Stamford School Sued for Disabled Child's "Homebased Expenses"

If you have a question or concern about special education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act required that the government provide a free and appropriate public education to disabled children.

Although the Stamford Board of Education rejected plaintiff parent's proposed placements for a child who suffered from autism, it appropriately offered a free and appropriate public education at an elementary school that provided occupational and speech therapy. Plaintiff parents requested that their child, who suffered from autism, be placed at the McCarton School in New York. A hearing officer concluded that the Stamford board of education offered an appropriate program, that the board did not deny plaintiff's child a free and appropriate public education and that the parents were not entitled to reimbursement for a homebased program. Plaintiff parents sued the board and alleged that their child was denied a free and appropriate public education, in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The parents alleged that the board of education held planning and placement team meetings during the summer months, when the parents were out of the country and unable to attend. U.S. District Judge Warren Eginton granted judgment to defendant, and plaintiff mother appealed. The Second Circuit reviewed de novo to verify that the record supported the district court's decision that an individualized education program that discussed the minor child's performance, goals and plans for improvement was adequate. An IEP could be inadequate procedurally, if the parents' opportunity to participate in decision making was significantly obstructed.

The Second Circuit rejected the mother's procedural challenge to the IEP. Although the parents only attended the first, second and fifth planning and placement team meetings, the Stamford Board of Education repeatedly attempted to plan meetings around the parents' activities. "The IDEA," wrote the Second Circuit, "requires only that the school board give parents the opportunity to participate in the decision about their child's educational placement." The Second Circuit also rejected the mother's substantive challenge to the IEP. The IEP offered plaintiff's child a placement at an elementary school that had a special education program that included occupational and speech therapy. The combination of placement and services was substantively appropriate. We "conclude," wrote the Second Circuit, "that the Board provided [plaintiff's child] with a FAPE for the" school year. The Second Circuit vacated the district court's denial of plaintiff's "stay-put" claim and remanded. Although the board of education only agreed to fund the minor child's program at home on a temporary basis, that did not change the board's obligation to reimburse pursuant to the "stay-put" provision. "The district court," wrote the Second Circuit, "erred in concluding that the IEP created in August 2010 constituted the current placement for purposes of the stay-put obligation because it was never implemented or agreed to by the parents." On remand, the district court should compute the value of the minor child's program at home and order the board of education to pay that amount. Affirmed in part and vacated in part.

If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

For continuous access to the legal world, follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn. We offer the latest updates on caselaw and legal news. In addition, informational videos are available for your convenience on our YouTube channel. 

Source- Board of Ed Provided Free and Appropriate Public Education, 42 Conn. Law Tribune 27, June 27, 2016, at 38.