In re Butte Sch. Dist. No. 1
| Decision Date | 28 January 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 14-60-BU-SEH,CV 14-60-BU-SEH |
| Parties | IN RE BUTTE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 This document relates to all actions |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3
Factual Background ................................................................................................... 3
Procedural Background ............................................................................................. 7
Legal Issue Background .......................................................................................... 10
Standard of Review ................................................................................................. 12
Analysis ................................................................................................................... 13
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 43
This matter is before the Court for merit disposition on the parties' cross-complaints1 challenging a state hearing officer's administrative decision concerning whether Butte School District No. 1 ("District") provided Petitioner C.S. a free and appropriate public education ("FAPE") under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA").2
C.S. is a 24-year-old adult4 with multiple disabilities, including Autism and Emotional Disturbance.5 In September 2009, he enrolled in the District to attend public school as a student identified and educated as a child with a disability under the IDEA.6 Between September 2009 and March 2012, C.S.'s natural mother, S.S., participated as his parent in the development of his individualized education programs ("IEP").7
When C.S. reached 18 years of age on March 9, 2012,8 all parental rights under the IDEA transferred to him under state law.9 At this time, C.S. began living with his "direct service provider,"10 Petitioner Stuart McCarvel ("McCarvel").11 At no time has C.S. been declared incompetent, deemed a ward of the state, or appointed a guardian.12 C.S.'s mother, S.S., ceased to have any role or participation in his education after he reached 18.13
On March 20, 2012, soon after moving in with McCarvel, C.S. stopped attending school.14 He was disenrolled from the District on April 2, 2012,15 briefly reenrolled in the District on April 13, 2012, but because of another prolonged absence, was disenrolled a second time.16 He did not return to school for the remainder of the 2011-12 school year.17
On October 3, 2012, at the beginning of C.S.'s senior year of high school,18 the District convened a meeting to develop a new IEP for C.S.19 The IEP Team could not agree to a new IEP at this meeting.20
On November 26, 2012, the Montana Office of Public Instruction ("OPI") "received a Special Education Complaint" filed by McCarvel, alleging violations of the IDEA and "Montana special education laws."21 In its final report on January 25, 2013, OPI directed the District to, among other things, "obtain appointment of a surrogate parent, or other judicial appointment for educational purposes," for C.S.22 In compliance with this directive, on February 22, 2013, Mary Jo Mahoney was appointed by order of the Montana Second Judicial District Court, Silver Bow County, as surrogate parent for the purpose of representing C.S. in his educational planning.23 Mahoney continued to act in this court-appointed capacity through the rest of the 2012-13 school year.24
On April 18, 2013, the District held a meeting with C.S.'s IEP Team, including C.S. and McCarvel, to discuss C.S.'s future education plans.25 Throughout the 2012-13 school year, C.S. had repeatedly told staff and his IEP Team that he wanted to graduate from school at the end of the year.26 At the April 18 meeting, C.S. again voiced his desire to graduate.27 The District offered and discussed both compensatory education and an extended school year as options for C.S.28 He refused both offers and again stated his desire to graduate at the end of the school year and not return.29 At this point in time, C.S. was an adult and had not been found incompetent or appointed a guardian.30 C.S.'s decision to discontinue further school attendance was accepted.31 He graduated in June 2013.32
On October 3, 2013, C.S. and McCarvel (collectively "Petitioners"), filed a due process complaint with OPI against the District alleging both procedural and substantive violations of the IDEA during the 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years.33 Petitioners sought payment from the District for costs of compensatory education services, and for other relief.34 On June 10, 2014, after a three-day administrative due process hearing,35 the hearing officer issued an administrative decision, concluding that the District met the IDEA's FAPE requirement in the 2012-13 school year, but had failed to provide a FAPE during the 2011-12 school year.36 The District was ordered to provide specific compensatory educational services to C.S. at its own expense.37
Separate complaints were filed in this Court challenging portions of the hearing officer's administrative decision on September 5, 2014.38 The actions were consolidated on January 22, 2015.39
On February 5, 2016, a hearing was held to address, inter alia, the parties' requests to supplement the administrative record.40 At that hearing, the Court, after reviewing the record and finding that Petitioners' expert witness was not qualified to render opinions or make recommendations to serve as a basis for the hearing officer's administrative decision, set aside the recommendations and opinions made at the administrative due process hearing.41 Accordingly, the Court ordered that an evidentiary hearing be held to receive additional testimony and evidence to supplement the administrative record in the interest of conducting an independent and thorough review of the case before it.42
A four-day evidentiary hearing was conducted in October 201843 directed to issues related to whether the District provided C.S. with a FAPE during the 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years.44 Post-hearing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, briefs, and proposed forms of judgment were filed on December 17, 2018.45 The matter is ripe for merit decision. Legal Issue Background
Notwithstanding the extended procedural history of these claims and the unusual complexity of the factual and legal issues presented under state and federal law, the core question presented remains—did the District provide C.S. with a FAPE required by IDEA?
"The IDEA's 'primary goal'"46 is "to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living."47 A FAPE is to be uniquely tailored to the needs of a student with a disability by an IEP,48 which is "'the centerpiece of the [IDEA's] education delivery system.'"49
An IEP is a comprehensive education plan collaboratively developed "in compliance with a detailed set of procedures" by a student's "IEP Team",50 including teachers, school officials, the child's parents, and, "whenever appropriate, the child with a disability."51 "An IEP must contain, among other things, 'a statement of the child's present levels of academic achievement,' 'a statement of measurable annual goals,' and 'a statement of the special education and related services . . . to be provided to the child.'"52 An IEP must also include "appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments," and "the transition services . . . needed to assist the child in reaching those goals" if the student is sixteen years old or older.53
"[A] school district 'must comply both procedurally and substantively with the IDEA'" to meets its obligation to provide a student with a FAPE.54 A court "must inquire first into whether the district complied with the IDEA's procedural requirements,"55 and then, whether the district met "its substantive obligation under the IDEA" by offering "an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances,"56 when determining whether a school district provided a FAPE.
The Court applies a "modified de novo" standard of review.57 In reviewing the hearing officer's administration decision under the IDEA, it may "accord some deference to the ALJ's factual findings" if "they are 'thorough and careful,'" but the degree of deference to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial