Board of Educ. of Montgomery County v. Hunter
| Decision Date | 16 February 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.JFM-99-1153.,CIV.JFM-99-1153. |
| Citation | 84 F.Supp.2d 702 |
| Parties | BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY v. Anne HUNTER, a minor, by her parents and next friends, Bruce and Julie HUNTER. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Jeffrey A. Krew, Columbia, MD, Eric Charles Brousaides, Reese & Carney, Columbia, MD, for plaintiff.
Matthew B. Bogin, Bogin and Egin, Washington, DC, Michael J. Eig, Eig, Parker and Starbuck, Washington, DC, for defendants.
This case is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment filed by the Plaintiff, the Board of Education of Montgomery County, Maryland, ["the Board"], and the Defendants, Anne Hunter ["Hunter"] by her parents, Bruce and Julie Hunter. The Board is appealing the order of an Administrative Law Judge ["ALJ"] requiring the Montgomery County Public Schools ["MCPS"] to reimburse the Defendants, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ["IDEA"], for their unilateral placement of Hunter in the Katherine Thomas School for the 1998-99 school year.
Anne Hunter was born on March 12, 1989, and is a resident of Montgomery County. She has a complex educational and psychological profile. Although her academic achievement exceeds expectations for someone in her IQ range and she has superb musical talents, Hunter has significant social difficulties and requires strong individual support to learn. She is also epileptic and has suffered several seizures since January 1998. She qualifies as a student with multiple disabilities as defined by the IDEA.
From 1994 to 1996, Hunter attended pre-kindergarten and kindergarten programs at Bethesda Country Day School, which is a regular education school. In 1996, she enrolled in the Katherine Thomas School for first grade. Katherine Thomas is a private, special education school comprised solely of students with disabilities. MCPS paid for Hunter's placement at Katherine Thomas pursuant to the order of an administrative law judge, and continued to fund her placement there for the 1997-98 school year. During her time at Katherine Thomas, Hunter has made acceptable academic progress.
In June 1998, MCPS convened a Central Admission, Review, and Dismissal ["CARD"] committee meeting to discuss Hunter's placement for the upcoming school year. The meeting was attended by officials from MCPS, the Katherine Thomas School, Hunter's parents, and their attorney. At the meeting, MCPS adopted the individualized education plan ["IEP"] formulated for Hunter by the Katherine Thomas School. MCPS then recommended that Hunter be placed at the learning center at Burning Tree Elementary School in the second/third grade class. Hunter's parents, however, rejected the placement; they believed that the child should remain at Katherine Thomas. A second CARD committee meeting convened on October 26, 1998, to consider how the recent intensity of Hunter's epilepsy might affect her educational needs. MCPS proposed that it could meet Hunter's needs by adding a health services to her IEP. Hunter's parents once again rejected the Burning Tree placement. Hunter currently attends the Katherine Thomas School.
Hunter's parents requested a due process hearing, which took place in December 1998 and January 1999. At the hearing, they contended that the Burning Tree placement would be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.1 Most significantly, they argued that the proposed mainstreaming was improper for the child and moving her to Burning Tree would be a step backwards. The ALJ issued an opinion and order on March 3, 1999, requiring MCPS to reimburse Hunter for her education at Katherine Thomas for the 1998-99 school year because the school district did not provide her with a "free appropriate public education" ["FAPE"] as required by the IDEA. In particular, the ALJ found that Burning Tree would not provide proper mainstreaming for Hunter because her "emotional fragility makes it impossible for her to be with non-disabled students in a hectic school atmosphere such as Burning Tree." ALJ Op. at 18. In addition, the ALJ determined that Burning Tree could not meet the goals of Hunter's IEP because it is not able to provide the type of individualized instruction necessary for her educational progress. Id. at 20.
Under the IDEA, every disabled child is entitled to a free appropriate public education ["FAPE"]. See 20 U.S.C § 1400(d); Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982). Although the Act does not require a school to maximize the child's potential, the child must receive "access to specialized instruction and related services that are individually designed to provide educational benefit[,]" Rowley, 458 U.S. at 201, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690, and the educational placement must be "likely to produce progress, not regression or trivial educational advance[,]" Hall v. Vance County Bd. of Educ., 774 F.2d 629, 636 (4th Cir.1985). The "free appropriate public education" ["FAPE"] standard is embodied in the IEP, which is a plan for the disabled child's education developed collaboratively by the child's parents, teachers, and local school officials. See Fritschle v. Andes, 45 F.Supp.2d 500, 504 (D.Md.1999).
Parents who disagree with school authorities about their child's placement may unilaterally enroll the child in a private school and request retroactive reimbursement. See School Comm. of Burlington v. Department of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 105 S.Ct. 1996, 85 L.Ed.2d 385 (1985). If the school district's IEP is inappropriate and the private placement is proper, the school district may be ordered to reimburse the parents for their expenses. See id. The essential question in such a case is whether the private placement confers an educational benefit on the child. See Fritschle, 45 F.Supp.2d at 504.
Parents aggrieved by IDEA decisions are entitled to a due process hearing before an impartial administrative decision-maker, see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1), and parties aggrieved by the administrative decision may file suit in federal district court, see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A). The burden of proof is on the party challenging the administrative decision. See Barnett v. Fairfax County School Bd., 927 F.2d 146, 152 (4th Cir.1991).
In reviewing administrative decisions, courts will review the records of the administrative proceedings, hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and make a decision based on the preponderance of the evidence. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(B). Courts are circumspect in their review of administrative tribunals under the IDEA. Although a district court should make an "independent decision based on a preponderance of the evidence," it must also give "due weight" to the state administrative proceedings. See Doyle v. Arlington County School Bd., 953 F.2d 100, 103 (4th Cir.1991). Courts should consider the hearing officer's findings of fact to be prima facie correct. See id. at 105. If the court decides not to accept the facts, it must explain its departure. See id. What weight the court should give to an administrative hearing is also influenced by the procedures followed at the hearing. If the hearing officer departs significantly from the accepted norms of the fact-finding process, then the court is not required to give any weight to the officer's factual findings.2 See id.
The Board first challenges the ALJ's finding that "the learning center at Burning Tree does not have the ability to differentiate instruction and develop individualized lessons for students based on their IEP goals." ALJ Op. at 18-19. According to the Board, this conclusion is contrary to the testimony of the witnesses most knowledgeable about the Burning Tree program — the employees of Burning Tree.
The Court disagrees. The record shows that the ALJ heard testimony from Burning Tree employees and Ms. Suzanne Keith Blattner, a private educational consultant and tutor to Anne Hunter. The Burning Tree employees testified that the school's program could fulfill the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moorestown Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. S.D ex rel. M.D.
...539 F.Supp.2d 108, 112 (D.D.C.2008) (citing Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 521 (D.C.Cir.2005)); Bd. of Educ. of Montgomery Cnty. v. Hunter, 84 F.Supp.2d 702, 705 (D.Md.2000) (citing Barnett v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 927 F.2d 146, 152 (4th Cir.1991), cert. den'd, 502 U.S. 859, 112......
-
Wagner v. Board of Educ., Montgomery County, Md, No. CIV.A.DKC 2002-0763.
...to assess credibility." Justin G. v. Bd. of Educ., 148 F.Supp.2d 576, 588 (D.Md.2001) (quoting Bd. of Educ. of Montgomery County v. Hunter ex rel. Hunter, 84 F.Supp.2d 702, 706 (D.Md.2000)); see Doyle, 953 F.2d at 104. Lastly, as Defendants note, this court owes generous deference (as did t......
-
Y.B. v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George's Cnty.
...ex rel. Gene R. v. Bd. of Educ. of Montgomery Cnty., 148 F.Supp.2d 576, 588 (D.Md.2001) (quoting Bd. of Educ. of Montgomery Cnty. v. Hunter ex rel. Hunter, 84 F.Supp.2d 702, 706 (D.Md.2000)); see also Doyle, 953 F.2d at 104.2. Analysis Plaintiffs set forth three reasons why the Board's requ......
-
Justin G. v. Board of Educ. of Montgomery County
...designed program of instruction for the child. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(a)(19); 1412(a)(4); Board of Educ. of Montgomery County v. Hunter ex rel. Hunter, 84 F.Supp.2d 702, 705 (D.Md. 2000); Fritschle v. Andes, 45 F.Supp.2d 500, 504 (D.Md.1999). The statute contemplates parental participation i......
-
Examining how the inclusion of disabled students into the general classroom may affect non-disabled classmates.
...the educational placement must be likely to produce progress, not regression or trivial educational advance." Bd. of Educ. v. Hunter, 84 F. Supp. 2d 702, 705 (D. Md. 2000) (citation (27.) LLOYD DUNN, EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN IN THE SCHOOLS 233 (1963). (28.) DANIEL P. HALLAHAN & JAMES M. KAU......