Union School Dist. v. Smith

• Citation: 15 F.3d 1519
• Decision Date: 01 February 1994
• Docket Number: Nos. 91-16546,91-16595,s. 91-16546
• Parties: 89 Ed. Law Rep. 449, 4 A.D.D. 33 UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. SMITH, defendants 2-7 Under Seal, Defendants-Appellees. UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, v. B. SMITH, defendants 2-7 Under Seal, Defendants-Appellees, and California Department of Education, California Superintendent of Public Instruction, Bill Honig, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Page 1519

15 F.3d 1519

89 Ed. Law Rep. 449, 4 A.D.D. 33

UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. SMITH, defendants 2-7 Under Seal, Defendants-Appellees.

UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, v. B. SMITH, defendants 2-7 Under Seal, Defendants-Appellees, and California Department of Education, California

Superintendent of Public Instruction, Bill Honig,

Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 91-16546, 91-16595.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 12, 1993.

Decided Feb. 1, 1994.

Keith L. Slenkovich, Saratoga, California, for plaintiff-appellant Union School District.

Joyce O. Eckrem, Deputy General Counsel, California Department of Education, for State defendants-appellants.

Kathryn E. Dobel, Berkeley, California, for the defendants-appellees.

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

Before: POOLE, FERGUSON, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

FERGUSON, Circuit Judge:

This case concerns the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et seq., which guarantees handicapped children a free appropriate public education. Union School District ("District") appeals the district court's entry of summary judgment awarding reimbursement of expenses to a family who placed their handicapped child, Bernard Smith, in a private counseling facility after the District failed to offer Bernard a free appropriate public education. The California Department of Education ("CDE") also appeals, on narrower grounds, disputing the power of the district court to award a family reimbursement to maintain a second lodging so that Bernard could live within daily commuting distance of a non-residential education program.

I.

A.

The District argues that the district court's entry of summary judgment for the Smiths was improper. In the District Court, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, anticipating that the court would base its decision on a review of the exhaustive administrative record. No party indicated that it wished to introduce further evidence. See 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(e)(2) ("the court ... shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party") (emphasis added).

Notwithstanding this procedural posture, the District argues that there are disputed issues of material fact that render summary judgment improper. Specifically, the District points to the following factual disputes: 1) whether the District's convening of an Individualized Education Program ("IEP") meeting in September 1989 served as an acknowledgment that it was responsible for Bernard's education in the fall of 1989, and 2) whether the District's failure to make a formal offer of a placement for Bernard at the McKinnon school means that McKinnon cannot be considered in deciding whether the District offered a free appropriate public education.

These questions concern the legal significance of undisputed facts. When a mixed question of fact and law involves undisputed underlying facts, summary judgment may be appropriate. See W. Schwarzer, Summary Judgment Under the Federal Rules: Defining Genuine Issues of Material Fact, 99 F.R.D. 465, 475-80 (1983).

There are no disputed underlying facts. The District does not argue that the September IEP meetings did not occur, nor does it argue that it formally offered the McKinnon school as a placement for Bernard. We agree with the District that the district court erred in finding that the District admitted responsibility for Bernard's education by conducting an IEP meeting in September of 1989. We affirm the district court's legal conclusion, however, that Bernard's residence was within the District on other grounds. We also affirm the district court's legal conclusion that the District cannot be considered to have offered McKinnon as a placement for Bernard.

The only other issue that the District even implicitly raised as a purported factual dispute involved the Smiths' withholding from the District of portions of a report issued by Dr. Bryna Siegel. The Smiths admit to withholding portions of the report that may have been relevant to the appropriateness of a placement at Carlton. This withholding is of no consequence, however, because the District formally offered Bernard a placement at Carlton. It is undisputed that the Smiths showed the District the pages in which Dr. Siegel diagnosed autism. The District points to nothing in the withheld portions of the report that might have influenced its decision formally to offer Bernard a placement at McKinnon. The District was aware that Bernard was diagnosed with autism. Its decision not to offer McKinnon formally as a placement was based on its beliefs that Bernard resided outside the District, and that the Smiths would not accept a placement there.

Furthermore, the District was legally obligated to procure its own report from a specialist such as Dr. Siegel. The District must make "a full and individual evaluation of the child's educational needs," 34 C.F.R. Sec. 300.531, and must "ensure ... [that the] evaluation [of the student] is made by a multidisciplinary team ... including at least one teacher or other specialist with knowledge in the area of suspected disability" (i.e., a specialist in autism). 34 C.F.R. Sec. 300.532(e). Any failure of the Smiths to turn over portions of a specialist's report cannot excuse the District's failure to procure the same information for itself. See W.G. v. Board of Trustees, 960 F.2d 1479, 1484-85 (9th Cir.1992) (parents' failure to secure participation of the child's school at an IEP meeting, even though promised by the parents, does not excuse the school district's obligation under the IDEA to secure such participation).

Because we find no factual dispute precluding summary judgment, we proceed to resolve this case on its legal merits.

B.

We review de novo the appropriateness of an education program. Gregory K. v. Longview School Dist., 811 F.2d 1307, 1310 (9th Cir.1987). We, like the district court, however, "must give 'due weight' to judgments of education policy when [we] review state hearings.... [C]ourts should not substitute their own notions of sound educational policy for those of the school authorities which they review." Longview, 811 F.2d at 1311 (internal quotation and citations omitted). The extent of deference to be given is within our discretion. Id.

We give deference to the administrative findings of the Hearing Officer particularly when, as here, they are thorough and careful. See, e.g., Longview, 811 F.2d at 1310-11; W.G., 960 F.2d at 1483; accord Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 3050, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982). We also accord deference to the policy decisions of a school district when it is acting within the bounds of federal and state law. See Wilson v. Marana Unified School Dist., 735 F.2d 1178, 1183-84 (9th Cir.1984); accord Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207-08, 102 S.Ct. at 3051.

II.

IDEA, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq., assures all handicapped children a free appropriate public education. See 20 U.S.C. Secs. 1400(c), 1412(1). Judicial review of state Hearing Officers' decisions under IDEA involves two steps. First, the court must determine whether the rigorous procedural requirements of IDEA have been met. Second, the court must determine whether the state has met the substantive component of IDEA--the requirement that the state provide an "appropriate" education. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07, 102 S.Ct. at 3050-51.

"An 'appropriate' public education does not mean the absolutely best or 'potential-maximizing' education for the individual child.... The states are obliged to provide 'a basic floor of opportunity' through a program 'individually designed to provide educational benefit to the handicapped child.' " Longview, 811 F.2d at 1314, quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 201, 102 S.Ct. at 3048.

If a parent believes that a school district has failed to offer a free appropriate public education, parents may place an eligible child in an appropriate private program. "Parents have an equitable right to reimbursement for the cost of providing an appropriate [private] education when a school district has failed to offer a child a [free appropriate public education]." W.G., 960 F.2d at 1485 (citing Burlington School Comm. v. Department of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369, 105 S.Ct. 1996, 2002, 85 L.Ed.2d 385 (1985)).

State standards that impose a greater duty to educate handicapped children, if they are not inconsistent with federal standards, are enforceable in federal court under IDEA. See W.G., 960 F.2d at 1483; see also 20 U.S.C. Secs. 1401(a)(18), 1412(6); 34 C.F.R. Sec. 300.4.

III.

The District argues at great length that the school district in which the child lives during the school week is the district responsible for the child's special education. The District argues that, because Bernard resided in Los Angeles during the school week while attending the Clinic, the District was not responsible for reimbursing the Smiths for the costs of Bernard's education at the Clinic. To support this contention, the District points to various provisions of the California Education Code addressing a school district's responsibility to disabled children who reside within the district. We find that those provisions in no way excuse a school district's responsibility to disabled children residing within the district who receive their free appropriate education in a placement outside the district. See, e.g., Taylor v. Honig, 910 F.2d 627 (9th Cir.1990) (requiring a school district to pay for a disabled child's placement in a residential program outside the district).

As the Hearing Officer and the district court found, the Smiths maintained their permanent residence in San Jose where they paid taxes and where Bernard's father continued his medical practice. They temporarily maintained a second residence in Los Angeles for the sole purpose of being able to commute daily to an...