South Carolina v. Chariho Reg'l Sch. Dist., C.A. No. 16–506–JJM–LDA

298 F.Supp.3d 370

S.C., BY AND THROUGH N.C., as parent and natural guardian, Plaintiff,

v.CHARIHO REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

C.A. No. 16–506–JJM–LDA

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island.

Signed March 27, 2018

Vicki J. Bejma, Robinson & Clapham, Providence, RI, for Plaintiff.

Jon M. Anderson, Brennan, Recupero, Cascione, Scungio & McAllister, LLP, Providence, RI, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN J. MCCONNELL, JR., United States District Judge.

This is an action for review of the decision ("Decision")¹ of a due process hearing officer ("Hearing Officer") under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. ("IDEA" or the "Act"). Among its findings, the Hearing Officer concluded that Chariho Regional School District ("Chariho") failed to provide S.C. a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") under its last proposed individualized education program ("IEP"), but also that the Grove School, S.C.'s desired residential placement, was inappropriate. The Hearing Officer did not award any other compensatory relief to S.C. The Hearing Officer also did not decide whether earlier iterations of IEPs provided S.C. with a FAPE.

The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 10, 17. After review of the administrative record, briefing, and oral argument, the Court reverses in part the Hearing Officer's Decision.

I. BACKGROUND

S.C. is a young woman with a troubled history. Although she performed well academically early in life, she began experiencing difficulties in middle school. By October of 2011, S.C. was in counseling with a social worker, Lori Duffy. S.C. Ex. 3 at 2. Ms. Duffy provided individual treatment and parent consultation from 2011 to 2012 because of S.C.'s decrease in school performance and increase in school avoidance. Id. By February of 2012, a truancy petition had been filed because of S.C.'s excessive absences. S.C. Ex. 17.

S.C.'s first psychological exam was performed in the spring of 2012. S.C. Ex. 7 at 1. She was diagnosed with Mood Disorder NOS and Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Id. at 11. By the summer of 2012, S.C. was experiencing psychological stress, causing problems at home and at school. See S.C. Ex. 3 at 1. At the end of the summer, S.C. was hospitalized. S.C. Ex. 11. Bradley Hospital noted that S.C. had a history of oppositional behavior, defiance, school avoidance, and had expressed thoughts of being "better off dead." S.C. Ex. 12. Chariho school psychologist Tara Reddington recommended this hospitalization. S.C. Ex. 11.

Ms. Reddington also recommended that S.C. attend the RYSE Alternative Learning Program ("RYSE"). Id. RYSE is a clinical day program at Chariho for at-risk youth and their families that partners with community and school support services. S.C. Ex. 15. RYSE offers weekday education services and has clinical services available twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a year. Id. As part of her application for RYSE, S.C. wrote that she would be less anxious in the program. S.C. Ex. 13 at 6. This would hopefully help; around this time, Dr. Jacob Abraham diagnosed S.C. with Mood Disorder NOS, Anxiety Disorder NOS, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder. S.C. Ex. 5 at 10. In September of 2012, S.C. moved from Chariho Middle School to RYSE. S.C. Ex. 14.

Unfortunately, however, S.C.'s difficulties continued at RYSE. Susan Meyer, the therapist S.C. was seeing at the time, noted that RYSE did not seem to be working. S.C. Ex. 4 at 9. N.C., S.C.'s mother, also believed S.C. was having difficulties at RYSE. Vol. I, 42:10–21. These suspicions proved true when, in January of 2013, S.C. overdosed on ibuprofen. S.C. Ex. 16 at 2. Bradley Hospital, where S.C. was taken, recommended trying to return S.C. to mainstream schooling. Id. After this hospitalization, N.C. transferred S.C. back to Chariho Middle School. Vol. I, 46:16–25. By this point in the school year, S.C. had missed over forty days of school, in addition to some twenty late arrivals. Chariho Ex. 7 at 1.

February saw numerous reports and evaluations concerning S.C. Ms. Reddington believed that S.C.'s overdosing was atypical of a suicide attempt and "more indicative of an impulsive, reactive response to a situation that [S.C.] was upset about at home." S.C. Ex. 22. Ms. Reddington arranged for a case history evaluation of S.C. which noted S.C.'s diagnoses of Mood Disorder NOS, Anxiety Disorder NOS, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and that she was taking Prozac and Abilify. S.C. Ex. 24 at 3; see Vol. I, 59:11–14. The evaluation posited that S.C. had avoided school and other uncomfortable activities and that her behavior was being reinforced by these outcomes. S.C. Ex. 24 at 17. Ms. Reddington also prepared a transition plan for S.C. to return to school; S.C. refused. S.C. Exs. 25, 26. Dr. Abraham believed that she wanted to be home schooled and that she would push until she got what she wanted. S.C. Ex. 26. By the end of February, S.C. had some eighty "missed or interrupted" school days for the year. S.C. Ex. 27.

In March of 2013, S.C. was determined to be ineligible for special education. S.C. Ex. 28 at 3; S.C. Ex. 29 at 3. Dr. Abraham reported that S.C.'s school refusal was due to anxiety, mood problems, and a wish to be home schooled. S.C. Ex. 31. Dr. Abraham was in favor of proceeding with truancy proceedings, perhaps simultaneously with treatment. Id. Later in March, S.C. was hospitalized for cutting herself with a razor after an incident with some girls from school. S.C. Ex. 118 at 16.

From late April to mid-June, S.C. lived with her father. S.C. Ex. 33 at 2. During this period of time, her father took her off medication and S.C. did not regularly see a therapist. Id. During this period of time, however, she was getting to school more regularly. Id. For the 2012–2013 school year, S.C. missed sixty-five days of school and was late forty-one times. S.C. Ex. 35. S.C. was rated proficient with distinction in reading, substantially below proficient in math, and proficient in writing. S.C. Ex. 112 at 1.

S.C. attended summer school in 2013 and performed well: her portfolio grade was 93%, she had full attendance, and was not tardy. S.C. Ex. 37; Vol. I, 68:21–69:1. The following year, S.C. attended Curtis Corner Middle School. S.C. Ex. 40. Her grades were largely failing. Id.

Following another overdose (this time on Tylenol ) and hospitalization in January of 2014, S.C. returned to Chariho. S.C. Ex, 41; S.C. Ex. 43; Vol. I, 72:17–22. An agreed upon term of S.C.'s return was that she attend school daily. S.C. Ex. 44.

S.C. was hospitalized again in March. S.C. Ex. 45. She was cutting herself because she was distraught that her father did not text her for her birthday and that she had to go back to school. S.C. Ex. 45 at 1; Vol. I, 86:25–87:12. S.C. was provided with additional supports, including a social worker to help her at school, and a social worker to visit her at home. S.C. Exs. 46, 47.

Unfortunately, these additional resources did not help. See Vol. I, 89:25–90:8. S.C. continued to accumulate absences, was struggling academically, and risked being held back a grade. S.C. Exs. 50, 51. In addition, S.C. was hospitalized in May for suicidal thoughts and an inability to function. S.C. Ex. 52. Chariho determined S.C. was eligible for a 504 plan² and provided accommodations. S.C. Exs. 56, 57. Despite some academic improvements (see S.C. Ex. 58), S.C. was hospitalized again in September for contemplating suicide (S.C. Ex. 65).

October of 2014 was another busy month of evaluations. Brett Leimkuhler, PhD, conducted a neuropsychological evaluation of S.C. See S.C. Ex. 68. His diagnoses included Major Depressive Disorder, Severe; Anxiety Disorder; Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder; Learning Disorder; and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Id. at 1. Dr. Leimkuhler took issue with previous diagnoses of oppositional defiance, believing it contributed to a view that S.C.'s problems were behavioral and "willful," and not serious psychiatric issues. Id. at 2. Dr. Leimkuhler recommended S.C. be placed in a therapeutic school setting and that she remain in a hospital day program until a therapeutic school became available. Id. ; S.C. Ex. 121. Chariho also performed two evaluations of S.C. in October. S.C. Exs. 69, 70. At the end of the month, S.C. again was hospitalized for suicidal behavior. S.C. Exs. 71, 72; Vol. I, 111:15–22. After this, N.C. was willing to try RYSE again. Chariho Ex. 3 at 39.

In November, Chariho's team finally concluded that S.C. was eligible for special education services. S.C. Ex. 74 at 3. That month, the IEP team convened to develop an IEP; however, because S.C. had not been attending school, the team decided to gather information while S.C. was being home tutored. S.C. Ex. 77 at 4, 5; see S.C. Ex. 117. Dr. Leimkuhler again offered his opinion that S.C. needed a therapeutic placement, and that S.C. could not attend school for the remainder of the semester. S.C. Ex. 75. At the end of the month, S.C. was briefly hospitalized again for self-cutting. S.C. Ex. 118 at 35.

On December 31, 2014, S.C. was allegedly raped, and she was hospitalized one week later for worsening depression and suicidal ideation. S.C. Ex. 79; Vol. I, 120:10–121:11. Dr. Leimkuhler believed S.C. could not return to RYSE because the alleged perpetrator was a RYSE student; he believed S.C. needed a therapeutic school. S.C. Ex. 78.

On March 4, 2015, the IEP team met to revise the initial IEP. S.C. Ex. 89. N.C. provided Chariho with a summary of her concerns, outlining goals that she wished S.C. to achieve. S.C. Ex. 84. Both N.C. and Chariho also agreed to have Dr. Steven Feldman conduct an assessment of S.C. Vol. VIII, 33:13–21. The evaluation took place later that month. S.C. Ex. 85. Dr. Feldman believed that S.C. could attend RYSE and receive a FAPE as long as the risk of contact between S.C. and her alleged rapist were minimized and there was a safety plan in place should they come into contact. Id. at 6....