Uhlenkamp v. Dist. of Columbia

691 F.Supp.3d 224

Bowen UHLENKAMP and Sadaf Lakhani, parents of the minor child A.U., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.

Case No. 1:21-cv-2662 (TNM)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

Signed September 12, 2023

Alana Michelle Hecht, D.C. Disability Law Group, P.C., Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Veronica A. Porter, Office of the Attorney General for D.C., Washington, DC, for Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TREVOR N. MCFADDEN, United States District Judge

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Robin M. Meriweather, which was filed on August 28, 2023. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), parties may lodge written objections to such a Report and Recommendation within 14 days of being served. That time expired on September 11, 2023, without any objections.

Having carefully reviewed the findings and conclusions contained in Magistrate Judge Meriweather's Report and Recommendation, the Court will adopt in full the Report and Recommendation as the findings and conclusions of this Court.

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the absence of objections, and the entire record, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is adopted by the Court; it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs' [49] Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED in PART insofar as that motion seeks reversal of the Hearing Officer's determination on the child find claim and IEP implementation claim. And it is

ORDERED that Defendant's [50] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is and GRANTED in PART on those same points. And it is

ORDERED that Plaintiffs' [49] Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in PART insofar as that motion seeks to remand the Hearing Officer's decisions on whether the April, May, and December IEPs violated A.U.'s right to a FAPE and whether Plaintiffs were entitled to tuition reimbursement. And it is

ORDERED that Defendant's [50] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED in PART insofar as it seeks to affirm those decisions. And it is

ORDERED that this case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings on those issues.

SO ORDERED.

This is a final, appealable Order.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ROBIN M. MERIWEATHER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case arises from administrative proceedings that Plaintiffs Bowen Uhlenkamp and Sadaf Lakhani ("Plaintiffs" or "Parents" or "Mr. Uhlenkamp" or "Ms. Lakhani") brought against the District of Columbia ("the District"), under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq., to challenge the District of Columbia Public Schools' ("DCPS") provision of a free and appropriate public education ("FAPE") for Plaintiffs' minor child A.U. ("A.U." or "the Student"). See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. Specifically, Plaintiffs challenge certain findings made in a July 19, 2021 Hearing Officer Determination ("HOD") issued by the District of Columbia's Office of the State Superintendent of Education and ask the Court to reverse the HOD and remand for further proceedings. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden referred the matter to the undersigned for a report and recommendation. See Oct. 18, 2021 Min. Order.

In the Parents' pending Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on behalf of their child A.U., they allege that the Impartial Hearing Officer ("Hearing Officer") erred in the following ways: (1) by inappropriately applying the burden on the Plaintiffs; (2) by failing to find that DCPS denied A.U. a FAPE by not concluding A.U. was eligible for special education services at least as far back as January 2019; (3) by failing to find that the (i) April 10, 2019, (ii) May 30, 2019, and (iii) December 17, 2019 individualized educational plans ("IEPs") were inappropriate; (4) by failing to find that the Parents were entitled to tuition reimbursement for the unilateral placement of A.U. in a private school; and (5) by failing to find that DCPS denied A.U. a FAPE by failing to implement the IEPs from May and December of 2019. See Pls.' Am. Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ J., ECF No. 55-1 ("Pls.' Mem."); Pls.' Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 49 ("Pls.' Mot.").¹ The District has cross moved for summary judgment and contends that the HOD should be affirmed because the applicable law and the record developed during the administrative proceedings support the Hearing Officer's rulings. See Def.'s Opp'n to Pls.' Mot. for Summ. J. & Cross Mot. for Summ. J. ("Def.'s Mot."), ECF No. 50.

Having considered the relevant filings,² the administrative record,³ and the applicable law, and for the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the Court GRANT-IN-PART and DENY-IN-PART Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, and GRANT-IN-PART and DENY-IN-PART Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

BACKGROUND

I. Statutory Framework

Congress enacted the IDEA to ensure that children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services tailored to each child's 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. D.C., 817 F.3d 792, 794 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Under the IDEA, children with disabilities who reside in the school district are "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 to develop an IEP to meet the child's needs. See id. §§ 1412(a)(4), 1414(d)(1)(B). A FAPE includes:

special education and related services that (A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; (B) meet the standards of the State educational agency; (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and (D) are provided in conformity with [a child's] individualized education program.

Id. § 1401(9).

If a parent of a student 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 the parent to file a complaint and request an "impartial due process hearing." Id. §§ 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. See id. §§ 1415(f), (h). The independent hearing officer then issues a HOD, in which the hearing officer determines whether DCPS denied the student a FAPE and, if so, orders an appropriate remedy. See 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 id. § 1415(i)(2).

II. Factual Background

The events most pertinent to this case occurred during the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 school years. During the 2018-2019 school year, A.U. became eligible for special education services based on an IDEA classification of multiple disabilities ("MD"), specific learning disability ("SLD"), and other health impairment ("OHI"). See AR 176.

A. A.U.'s Earlier Years: 2017-2018 School Year

A.U. was enrolled in fourth grade during the 2017-2018 school year at Janney Elementary School ("Janney"), a public school in the District of Columbia. See AR 99. A.U.'s report card from this school year reflected that he was "proficient" or "advanced" in all classes but one for each of the four terms. See id. Despite this positive performance, A.U. received a response to intervention ("RTI") due to difficulties he faced in participation and focus. See AR 1876. At the request of A.U.'s parents, in March 2018, Dr. Danielle Short, a school psychologist, conducted a social-emotional/behavior functioning screening in which A.U.'s parents and teachers completed various assessments that addressed A.U.'s behavior (BASC-3; Conners-3; and BRIEF02). See AR 93, 2168. In a meeting between DCPS and the Plaintiffs shortly after the assessments concluded, DCPS informed Plaintiffs that they could get A.U. diagnosed by a private provider or receive an RTI. See AR 2163-66. The parties met again to discuss Dr. Short's findings in June 2018; Dr. Short found that A.U. "would benefit from guidance counseling support and/or cognitive behavioral therapy to address . . . areas of concern" such as A.U.'s "attention, anxiety, depression, social engagement, and executive functioning" as well as his difficulty "following multiple-step directions, initiating independent tasks, organizing his materials, and maintaining work stamina." AR 93. Dr. Wood, the support coordinator at Janney, suggested to the Parents that A.U. could receive outside therapy and undergo additional outside testing. See AR 2106-07, 2162.

B. A.U.'s April and May IEPs: 2018-2019 School Year

During the 2018-2019 school year, A.U. was enrolled in fifth grade at Janney. In a mid-term progress report from October 2018, teachers informed the Parents that A.U. was "presenting some academic difficulty" in reading. AR 103. Despite this, A.U.'s first term report card showed that he achieved "basic" marks in reading, he was "proficient" in all other subjects, and he needed "limited" or "no" prompting in work habits, personal skills, and social skills. AR 106. Consistent with his report card, a teacher commented that he was "reading on grade level." AR 104. However, in November 2018, teachers raised concerns regarding A.U.'s struggles focusing in class. See AR 299-300. In December 2018, A.U. presented additional struggles. A.U.'s teachers informed Plaintiffs that A.U. was performing below grade expectations in writing and reading. See AR 111-12. Indeed, A.U.'s second term report card revealed that he was "proficient" in all subjects except for reading and writing & language, where he received "basic" marks. AR 116. Unlike the...