H.R. v. Dist. of Columbia

1

H.R. et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.

No. 21-cv-01856-TJK-RMM

United States District Court, District of Columbia

March 29, 2024

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

ROBIN M. MERIWEATHER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case was brought by H.R., a child with disabilities, and his parents (collectively “Parents”), who allege that Defendant District of Columbia (“the District”) has deprived H.R. of the free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) to which he is entitled under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C §§ 1400 et seq. (“IDEA”). Parents ask this Court to find that two Hearing Officers erred when they concluded that the Individualized Education Programs (“lEPs”) developed for H.R. for the 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years did not constitute a denial of a FAPE or another violation of the IDEA, and that the Hearing Officers erred when they concluded that the due process complaints before them were not mooted by the development of subsequent IEPs. District Judge Timothy J Kelly referred the matter to the undersigned for full case management. See July 13, 2021 Min. Order; July 13 2021 Referral Entry.

Pending now are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. After reviewing the cross-motions, the undersigned ordered supplemental briefing regarding the status of H.R.'s IEP and educational placement for the 2023-24 school year and the parties' positions on whether this case is moot due to the development of subsequent IEPs. See Sept. 25 2023 Min. Order.

Having reviewed the administrative record,^[1]the parties' briefs,^[2] and the relevant law, the undersigned recommends that this Court DENY Parents' motion and GRANT the District's cross-motion as explained below.

BACKGROUND

I. Statutory Framework

Congress enacted the IDEA to ensure that children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) that tailors a child's education and related services to her unique needs, and to ensure that the rights of such children and their parents are protected. See 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A); B.D. v. District of Columbia, 817 F.3d 792, 794 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Under the IDEA, children with disabilities who reside in the school district must be “identified, located, and evaluated.” 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3)(A). Once a child with disabilities is identified, the child's parents, teachers, school officials, and other professionals work together annually to develop an IEP to meet the child's needs for the coming school year. Id. §§ 1412(a)(4), 1414(d)(1)(B).

A “local education” or “State” agency-in this case, District of Columbia Public Schools (“DCPS”)-performs an “initial evaluation” to determine if a child has a qualifying disability. Id. § 1414(a)(1). In conducting the evaluation, DCPS must use “a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information,” and the child must be evaluated “in all areas of suspected disability.” Id. § 1414(b). DCPS may not use “any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a disability.” Id. “This initial evaluation, and any subsequent re-evaluation, forms the basis for identifying the child's needs and the requirements of the child's IEP to meet those needs and support her educational development.” Herrion v. District of Columbia, No. 18-cv-02827, 2019 WL 5086554, at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 10, 2019).

If a parent disagrees with or is dissatisfied with the “identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child,” the IDEA authorizes them to present their arguments in an “impartial due process hearing.” 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(b)(6), 1415(f). At that hearing, the parties present evidence and expert testimony about the child's educational and functional needs to an independent hearing officer. Id. §§ 1415(f), 1415(h). The independent hearing officer then issues a Hearing Officer Determination (“HOD”), which examines whether DCPS denied the student a FAPE and, if so, orders an appropriate remedy. Id. § 1415(f)(3)(E); see also B.D., 817 F.3d at 798. Any party aggrieved by the findings and decisions made by the hearing officer may bring a civil action in state or federal court. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2).

The IDEA provides that, “during the pendency of any proceedings conducted pursuant to this section, unless the State or local educational agency and the parents otherwise agree, the child shall remain in the then-current educational placement of the child.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j).

This “stay-put” provision is among the IDEA's “various procedural safeguards” that “guarantee parents both an opportunity for meaningful input into all decisions affecting their child's education and the right to seek review of any decisions they think inappropriate.” Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 311-12 (1988). The provision reflects Congress's intent “to strip schools of the unilateral authority they had traditionally employed to exclude disabled students” pending completion of proceedings. Id. at 323. Thus, the stay-put provision “creates a powerful statutory presumption in favor of maintaining the current classroom placement of a student with a disability when the school seeks to change his placement over a parent's objections,” such that “[t]he local educational agency must overcome a heavy evidentiary burden to displace the default rule that the child will stay put.” Olu-Cole v. E.L. Haynes Pub. Charter Sch., 930 F.3d 519, 522 (D.C. Cir. 2019).

II. Factual and Procedural Background

The parties' dispute centers on H.R., a child with disabilities who became eligible for special education and related services under the IDEA as a student with multiple disabilities, a “Specific Learning Disability” and an “Other Health Impairment.”^[3]See AR1 9. H.R. attended the Capitol Hill Day School (“CHDS”), a private school in Washington, D.C., for pre-K, kindergarten, and first grade. See AR2 1470-71. H.R. repeated kindergarten due to concerns that he was not emotionally or academically prepared to advance to first grade. See AR1 292. During H.R.'s first grade year, in December 2017 and January 2018, Dr. Julie Newman (“Dr. Newman”) conducted a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation of H.R. and diagnosed him with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”), Specific Learning Disability with impairment in reading, and Developmental Coordination Disorder. See AR1 291-303. She recommended that he “would be best served by a private school with particular expertise in educating children with learning differences, such as the Lab School or a similar program.” AR1 296. She also found that he “requires [a] research-based reading intervention delivered in a small group and/or individual setting.” AR1 296.

DCPS evaluated H.R., determined that he was eligible for special education services, and developed an IEP for him for the 2018-19 school year (the “July 2018 IEP”). See AR1 317-34. The IEP contained mathematics, reading, written expression, and motor skills/physical development as areas of concern. See AR1 320-26. The IEP called for ten hours per week of specialized instruction outside general education, five hours per week of specialized instruction within general education, 240 minutes per month of occupational therapy, 30 minutes per month of occupational therapy consultation services, and additional supports at H.R.'s DCPS neighborhood school, Murch Elementary School (“Murch”). See AR114, 317, 329. Parents, believing that Murch could not provide the necessary services for H.R., unilaterally enrolled H.R. at the Lab School of Washington (“Lab”), a private special education day school in Washington, D.C., for the 2018-19 school year and filed a due process complaint challenging the July 2018 IEP. See AR1 381. Hearing Officer Peter Vaden (“Hearing Officer Vaden”) issued a Hearing Officer's Determination (“HOD”) finding that DCPS denied H.R. a FAPE because the July 2018 IEP did not contain a specific teaching methodology to address H.R.'s severe dyslexia and need for intense reading intervention, and ordered that DCPS reimburse the costs Parents incurred from enrolling H.R. at Lab for the 2018-19 school year. See AR1 369-95. However, Hearing Officer Vaden rejected Parents' assertion that the July 2018 IEP was inappropriate insofar as it did not place H.R. in a full-time special education setting; Hearing Officer Vaden concluded that H.R. did not require a full-time special education setting and that Lab would not be a proper placement as it was not the least restrictive environment. Id. at 387-388.

DCPS developed a new IEP for H.R. for the 2019-20 school year (the “August 2019 IEP”), see AR1 419-36, and again proposed Murch as H.R.'s placement, see AR114. The August 2019 IEP called for fifteen total hours per week of specialized instruction outside general education, with five hours specifically reserved for reading, but all other aspects remained the same as the July 2018 IEP. See AR1 419, 432. Parents observed the programming offered at Murch, and again elected to unilaterally place H.R. at Lab for the 2019-20 school year. See AR114-15. Parents filed a due process complaint challenging the August 2019 IEP, and the parties reached a settlement agreement providing that the Lab is H.R.'s placement for the 2019-20 school year and DCPS would pay tuition for that year. See AR1 481-83.

A. H.R.'s 2020-2021 IEP Proceedings

In April 2020, DCPS developed a new IEP for H.R.'s 2020-21 school year (the “April 2020 IEP”), which again called for fifteen hours per week of specialized instruction and the same related services as the prior IEPs. See AR1 515-34. The IEP again included mathematics, reading,...