Dreher v. Amphitheater Unified School Dist., CIV 91-647 TUC RMB.
Decision Date | 10 June 1992 |
Docket Number | No. CIV 91-647 TUC RMB.,CIV 91-647 TUC RMB. |
Citation | 797 F. Supp. 753 |
Parties | Kristy DREHER, Lynn Dreher, and Chris Dreher, Plaintiffs, v. AMPHITHEATER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; Arizona State Department of Education; C. Diane Bishop, Superintendent, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
Grant Woods, Atty. Gen., Mariannina E. Preston, Eva K. Bacal, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiffs.
Sarah R. Allen, Ariz. Center for Law in the Public Interest, Phoenix, Ariz., Barry Corey, Corey & Farrell, P.C., Tucson, Ariz., for defendants.
Before the Court is Defendant C. Diane Bishop's Motion to Dismiss; Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment; Defendant Bishop's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment; and Defendant Amphitheater Unified School District's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiffs allege the following facts in their Complaint:
Kristy Dreher is a seven year-old student whose parents reside within the boundaries of the Amphitheater Unified School District. Kristy has been profoundly deaf since birth and is considered a "handicapped child," as defined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a). In August, 1989, the School District developed an Individualized Education Plan ("IEP") for Kristy, pursuant to the IDEA, and determined to place her at the Arizona School for the Deaf and Blind.
Plaintiffs disagreed with the proposed placement, whereupon they requested an impartial due process hearing to demonstrate that the proposed placement would not deprive Kristy of a free appropriate public education commensurate with her abilities and needs. A due process hearing was held over four days in December, 1989 to January, 1990. The sole issue was whether or not the educational placement proposed by the School District provided Kristy with a free appropriate public education, as required by federal law. The hearing officer determined that the School District's proposed placement was appropriate. Plaintiffs appealed to the Arizona Department of Education, who subsequently upheld the hearing officer's decision.
In January, 1990, the Drehers enrolled Kristy at St. Joseph's Institute for the Deaf in St. Louis, Missouri. In September 1990, the Drehers requested that the School District reimburse them for the speech therapy services provided at St. Josephs, and for the costs of such services in the future. The School District refused. On January 16, 1991, Plaintiffs requested a due process hearing to contest the District's denial of reimbursement for speech therapy services. The District refused to schedule a hearing. Plaintiffs then filed an administrative complaint with the Arizona Department of Education, pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 76.782. On June 7, 1991, the Arizona Department of Education issued a letter of finding, upholding the District's refusal to reimburse the speech therapy costs or to provide a hearing.
The following is a summary of the hearing officer's decision:
This decision was subsequently appealed by the Drehers. The appeals board reviewed the procedures followed by the hearing examiner, and concluded that there was no due process violation. The appeals board then made the following conclusions of law:
The appeals board upheld the findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of the hearing officer.
The IDEA permits "any party aggrieved by the findings and decision" of the state administrative hearings "to bring a civil action in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States without regard to the amount in controversy." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2). This Court's inquiry into suits brought under § 1415(e)(2) is twofold:
First, has the State complied with the procedures set forth in the Act? And second, is the individualized educational program developed through the Act's procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits? If these requirements are met, the State has complied with the obligations imposed by Congress and the courts can require no more.
Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 3051, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982). Plaintiffs do not contend that Defendants have failed to comply with the procedures set forth in the Act when it developed Kristy's IEP. Plaintiffs' belief that the IEP is not reasonably calculated to enable Kristy to receive educational benefits lead them to remove Kristy from public school.
In reviewing the Complaint, the Act provides that a court "shall receive the record of the administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and, basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2); see...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Greenbush School Committee v. Mr. and Mrs. K, Civil No. 95-199-B.
...v. Hastings Public Schools, 831 F.Supp. 742, 750 (D.Neb.1993), aff'd, 31 F.3d 705 (8th Cir.1994); Dreher v. Amphitheater Unified School District, 797 F.Supp. 753, 756 (D.Ariz.1992), aff'd, 22 F.3d 228 (9th Cir. 1994). Neither the U.S. Congress nor the Maine Legislature has authorized parent......
-
Foley v. Special School Dist. of St. Louis County, 4:95 CV 448 DDN.
...equates to an obligation to pay for related services where the school has an appropriate alternative." Dreher v. Amphitheater Unified School District, 797 F.Supp. 753, 759 (D.Ariz.1992) (holding that regulations do not require school district to pay for related services when parents unilate......
-
Dreher v. Amphitheater Unified School Dist.
...public education. The district court ruled that the school district had no financial responsibility under these circumstances. 797 F.Supp. 753. We FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS Kristy Dreher ("Kristy") is profoundly hearing impaired. Her parents want her to learn to speak, believing that if s......
- Rev. Xiu Hui "joseph" Jiang v. Porter, Case No. 4:15-CV-1008 (CEJ)