U.S. Educational System Autism Court Cases

Relevant Issues: Not about autism (the child was deaf); however, it defined the role of the Individual Education Plan.

Status: The court determined that the child was receiving an appropriate education since she obtained some benefit from the specialized instruction.

Relevant Issues: Not about autism (the child had learning difficulties); parents disagreed with the school district placement and chose a different school.

Status: Case determined in which circumstances should parents be reimbursed for child’s specialized schooling.

Relevant Issues: Not specifically about autism; however, at stake was the right of the parent to not have their child placed in another setting while decisions were made regarding appropriate school placement.

Status: This court case established safeguards, including the “stay put” provision, the limits of educational authorities at various levels to unilaterally exclude disabled children due to conduct related to their disabilities.

Relevant Issues: Not specifically about autism (the child had severe mental and physical challenges and the parents wanted the child to have physical therapy from a licensed physical therapist); however, at question is the definition of a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE).

Status:The court ruled that evidence supports the finding that the program prescribed for the child afforded no more than trivial progress. The court reversed and remanded further proceedings consistent with that opinion.

Relevant Issues: Not specifically about autism (the child had considerable cognitive challenges); however, at stake was the right of the parent to not have their child educated in another setting while decisions were made regarding appropriate school placement.

Status:The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that ruled the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) was violated by the county and the state.  The Court of Appeals affirmation is based on procedural violations of the EHA.

Relevant Issues: Not specifically about autism (the child had learning disabilities); school district did not cooperate with parents’ professionals.

Status:The court determined that;

1) tutoring was appropriate,

2) district failed to provide R.G. with a FAPE by failing to comply with the specified procedures for

preparing the IEP;

3) parents were entitled to secure a special education placement for R.G. until an IEP was prepared properly;

4) parents were entitled to reimbursement.

Relevant Issues: Not specifically about autism (the child was learning disabled); school district did not provide appropriate IEP and parents placed child in special school and wanted reimbursement.

Status:The SCoUS agreed that the court may order such reimbursement, and therefore affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Relevant Issues: Not specifically about autism (the child was learning disabled); parents placed child in non-approved private school and wanted reimbursement.

Status: Defendent’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Relevant Issues: Parents require that the school district pay for the child with autism’s home-based program.

Status: We grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and order the district to comply with various orders.  The school system is ordered to reimburse parents.

Relevant Issues: Not specifically about autism (the child was learning disabled); school district did not provide appropriate IEP and parents placed child in special school and wanted reimbursement.

Status: The court sided with the State Review Officers findings which denied reimbursement for the parents.

Relevant Issues: Parents require an ABA program be part of the child’s IEP.  The original voting rules were ignored which disadvantaged the parents.

Status: The court upholds the proposition that, if a school district opts to resolve impasses about an IEP by taking a vote at a committee meeting, then it must include all members of the committee in that vote.

Relevant Issues: Parents argue that their child with autism did not receive FAPE in LRE and need to be reimbursed for their ABA program.

Status: The court agreed that the parents were not given adequate opportunity to participate at the IEP meetings and predetermined the services they would offer the child.

Relevant Issues: Parents argue that their child with autism did not receive enough hours of ABA to make academic progress.

Status: Court granted appellants to be reimbursed for the reasonable costs of the ABA and aide services provided to K.B. in support of her private mainstream education. Appellants were also eligible for reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs.

Relevant Issues: Not specifically about autism (the child was learning disabled); school district did not provide appropriate placement and parents placed child in special school and wanted reimbursement.

Status: Court concludes that District complied with IDEA’s procedural and substantive requirements and reverses the judgment in favor of the District.

Relevant Issues: Not specifically about autism (the child was learning disabled with Sp/Lg issues); school district did not provide appropriate placement and parents placed child in special school and wanted reimbursement.

Status: The burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief. In this case, that party is the child. The rule applies with equal effect to school districts: If they seek to challenge an IEP, they will in turn bear the burden of persuasion.

Relevant Issues: Not specifically about autism; parents asked for reimbursement of an educational consultant.

Status: Court agrees that provides that a court “may award reasonable attorneys’ fees as part of the costs” to parents who prevail; however, the court did not agree that the provision authorizes prevailing parents to recover fees for services rendered by experts in IDEA actions.

Relevant Issues: Not specifically about autism (the child was learning disabled); school district did not provide appropriate placement and parents placed child in special school and wanted reimbursement.

Status: Court affirms the decision of the lower court to reimburse parents for tuition and attorneys’ fees even though the child did not attend a public school first.

Relevant Issues: Both the district and the parents agree that the child with autism should be in private school.  They disagree on which private school.  Parents wanted reimbursement.

Status: The court overturned the lower court and sided with the school district because the parent choice of school did not provide the child with FAPE which is required by the IDEA.

Relevant Issues: Parents disagreed with their child with autism’s IEP and represented their child (as non-attorneys) in court proceedings. Petitioners sought reimbursement, alleged procedural violations, and requested a declaration that their child’s FAPE was substantively inadequate.

Status:This court agree that parents without attorney representation have the right to reimbursement, and to fight  procedural violations, but disagree that parents without attorney representation should receive a declaration regarding their child’s FAPE due to the burdens of these kinds of cases on lower courts.