J.S. v. Dist. of Columbia

1

J.S. et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 21-0293 (CKK)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

March 22, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiffs J.S., a student eligible for special education services in the District of Columbia, and his parents, A.D. and T.S (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action seeking judicial review of a Hearing Officer's Determination following an administrative due process hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEA”) 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. Plaintiffs contend that the District of Columbia (“Defendant” or “the District”) denied J.S. a free appropriate public education for the 2020-2021 school year by proposing an inappropriate placement for him at the Hughes Center in Danville, Virginia. The District argues that its proposed placement was appropriate. Presently before this Court are Plaintiffs' [23] Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant District of Columbia's [24] Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. Upon consideration of the parties' pleadings, ^[1] the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court shall DENY Plaintiffs' [23] Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANT Defendant's [24] Cross Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Statutory Framework

The IDEA was enacted to “ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education [“FAPE”] that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living.” 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A). Once a child is identified as disabled, the school district must convene a meeting of a multi-disciplinary team to develop an individualized education program (“IEP”) for the student. See § 1414. The IEP must include a variety of information, including the child's current levels of academic achievement and functional performance, measurable annual goals, how the child's progress towards the goals will be measured, and the special education and related services to be provided to the child. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(I). The IEP must be formulated in accordance with the terms of the IDEA and “should be reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade.” Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 204 (1982).

Once the IEP is developed, the school system must provide an appropriate educational placement that comports with the IEP. Alston v. Dist. of Columbia, 439 F.Supp.2d 86, 90 (D.D.C. 2006). “If no suitable public school is available, the school system must pay the costs of sending the child to an appropriate private school.” Dist. of Columbia v. Vinyard, 901 F.Supp.2d 77, 80-81 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting Reid ex rel. Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 519 (D.C. Cir. 2005)). However, a parent or guardian who “unilaterally places a child with a disability in a private school, ” without consent of the school system, “does so at his or her own risk.” Florence Cty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 15 (1993) (quoting School Comm. of Town of Burlington, Mass. v. Dep't of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359, 372 (1985)).

The IDEA guarantees parents of disabled children the opportunity to participate in the evaluation and educational placement process. See § 1415(b)(1). If the parent of a child receiving services pursuant to the IDEA believes his or her child's IEP or school placement is inadequate, the parent may file a “due process complaint.” See § 1415(b)(7)(A); § 1415(k)(3).

B. Factual Background

J.S. has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”), Combined Type, Bipolar Disorder, and Anxiety Disorder, as well as specific learning disabilities in reading and written expression. Compl. ¶ 7; see AR 189, 294. Despite these challenges, J.S. is described as “academically gifted.” See AR 35. J.S. has been found eligible for special educations services by the District of Columbia Public Schools (“DCPS”). Compl. ¶ 8.

J.S. has a “long history of psychiatric and learning difficulties.” See AR 189. He was diagnosed with ADHD in 2008, with Asperger's Syndrome in 2010, and with a Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Executive Dysfunction, an Anxiety Disorder, an Expressive Language Disorder, a Developmental Coordination Disorder, and a Disorder of Written Language in 2011. See AR 281, 283-84; 344, 732-33, 850. A neuropsychological evaluation in April 2018 found that J.S.'s cognitive ability was found to be in the “Above Average” range, with a “Full Scale IQ” in the 86th percentile, but also found that J.S. exhibited weaknesses in social and emotional functioning, mood vulnerabilities, attention and executive functioning, and written expression. See AR 282-91.

During the 2016-2017 school year, J.S. experienced what was “likely a Manic and then a Major Depressive Episode, ” which required him to take leave from school. AR 189, 281. Over the next two years, J.S. experienced “periods of psychosis, delusional religious thinking, and a serious suicide attempt and ideation, ” requiring multiple periods of hospitalization. AR 189.

In August 2019, J.S. enrolled at Wilson High School in Washington, D.C. pursuant to an IEP. See AR 189, 344, 756, 857. In November 2019, he experienced another “episode of psychotic illness, ” for which he was again hospitalized. AR 189. He reportedly reacted poorly to an antipsychotic medication, and developed a state of catatonia that lasted for more than four weeks. AR 189-90. J.S. was hospitalized again in February 2020 after a “clear episode of mania.” AR 190. As of May 2020, J.S. Student's psychiatric diagnoses were Bipolar Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”), ADHD-combined, and Specific Learning Disorder with impairments in reading and in written expression. AR 190-91.

J.S. was hospitalized again in June 11, 2020, upon his request to be in a “safe space” and to have his medication adjusted. See AR 392, 734, 871.

1. The 2020 DCPS IEP and the District's Proposed Placement

After difficulties during the 2019-2020 school year-including multiple hospitalizations due to mental health challenges and the use of online learning prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic-J.S.'s parents sought to place J.S. in a full-time residential program. See Hearing Officer Determination (“HOD”) ¶¶ 8-9, AR 661.

On May 14, 2020, an IEP team held a meeting in which J.S.'s mother and counsel participated. HOD ¶¶ 8-9, AR 661. The IEP team agreed that J.S. required 26.5 hours per week of Specialized Instruction outside the general education setting and 240 minutes per month of Behavioral Support Services. HOD ¶ 8, AR 661; May 2020 IEP, AR 149, 150. The explanation for J.S.'s for the “Behavioral Support Services” derives from J.S.'s “social emotional conditions, ” which require “acute behavioral supports that cannot be implemented inside the general education setting.” May 2020 IEP, AR 150. The IEP does not provide for Extended School Year (“ESY”) services. May 2020 IEP, AR 153; see also IEP Meeting Notes, AR 372 (Team agrees he . . . does not qualify for ESY services”).

In addition to the above parameters, the IEP team agreed to three “annual goals” for J.S.: (1) to learn “5 coping strategies to manage a range of emotions . . . experienced and utilized in skills in all environments”; (2) to “learn and utilized at least 5 success skills, i.e., organization, attention to tasks, time-management, recording and submitting assignments”; and (3) to “learn and practice complex social skills; i.e., relational variance with others, communicating through conflict, perspective taking, judgment, nonverbal communication, etc., through the use of role play, worksheets, or structured activities in groups and/or individual sessions.” May 2020 IEP, AR 147.

At the IEP meeting, J.S.'s counsel requested consideration of a full-time residential placement for J.S., at a school with a psychiatrist on staff. HOD ¶ 9, AR 661; Notes from May 2020 IEP Meeting, AR 162. The IEP team agreed to make a referral to the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (“OSSE”) for a change-in-placement review to consider a residential placement. HOD ¶ 9, AR 661.

In the meantime, on June 15, 2020, Plaintiffs informed DCPS that J.S. had been accepted to Innercept Academy and requested that DCPS place J.S. there for the 2020-2021 academic year. HOD ¶ 13, AR 663 (citing June 15, 2020 Correspondence, AR 192). Plaintiffs noted that they did not believe that an appropriate special education program had been identified or offered by DCPS for the upcoming school year, and that if DCPS refused their request for funding, they reserved their right to seek funding for their unilateral placement of J.S. at Innercept Academy. HOD ¶ 13, AR 663 (citing June 15, 2020 Correspondence, AR 192). Innercept is a for-profit residential treatment program located in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. HOD ¶ 23, AR 667. Innercept is a facility of “last resort, ” and aims to teach its residents independent living. HOD ¶ 23, AR 667. It does not follow a school term, but instead offers rolling admissions and provides education for residents who need it. HOD ¶ 24, AR 668.

On June 25, 2020, OSSE held a “change-in-placement” meeting during which OSSE accepted the IEP team's decision that J.S. required a residential placement and agreed to start the location assignment process. HOD ¶ 10, AR 661-61; Notes from OSSE Placement Meeting, AR 395. At the meeting, J.S.'s mother reported that J.S. would enroll at Innercept Academy on June 29, 2020 and requested that OSSE consider Innercept Academy for J.S.'s location placement....