Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School Dist. v. Sharron B.H., VIEW-LOS

Decision Date22 June 1983
Docket NumberNo. 82-4172,VIEW-LOS,82-4172
Citation709 F.2d 28
Parties11 Ed. Law Rep. 845 MOUNTAINALTOS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT and Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SHARRON B.H., Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Jane E. Slenkovich, Cupertino, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Peter Sandman, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Before TRASK, KENNEDY and POOLE, Circuit Judges.

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge:

The issue on appeal is whether a parent unilaterally may decide to transfer her handicapped child to a private school and then seek tuition reimbursement from the public school district under the federal Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Pub.L. No. 94-142 (codified at 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401, et seq.) (hereafter EAHCA). We find that EAHCA does not permit such an action, though arguably an exception exists in extreme circumstances not present here.

Commencing in 1966, the Congress passed a series of acts to assist in the education of handicapped children. See, e.g., Elementary and Secondary Education Amendment of 1966, Pub.L. 89-750. See generally, S.Rep. No. 168, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 5, reprinted in 1975 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1425, 1429. The enactment of EAHCA in 1975 was intended to enlarge this commitment. The Act both funds and regulates state assistance to handicapped students. To qualify for federal funding, a state must establish a program that systematically and promptly identifies, locates, and treats handicapped youths. The individual rights of handicapped children and their parents are a significant and explicit part of the statutory scheme. See S.Conf.Rep. No. 455, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 39, reprinted in 1975 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1480, 1492. The statute confers on them certain "guaranteed procedural safeguards," 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(a), such as a conference with school authorities, an administrative hearing before an impartial officer, and a civil action in the federal district court.

There is no doubt, therefore, that EAHCA grants a private right of action to parents, on behalf of their children. The question here is not whether such a right has been created, but rather its scope and nature. Cases in this circuit discussing whether or not a private right of action exists under a particular federal statute are not, therefore, of direct relevance, see, e.g., Fisher v. City of Tucson, 663 F.2d 861 (9th Cir.1981).

From the first grade, the appellant's son had exhibited behavioral problems. By the eighth grade, he was referred to the Superintendent of Schools in Los Altos Elementary School District for an assessment of special education needs as a potentially handicapped student. While the assessment was taking place, the boy was excluded from school for repeated misconduct. The assessment process stopped, for reasons not explained. The school offered to send a teacher to the boy's home for about an hour of individual instruction a day, and district personnel also recommended to the mother various private schools which might deal more effectively with the child. Those recommendations were informal suggestions, not made pursuant to the evaluation and placement provisions of the Act.

Appellant placed the boy in one of the recommended private schools for five months; he was expelled for continued misbehavior and then attended another. Appellant, meanwhile, had begun to seek tuition reimbursement. She notified the Los Altos Elementary School District of her claim and was advised the child's age made him the responsibility of the Mountain View-Los Altos High School District. The high school district referred the boy for further testing to determine his eligibility as a special education student. The result was a recommendation that the boy be placed in a resource classroom in a regular public school program. Dissatisfied, appellant requested an administrative hearing under EAHCA, and the administrative law judge determined that the parents were entitled to reimbursement for the costs of the child's attending both private schools. The school district then brought an action in the United States District Court against appellant and the State Department of Education for a review of the administrative hearing, as authorized by EAHCA, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(e)(2).

The district court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Town of Burlington v. Department of Educ. for Com. of Mass.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • May 29, 1984
    ... ... due process hearings; the impact of a school system's regulatory violations on the validity of ... at 4, and pointed out that the county's five high schools were serviced by only one certified ... See Mt. View-Los Altos United High School District v. Sharron ... ...
  • Department of Educ., State of Hawaii v. Katherine D. By and Through Kevin and Roberta D.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • February 24, 1984
    ... ... for Katherine D.'s tuition at a private school. For the school years 1980-81 and 1981-82, ... assistance to handicapped students." Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School Dist. v. Sharron ... ...
  • Larry P. By Lucille P. v. Riles
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • June 25, 1986
    ... ... that IQ tests used by the California school system to place children into special classes for ... Sec. 121a.511; Mt. View-Los Altos Union High School District v. Sharron B.H., ... ...
  • Devine v. Indian River County School Bd.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • September 5, 1997
    ... ... Roberts v. United States Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of Cal., 339 U.S. 844, ... First, Devine cites two cases, Mountain View--Los Altos Union High Sch. Dist. v. Sharron ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT