U.S. Educational System Court Judgments

Relevant Issues: Child was not provided an FAPE without his entire schooling.  The District Court awarded the child (now an adult) relief.  The school district argues the relief is disproportionate.

Status: This court deems the district court’s relief appropriate.

Relevant Issues: Not specifically about autism (the child had Down Syndrome); school district wanted to place the child in a segregated classroom, but the parents wanted integration.

Status: The court sided with the lower court which affirmed the school district’s argument; however, this case is important since it lays out an analysis to use to determine whether or not the child has been placed into the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) according to the IDEA.

Relevant Issues: Child with autism and other issues received ABA at home from an early age.  At kindergarten, the Dept. of Ed., wanted to stop funding at home program.

Status: Defendant ordered to provide 57 weeks of compensatory education in the form of ten hours per week of at-home ABA and five hours per week of at-home speech and language therapy for Student X.  Court grants plaintiff leave to file an application for partial attorneys’ fees.

Relevant Issues: Not specifically about autism (the child had ADHD & other learning disabilities); school deemed child not qualified to receive Sp. Ed. services.  Parents enrolled child in private school and wanted reimbursement.

Status: SCOTUS affirms the Court of Appeals point that the District Court did not properly consider the equities in this case and will need to undertake that analysis on remand.

Relevant Issues:. Parents argued that their child with autism required at-home ABA and a full-time personal aide which was denied by the committee. Parents challenged the IEP.

Status: This court finds the IEP substantively inadequate. The district court failed to defer appropriately to the decisions of the administrative experts on how best to transition an autistic child from a primarily home-based educational program to a school-based program.

Relevant Issues:. Youth with Asperger’s Syndrome was not provided a FAPE. A professional with sufficient expertise did not provide services outlined in the IEP.

Status: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment was allowed in part, the individual defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment was allowed in part, but the order requiring Dracut to hire plaintiffs’ experts is reversed.

Relevant Issues:.Parents argued that their child with autism who benefitted from a home ABA program have that continue in additional to kindergarten.  School disagrees.  Plaintiffs reject school placement and child goes to special school and receives ABA.

Status: The court recommends that the Department be directed to pay Manhattan Child. Center the full cost of tuition for the 2008-2009 school year.

Relevant Issues:.B.R. seeks reimbursement of 2010-11 tuition for 9 year-old autistic child, who attends a private Sp. Ed. school.

Status: Court grants plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and denying defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and finds that plaintiffs are entitled to be reimbursed by defendant for tuition expenses for the 2010-2011 school year. Court will award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to plaintiffs.

Relevant Issues:.Issue regards the proper interpretation of IDEA. Parents argued that their children with autism needs were not met in terms of methodology (ABA) and school placement.

Status: The court agrees with the district court’s conclusion that the IEP did not comply with the procedural requirements of the IDEA and that P.H. was denied a FAPE as a result; however, it was not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the IEP offered to D.S. by the State was inappropriate — that is, that D.S. was denied a FAPE.

Relevant Issues:.Three children with autism declined school placements and sent their children to private schools.  They claim reimbursement since the school districts offering were inadequate.

Status: The court concluded that “the use of retrospective testimony about what would have happened if a student had accepted the Department’s proposed placement must be limited to testimony regarding the services described in the student’s individualized educational program (“IEP”). Such testimony may not be used to materially alter a deficient written IEP by establishing that the student would have received services beyond those listed in the IEP.”

Relevant Issues: Not specifically about autism (the child had a speech/language impairment); parents claim that the child did not receive FAPE under IDEA.

Status: Defendant’s motion is granted, Plaintiff’s cross-motion is denied, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed.

Relevant Issues: Parents placed their child with autism in a private school and sought reimbursement for tuition.

Status: Plaintiffs are entitled to tuition reimbursement.

Relevant Issues: Parents placed their child with autism in a private school and sought reimbursement for tuition.

Status:DOE failed to provide H.L. with a free appropriate public education because it did not carry its burden of demonstrating that he could learn new material in the proposed program. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Relevant Issues: Parents claim that the school district violated the IDEA by denying T.M. a FAPE in his LRE. They claim reimbursement for cost of educational services obtained for him from private providers.

Status:The court holds that the April 2010 IEP violated the IDEA’s LRE requirement by offering T.M. a placement in a self-contained special education classroom rather than a mainstream classroom. The court remands for the district court to determine whether tuition reimbursement is appropriate.

Relevant Issues: Parents claim the DOE failed to provide a FAPE under IDEA and placed their child with autism in a private school and sought reimbursement for tuition.  The parents claim both procedural and substantive defects.

Status:The court affirms that the child was not provided a FAPE because his placement at the Marathon School did not conform to his IEP and his parent were not provided an opportunity to evaluate his actual proposed school site. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted. Legal fees and disbursements are granted.