The same parties generated three separate Circuit Court decisions in California. Today we tell you about the third and final installment of N.F. v. Antioch USD. It’s another very short and “unpublished” decision from the 9th Circuit that makes one relevant point. Yesterday’s Daily Dawg dealt with the legal status of the student when he was enrolled in a charter school. Today’s decision addresses things that occurred when the student was still attending the traditional public school.
There were conflicting evaluations about whether the student met eligibility criteria as a student on the autism spectrum. The school’s evaluation concluded that the student did not qualify. The parents obtained an independent report concluding that he did. The parents then asserted in the lawsuit that their independent report should have prompted the public school to conduct a fresh evaluation of the student. The Circuit Court ruled in favor of the school on this one, largely based on this timeline:
*January 2017: the parents obtain an independent report that concluded that the student met the criteria for being on the autism spectrum.
*October 2017: this is when the parents first informed the school of the independent report. Notice that this is nine months after the parents obtained the report. They shared it with the district at an IEP Team meeting. The parents informed the school of the report but did not ask for a new evaluation. The Team, including the parents, agreed to review the student’s BIP at the annual IEP Team meeting that was scheduled for November.
*November 2017: the school attempted to convene the Team but the parents were not available.
*December 2017: the parents “declined to conduct an IEP review” at the IEP Team meeting. Then there was a disciplinary incident, leading to the district seeking an expedited hearing to justify a change in placement in January, 2018.
*February, 2018: the parents pulled the child out of the traditional school and enrolled him in the charter school.
Given those facts, the court held that there was no “actionable violation” of IDEA here. Without expressly saying so, the court seems to be telling us that if the parents wanted a new evaluation they should have said so more directly, or more promptly. The nine-month gap between when they obtained the private evaluation and when they shared it with the school seemed to be important.
Schools are required to consider independent reports that are relevant to the child’s educational needs, but obviously, parents have to share the report with the school.
N.F. v. Antioch USD decided by the 9th Circuit on May 2, 2022. It’s published in Special Educator at 81 IDELR 6.
DAWG BONE: EVALUATIONS MUST BE SHARED BEFORE THEY CAN BE RELIED UPON.
Got a question or comment for the Dawg? Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com.
Tomorrow: another off campus speech case….