was placed was responsible for the costs, though that agency was not a party to the proceedings.)

B.H. appealed to the superior court, which agreed with the administrative law judge. He has now appealed the trial court’s decision to this court. We reverse. We hold that DCFS is not a "public agency, other than an educational agency" under Education Code section 56155, that DCFS did not "place" B.H. in the Sonoma facility by providing AAP assistance, and that therefore Education Code section 56156.4, subdivision (a), did not provide MBUSD with an exception to the rule that the school district of the parents’ residence is responsible for the costs of a disabled student’s education. We also disapprove the decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings in Parent v. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist . (OAH case No. 2013020224, Feb. 19, 2013) Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Berkeley Unified School District (Elk Grove ), to the extent it is inconsistent with this decision. Therefore, MBUSD was responsible for the costs of Parents’ transportation relating to B.H.’s placement in the Sonoma facility.

LEGAL BACKGROUND: THE IDEA

To assist in understanding the facts and legal analysis, we begin with a summary of the IDEA and California law implementing it.

I. Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and Individualized Educational Plan (IEP)

The purpose of the IDEA is to ensure that all "children with disabilities" receive a "free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs." ( 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A), see §§ 1401(C), 1401(a)(18), 1412(a)(1)(A) ; Honig v. Doe (1988) 484 U.S. 305, 308–310, 108 S.Ct. 592, 98 L.Ed.2d 686 ( Honig ); County of San Diego v. Cal. Special Educ. Hearing Office (9th Cir. 1996) 93 F.3d 1458, 1461.) To accomplish this goal, the IDEA "provides federal funds to assist state and local agencies in educating children with disabilities, but conditions such funding on compliance with certain goals and procedures." ( Ojai Unified School Dist. v. Jackson (9th Cir. 1993) 4 F.3d 1467, 1469 ( Jackson ); County of Los Angeles v. Smith (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 500, 508, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 159 ( Smith ).)

In the nomenclature of the IDEA, a FAPE refers to the special education and related services available at public expense under public supervision and direction, and without charge to eligible children’s parents, which satisfy state educational standards. ( 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(9) (A)–(D), 1414(d) ; 34 C.F.R. § 300.17 ; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3001, subd. (p).) "Special education" is instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability. ( 20 U.S.C. § 1401(29) ; 34 C.F.R. § 300.39 ; Ed. Code, § 56031.) "Related services," including transportation and supportive services, must be provided if they are necessary to enable an eligible child with a disability to benefit from his special education program. ( 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26)(A) ; 34 C.F.R. § 300.34 ; Ed. Code, § 56363, subd. (a) ; Irving Independent School Dist. v. Tatro (1984) 468 U.S. 883, 891, 104 S.Ct. 3371, 82 L.Ed.2d 664 ; Union School Dist. v. Smith (9th Cir. 1994) 15 F.3d 1519, 1527.)

A FAPE is implemented through the child’s IEP. ( Honig, supra, 484 U.S. at p. 311, 108 S.Ct. 592 ) An IEP is a written statement for the child developed in a participatory process involving parents and school personnel. The IEP describes the child’s needs, academic and functional goals, and a statement of the special education, related services, and program modifications and accommodations that will be provided. ( 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(14), 1414(d) ; Ed. Code, §§ 56032, 56345, subd. (a).)

The student must be provided with a continuum of alternative placements to meet the student’s needs. ( 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A) ; 34 C.F.R. § 300.115(a).) If the intensive level of services provided by a residential treatment center or licensed children’s institution is necessary for a student’s FAPE, the student’s placement in such a facility is an appropriate part of the IEP. (See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(6), (27) [defining elementary and secondary schools to include "residential schools"].)² "If a seriously emotionally disturbed child cannot function in a normal school setting, the right to a free public education at no charge to a parent extends to situations where a youngster is placed in a public or private residential program." ( Smith, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 518, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 159, citing 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.302, 300.309(b).)

II. California Scheme and Local Educational Agency (LEA )

California has adopted a comprehensive statutory scheme to conform California special education law to the requirements of the IDEA. (See Ed. Code, §§ 56000, subd. (a), 56026,...