Ann Hardman

Doug C. v. State of Hawaii Department of Education

March 3, 2014

Facts: Spencer was an 18 year old student that was diagnosed with autism when he was two years old. The Hawaii Department of Education determined that Spencer was eligible to receive special education and other related services due to his diagnosis. Spencers educational rights are protected by the IDEA and his IEP placed him at a private special education facility, which was at the expense of the Education Department. In 2010, Spencers IEP meeting was held on Nov. 9th, but his father did not attend. His father had actively sought to get the date of the meeting changed. At that particular meeting the Department changed Spencers IEP which in turn changed his educational placement. He then was supposed to attend a program at his local public high school. The issue that was presented to the courts was whether or not the Departments efforts to include Spencers father were sufficient enough to meet the requirements that are given by the IDEA. The school was concerned about meeting the deadline of the IEP and put that concern ahead of having Spencers parent present at the meeting. The school went ahead and held the IEP meeting without a parent present. Spencers father filed a request for due process the day before the follow up IEP meeting. He believed that this new IEP denied Spencer a Free Appropriate Public Education. The administrative hearing officer found that the Department did not deny Spencer a FAPE and dismissed his claims for relief. The district court then found that the father was afforded an opportunity to participate at the meeting. Spencers father then appealed this decision. The case was then sent to the Ninth Circuit Court. Issue: Is a school violating the Individuals with Disabilities Education Acts explicit parental participation requirements when it holds an individualized education program (IEP) meeting without the participation of the disabled childs parent? Ruling: The Ninth Circuit Court overturned the decision of the district court. They found that the agency was required to include the childs parents in the IEP creation process. The only time that the IEP meeting could be conducted without a parent is if the parent affirmatively refuses to participate. They also found that because of the difficulty to schedule a meeting does not excuse the requirement of having a parent present. They also determined that the presence of the parent takes a higher priority over other faculty members or any deadlines that exist. Rationale: The Ninth Circuit Court held that the district court must determine whether the father in the case is entitled to reimbursement for the costs of maintaining his son at the private school during the proceedings. They determined under IDEA that the school was in violation because the students placement was due to the IEP meeting where his father was not present. They also found that since this student has attended this school for several years with successful IEPs, that the school was found to be a proper placement. Brief Analysis and Conclusion: The courts decision relates to me as an educator and an administrator in the sense that I need to make sure that a parent is always present at any IEP meetings that I am required to attend as either a principal or a teacher. This ruling means that it is more important for parents to be at the meeting than different faculty members. It also indicates that it is okay to go beyond a deadline if that allows the parents to be present at the meetings. Students will be able to receive better care and education when their parents are present at the IEP meetings. The students will be able to have an advocate, who knows them best, in the room creating the IEP.