Todd D. by Robert D. v. Andrews, 90-8652
| Decision Date | 24 June 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-8652,90-8652 |
| Citation | 933 F.2d 1576 |
| Parties | 67 Ed. Law Rep. 1065 TODD D., by next friends ROBERT D., Patricia D., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Elizabeth ANDREWS, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Robin Spencer Nash, Warner McGinn & Nash, Mary Margaret Oliver, Decatur, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Charles L. Weatherly, Weekes & Candler, Julia Johnson Jennings, Decatur, Ga Carol A. Gallaway, State Law Dept., Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before JOHNSON and COX, Circuit Judges, and GODBOLD, Senior Circuit Judge.
This case arises on appeal from the district court's award of judgment in favor of the defendant state and local educational authorities and its dismissal of the claim of the plaintiff handicapped student brought under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, 20 U.S.C.A. Secs. 1400-1485 (West 1990 & Supp.1991). The plaintiff student appeals, claiming that he is being denied an appropriate education in accordance with his current individualized education program. The defendant local educational authority cross-appeals the district court's denial of its prayer for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment that the state educational authority, rather than the local one, is ultimately responsible for providing the plaintiff with an appropriate education.
Todd D. is a chronic schizophrenic with borderline intellectual functioning. His disability is defined as a severe emotional disturbance by the Education for All Handicapped Children Act ("EHA") and entitles him to receive a free appropriate education suited to his needs. He and his family are residents of DeKalb County, Georgia. In accordance with the EHA, the DeKalb County School District is the Local Educational Authority ("LEA") charged with creating and implementing for Todd an Individualized Education Program ("IEP"). Under his IEP, Todd initially attended elementary school in DeKalb County and received special instruction. At the age of ten, his behavioral problems increased, and he was consequently hospitalized at the Georgia Mental Health Institute from 1980 to 1982. He then returned to the DeKalb County system where he received instruction in a day program for the severely emotionally disturbed. In 1986, it was decided that he could no longer attend the day program because of episodes of aggressive behavior. In November 1986, he was sent to a residential program in Florida under an IEP specifying residential services. After a visit home in April 1987, it became apparent to the D. family that Todd was not receiving basic care. 1 The family also suspected that Todd was being abused. They consequently refused to allow him to return to the Florida facility. The LEA, however, was unable to find an appropriate residential facility for Todd in Georgia. Todd therefore attended a day program in the community until May 1988 when his aggressive behavior prohibited his continuing there.
Todd D. and his parents then requested a due process hearing before a hearing officer regarding the implementation of Todd's IEP. In their view, the LEA was responsible for providing Todd services in his home community or at least in the state of Georgia. In June 1988, a due process hearing was conducted. During the pendency of the administrative process, in October 1988, Todd was placed at the San Marcos Treatment Center ("San Marcos") in San Marcos, Texas, because it was the closest residential facility that would accept him. After failing to obtain relief at the administrative level, Todd and his parents filed a complaint in district court in June 1989 against the DeKalb County Board of Education, its members and superintendent, the LEA, the superintendent of the Georgia State Department of Education ("state DOE"), and the Georgia Board of Education and its members, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The DeKalb County defendants cross-claimed against the state defendants, claiming that if Todd's placement at San Marcos was inappropriate, the placement was due to the state's policy of refusing to provide residential services directly to handicapped students who cannot be served by their LEAs.
In accordance with the EHA, the LEA is required to prepare an IEP for Todd which sets out the objectives of his education. See 20 U.S.C.A. Secs. 1401(a)(20), 1414(a)(5) (West 1990 & Supp.1991). Todd's current IEP was prepared in April 1989 and reevaluated in January 1990. The parties agree that when Todd reaches the age of 22, on August 27, 1991, the state and the LEA will no longer be responsible for Todd's education and will therefore no longer fund his stay at San Marcos. The revised IEP therefore articulated goals addressing Todd's transition back into his home community. 2 The provisions of the IEP pertinent to this litigation involve the goal of transition:
(1) Residential:
a) Todd will transition (sic) into a residential/educational facility in his home community where continued work on the IEP goals will be carried out;
(2) Vocational/Educational:
a) Todd will enroll in and participate in a community-based sheltered workshop program a minimum of 1 hr. daily to a maximum of 6 hrs. daily;
b) Todd will continue to decrease inappropriate behaviors that interfere w/successful vocational programming;
(3) Community/Family:
a) Todd will develop a supportive relationship with his family that will encourage him to be independent from his family b) Todd will have successful visits with his family in Texas and in Georgia in preparing for return to his home community;
c) Todd will participate in ongoing family therapy working toward a transition to his home community.
(R1:1:29).
Todd's transition date was set for February 1990. At the January 1990 reevaluation of Todd's IEP, however, that date was postponed. It was determined at that reevaluation meeting that the transition goals, though appropriate for Todd, could not be implemented. The impediment to making progress toward these transition goals was the fact that a facility in Todd's home community, or even in the state of Georgia, to which he might transfer and at which he might obtain aid in meeting the goals, could not be identified.
In May 1990, the district court rendered its decision, stating that "[b]ecause Todd can receive sufficient educational benefits in a facility outside his home community, the court finds that Todd's placement at SMTC [San Marcos Treatment Center], if the necessary changes in his individual educational program are made, does not deprive him of his right to an appropriate education." (R1:23:23). Todd, his family, and the DeKalb defendants now appeal.
Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. School Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 3051, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982) (footnote omitted). The parties agree that this case does not involve the first prong of Rowley, but concerns only the second.
Under Rowley, the EHA does not require that the educational services offered by the state maximize the child's potential. Id. at 199, 102 S.Ct. at 3047. The EHA guarantees the child only a "basic floor of opportunity," i.e., education which confers some benefit. Id. at 200-01, 102 S.Ct. at 3047-48. The approach taken by the district court was to note that Todd was receiving some benefit from his placement at San Marcos. Experts testified that he had, in fact, made great progress since he first came there. Though those supervising his treatment believed that he had gained as much as he could from the San Marcos facility, they admitted that if he stayed he would continue to make some progress toward some of his IEP goals. It was clear, however, that Todd could not achieve his goal of transition into the DeKalb County community as long as he remained at such a long distance from his home. He could, however, make some progress toward transition in general, i.e., he could do some vocational work in the San Marcos community and he could be less supervised in his activities in general. These steps would presumably encourage him toward independence. By stating that "Todd's placement in SMTC, if the necessary changes in his individualized educational program are made, does not deprive him of his right to an appropriate education," the district court essentially concluded that Georgia's obligations under the EHA should be met by altering the transition goals of the IEP rather than by altering Todd's placement. In this way, the transition goals as stated in the altered version of the IEP could be achieved at San Marcos. 3 There are two difficulties with the district court's approach.
First, the district court must pay great deference to the educators who develop the IEP. The EHA requires that the handicapped child's IEP be developed in consultation with the child's teacher, the child's parents, and LEA representatives. See 20 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1401(a)(20) (West Supp.1991); Doe v. Alabama State Dep't of Educ., 915 F.2d 651, 654 (11th Cir.1990). In the statutory scheme, the IEP is Doe, 915 F.2d at 654. "In the face of such a clear statutory directive, it seems highly unlikely that Congress intended courts to overturn a State's choice of appropriate educational...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Straube v. Florida Union Free School Dist.
...has an appropriate placement. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. at 329, 108 S.Ct. at 607; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1); Todd D. by Robert D. v. Andrews, 933 F.2d 1576, 1582 (11th Cir.1991). Even though the State may have satisfied its direct duties, it is essentially responsible for the actions taken by......
-
S.C. ex rel. C.C. v. Deptford Tp. Bd. of Educ.
...agency defendants where there was already an underlying dispute about the education of a particular child. See Todd D. v. Andrews, 933 F.2d 1576, 1582-83 (11th Cir.1991). I read the Second Circuit's opinion in County of Westchester v. New York, 286 F.3d 150, 152 (2d Cir.2002) (per curiam) t......
-
Moubry v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 696(Ely)
...students are provided with a free, appropriate public education. See, Title 20 U.S.C. § 1412(6);19 see also, Todd D. by Robert D. v. Andrews, 933 F.2d 1576, 1582 (11th Cir.1991); Kruelle v. New Castle County School Dist., 642 F.2d 687, 696-97 (3rd Cir.1981); Straube v. Florida Union Free Sc......
-
CORDERO BY BATES v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Educ.
...is a proposition that has been reiterated time and again. See, e.g., Honig; Kruelle, 642 F.2d at 696-97; Lester H.; Todd D. v. Andrews, 933 F.2d 1576, 1582-83 (11th Cir.1991), reh'g denied, 943 F.2d 1316 (1991); Miener v. Missouri, 800 F.2d 749, 752-53 (8th Cir. Here, however, there is evid......