Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08072/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08072-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Raymond Parenteau and Jolene Parenteau,

husband and wife, and Raymond and

Jolene Parenteau on behalf of their minor

son, CP,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Prescott Unified School District, an

Arizona school district; Kevin J. Kapp,

Superintendent, Prescott Unified School

District; John Does I-V; Jane Does I-V;

and Black and White Corporations I-X, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-8072-PCT-NVW

FINDINGS OF FACT AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING

PLAINTIFFS’ IDEA CLAIM

and

ORDER

Plaintiffs Raymond Parenteau and Jolene Parenteau bring this action under the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et

seq., alleging that Defendants Prescott Unified School District (“the District”) and

Superintendent Kevin J. Kapp failed to provide a free appropriate public education to

their son Cody as required by federal law during the 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06

school years. On November 18 and 19, 2008, upon the parties’ request, a bench trial was

held on the Parenteaus’ IDEA claim before proceeding on their other claims, which

Plaintiffs concede are dependent on their IDEA claim.

Having reviewed the administrative proceedings, the transcript of the

administrative due process hearing, the evidence submitted by the parties in conjunction

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 80 Filed 12/11/08 Page 1 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

with their trial briefs, the stipulated trial exhibits, and the testimony of trial witnesses, the

Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

I. Standard of Review

Under the IDEA, any party aggrieved by the findings and decision rendered in an

administrative hearing conducted pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f) has the right to bring a

civil action for judicial review. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A). The reviewing district court

shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings, hear additional evidence at the

request of a party, and grant appropriate relief based on the preponderance of the

evidence. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C). Under the IDEA, the party seeking relief bears the

burden of proof. Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 456 U.S. 49, 62 (2005).

In reviewing the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), the district

court applies a modified de novo standard—an “unusual mixture of discretion and

deference.” Ojai Unified Sch. Dist. v. Jackson, 4 F.3d 1467, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1993). The

district court is not controlled by the ALJ’s recommendations and is not required to give a

high level of deference to the ALJ’s decision, but must give due weight to the ALJ’s

judgments regarding educational policy. Id. The district court has discretion to

determine how much deference to give to administrative findings, but may not simply

ignore administrative findings and must accord more deference to thorough and careful

administrative findings. L.M. ex rel. Sam M. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 538 F.3d

1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 2008). 

II. Procedural Background

On November 27, 2006, the Parenteaus filed the Due Process Complaint that is at

issue in this case. On March 21, 2007, an administrative hearing regarding the Due

Process Complaint was held. In the due process proceeding, the ALJ determined that the

two-year statutory limitation period for the Due Process Complaint applied and the

District had not made any misrepresentations or withheld any information that would

extend the limitation period. The ALJ, therefore, did not rule on any of the Parenteaus’

allegations regarding the 2003-04 school year, but did permit the parties to present

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 80 Filed 12/11/08 Page 2 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

background information regarding events before November 27, 2004, that were relevant

to services provided to Cody after November 27, 2004. The ALJ determined that the

District’s provision of special education services to Cody under the District’s 2004 and

2005 individualized education programs (“IEPs”) did not violate the IDEA. On May 14,

2007, the ALJ made thorough and careful findings rendered in an eighteen-page decision

to which the Court gives due weight. However, the Court would reach the conclusions it

does even if it gave no weight to the ALJ’s findings.

On August 10, 2007, the Parenteaus initiated this action alleging, among other

things, that the District violated the IDEA and they “are entitled to compensation for all

reasonable and necessary expenses including educational, medical and all other damages

associated with the gross failures to comply” with the IDEA. In Plaintiffs’ Opening Trial

Brief, the Parenteaus summarize their claim as follows:

This case presents squarely the issue of whether a school district may

successfully claim that it complied with the requirement of providing a free,

appropriate, public education (“FAPE”) to a child when it provides only

procedural compliance with the law, does not provide experts on the

particular disability the child possesses as part of the IEP team, does not

construct, modify, and measure progress under the IEP in accordance with

measurable goals and objectives, and does not convey or provide education

consistent with the best practices for education of children with autism, and

results in absolutely no educational progress.

The Parenteaus do not contend that they have incurred any out-of-pocket costs for

educational services for which they should be reimbursed. They seek monetary damages

to pay for educational services for Cody that will compensate for services that they

contend he should have received, but did not receive, during the 2003-04, 2004-05, and

2005-06 school years.

III. Findings of Fact

Ray and Jolene Parenteau adopted Cody at birth in June 1998. He was diagnosed

with autism when he was approximately 2.75 years old and was enrolled in a full-day

preschool autism program in California shortly before his third birthday. The Parenteaus

enrolled Cody in the District on August 12, 2003. At the time, the Parenteaus did not

know that they did not reside within District boundaries. There is no evidence that

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 80 Filed 12/11/08 Page 3 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

Cody’s enrollment in the District apparently as a boundary exception had any effect on

the services the District provided.

At the beginning of the 2003-04 school year, the District provided services to

Cody as prescribed by the IEP developed by his former school in California. Cody was

placed in a self-contained, cross-categorical special education class, which included

students classified as autistic and those classified as mildly or moderately mentally

retarded. 

When Cody began school in the District, at the age of five years old, he was

significantly delayed in speech and language, social interaction, and general knowledge. 

He did not respond to his name although he did respond to familiar voices. He could

name some objects and a few pictures. He could scribble, but he could not draw a

recognizable picture. He did not play with other children and needed an adult to direct

him through play activities. He could work well with an adult for a short time, but his

attention span was short, and it was difficult for him to complete a task without an adult

to redirect him. He could not drink from a cup and was not toilet trained. Cody ran from

adults and showed no signs of fear in unsafe situations. Throughout the 2003-04, 2004-

05, and 2005-06 school years, Cody was, at times, uncooperative with staff and his

parents, “flopping” on the floor instead of following directions, refusing to sit at a table,

and pinching, hitting, and spitting at staff. He was not toilet trained until 2008.

Mr. Parenteau testified that they did not maintain a consistent schedule for Cody at

home, although some experts recommended it, because they did not want Cody to become

dependent on a specific schedule. Mr. Parenteau testified that they treat Cody as if he

were not autistic. Mrs. Parenteau testified in deposition that Cody did have a schedule

for getting ready for school, eating dinner, and going to bed, but they did not require

Cody to have a “tight” schedule. For a six-month period, September 2005 to March 2006,

the Parenteaus were separated, and each week Cody slept at one parent’s home for several

consecutive nights and then switched to the other parent’s home. Before, during, and

following this period, Mrs. Parenteau had several surgeries and medication issues.

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 80 Filed 12/11/08 Page 4 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

On October 8, 2003, Cody’s IEP Team met and developed a new IEP for the

school year 2003-04. The IEP Team meeting participants were Mr. Parenteau, Cody’s

special education teacher, a District representative, an occupational therapist, and a

speech/language therapist. No regular education teacher participated in the IEP Team

meeting because Cody was placed in a self-contained special education classroom and not

expected to be in a regular education classroom except to visit a regular kindergarten

class for story time, accompanied by a special education paraprofessional. Although Mrs.

Parenteau did not attend the IEP Team meeting, she gave written consent for Cody’s 2003

IEP and educational placement.

In November 2003, the District hired a pediatric psychologist to observe and

evaluate Cody to determine the appropriateness of his educational placement and assist

with interventions. The psychologist administered thirteen formal assessments. In March

2004, the psychologist provided his evaluation report, which recommended continued

placement in special education under the classification of Autism, based on the diagnosis

of Pervasive Developmental Disorder. Although the psychologist observed significantly

delayed functioning in many areas, he found Cody’s nonverbal skills to be much stronger

than his verbal skills. He also found Cody’s attention and responsiveness varied

considerably. Therefore, the psychologist recommended using multiple teaching

approaches and to vary instruction to take advantage of Cody’s “teachable moments.” 

The psychologist also recommended limited mainstreaming, i.e., including Cody in some

activities of a regular education class, to be monitored and adjusted depending on Cody’s

stress level. 

The assessments conducted in November 2003 indicated that five-year-old Cody’s

cognitive development had an age equivalent of forty months, his overall communication

skills had an age equivalent of fifteen months, and his developmental age was twenty-two

months. Cody’s behavioral functioning measured by the Vineland Adaptive Behavior

Scales was below the first percentile and had an age equivalent of fifteen months.

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 80 Filed 12/11/08 Page 5 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

On October 4, 2004, Cody’s IEP Team met and developed his IEP for the school

year 2004-05. The IEP Team meeting participants were Mr. Parenteau, Cody’s special

education teacher, a District representative, an occupational therapist, a speech/language

therapist, and a regular education teacher. Now six years old, Cody responded to his

name, was able to say many words spontaneously, and said individual words and some

phrases to express a complete thought. He had learned to respond appropriately to the

word “no” and to work in a structured setting for 20-30 minutes. He still demonstrated

preschool-level academic skills and a short attention span, but he was beginning to

interact with other students to a small degree. He still would run from adults, but was

beginning to listen to adults when asked to stop. However, he still showed no sign of fear

in unsafe situations. Mr. Parenteau signed the 2004 IEP, which continued to place Cody

in the cross-categorical special education program.

The Parenteaus enrolled Cody in the A.S.S.I.S.T. program for the summer of 2005,

and the District paid for the summer program. The A.S.S.I.S.T. program was based on

Applied Behavioral Analysis. After two weeks, the Parenteaus withdrew Cody from the

program. Mr. Parenteau did so because he believed that the staff working with Cody

were inadequately trained and because Cody disliked the program so much that he cried

and refused to get out of the car. 

On October 26, 2005, Cody’s IEP Team met and developed his IEP for the school

year 2005-06. The IEP Team meeting participants were Mr. Parenteau, Cody’s special

education teacher, a District representative, an occupational therapist, a speech/language

therapist, and a regular education teacher. At this point, Cody, now seven years old,

responded to his name, said many words and two or three word phrases spontaneously,

and sought attention from adults through communication. His academic skills still were

at the preschool level. His coloring skills had improved, but he still did not draw a

recognizable picture. He still required assistance from an adult to keep him focused when

working at a table with a group of other students, but his attention span had improved. 

He still was not toilet trained, and he still had a tendency to run from adults. Cody rarely

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 80 Filed 12/11/08 Page 6 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

interacted with other students. He now was able to drink from a cup without assistance

and was learning to take responsibility, such as for putting things away. He was

improving his ability to wash his hands independently. Cody liked to put together

puzzles and was becoming skilled at doing so.

The District offered to send Cody to the A.S.S.I.S.T. program during the summer

of 2006, but the Parenteaus declined the offer. From August to October 2006, Cody did

not attend school in the District.

In November 2006 the District reevaluated Cody. He continued to have difficulty

focusing and sitting. The assessments conducted in November 2006 showed eight-yearold Cody continued to be significantly delayed in comparison to typical children his age. 

Cody’s November 2006 score on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior test was below the first

percentile as it was in the October 2003 evaluation.

The Parenteaus did not object to the nature and scope of either the 2003 or the

2006 educational evaluations the District provided for Cody. The Parenteaus did not

request an additional educational evaluation between the 2003 and the 2006 evaluations,

and the District did not deny any request for an additional educational evaluation.

All of the District teachers assigned to teach Cody during the 2003-04, 2004-05,

and 2005-06 school years held State of Arizona special education certification, and two of

three of them also were certified in cross-categorical special education. The State of

Arizona does not certify teachers specifically for autism, but the certification for crosscategorical special education includes autism. 

The District used multiple instructional and behavioral methods and strategies to

educate Cody, which included Discrete Trial Training, Applied Behavioral Analysis,

visual supports, the TEACCH model, one-on-one instruction, and extended-school-year

summer programs. These methods and strategies are generally accepted for the education

of autistic children and derived from educational theory and research. 

The Applied Behavioral Analysis method focuses on recording and shaping

specific, observable, target behaviors by giving and withholding precisely identified

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 80 Filed 12/11/08 Page 7 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 -

positive reinforcers. It requires one staff person to record and quantify observations

regarding a student’s behavior while another staff person interacts with the student. The

Applied Behavioral Analysis method creates an individualized program for each student

using a standard, structured approach. The Parenteaus believe that the Applied

Behavioral Analysis method has been effective for decreasing Cody’s negative behaviors

and increasing Cody’s use of language. During the school years 2003-04, 2004-05, and

2005-06, the District incorporated behavior management strategies similar to those used

in the Applied Behavioral Analysis method within Cody’s educational program, but did

not employ its rigorous, quantitative data collection and tightly structured reinforcement

scheme. The District permitted its teachers to adapt and use multiple approaches that in

the teachers’ opinion were best suited to teach Cody specific behaviors and concepts

based on his current individual needs and progress. 

In addition to classroom instruction, the District provided Cody occupational

therapy, speech/language therapy, and paraprofessional services during the 2003-04 and

2004-05 school years. During the 2005-06 school year, the District provided Cody with

occupational therapy, adaptive physical education, and paraprofessional services.

Cody’s IEPs were reviewed and revised annually. The Parenteaus never objected

to the 2003, 2004, or 2005 IEP Team membership. They never requested that an “autism

expert” be made part of the 2003, 2004, or 2005 IEP Teams. They participated in the

development of Cody’s 2003, 2004, and 2005 IEPs, never objected to any of those IEPs,

and formally consented to Cody’s educational placement based on those IEPs. During the

school years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06, the Parenteaus did not object to the

instructional and behavioral methods used to implement Cody’s IEPs. 

Cody’s 2003, 2004, and 2005 IEP goals and objectives were based upon

assessment data, were individualized for Cody’s needs, and were calculated to enable

Cody to make educational progress. In addition to recording daily observations, the

District staff who worked with Cody quarterly evaluated Cody’s progress toward meeting

his IEP goals and objectives using both qualitative and quantitative measures. 

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 80 Filed 12/11/08 Page 8 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -

Cody made meaningful progress toward each of his annual goals and objectives

identified in his 2003, 2004, and 2005 IEPs. Cody exceeded his expected progress, met

expected progress, or approached expected progress for each of his IEP goals in each of

the 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06 school years. There were no IEP goals in which

Cody made no progress or made less than expected progress. Cody, like many autistic

children, did not achieve educational progress at a constant rate. Cody’s IEP goals and

objectives were revised annually based on his educational progress.

The Parenteaus incurred no out-of-pocket costs for education-related services for

Cody from August 2003 through November 2006. The Parenteaus did not offer evidence

of any compensatory education services that would benefit Cody. 

IV. Conclusions of Law

A. Applicable Law

The IDEA establishes both procedural and substantive requirements. To

determine compliance with the IDEA, courts engage in a two-step inquiry, first to

examine procedural compliance, and second to examine “whether the individualized

educational program developed through the [IDEA’s] procedures was reasonably

calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” N.B. v. Hellgate Elem.

Sch. Dist., 541 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

To satisfy the substantive requirements of the IDEA, a school must provide a

“meaningful” educational benefit to a student with disabilities. Id. at 1212-13. 

One of the purposes of the IDEA is “to ensure that all children with disabilities

have available to them a free appropriate public education 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). 

The term “free appropriate public education” means:

...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;

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 80 Filed 12/11/08 Page 9 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 -

(C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or

secondary school education in the State involved; and

(D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education

program required under section 1414(d) of this title.

20 U.S.C. § 1401(9). An “individualized education program” or “IEP” must include “a

statement of the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional

performance”; “a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and

functional goals, designed to . . . enable the child to be involved in and make progress in

the general education curriculum”; “a description of how the child’s progress . . . will be

measured” and when it will be reported; “a statement of the special education and related

services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to the

extent practicable, to be provided to the child”; “an explanation of the extent, if any, to

which the child will not participate with nondisabled children in the regular class”; “a

statement of any individual appropriate accommodations that are necessary to measure

the academic achievement and functional performance of the child on State and

districtwide assessments”; and “the projected date for the beginning of the services and

modifications . . . and the anticipated frequency, location, and duration of those services

and modifications.” 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i).

The IEP Team must include the parents of a child with a disability; “not less than 1

regular education teacher of such child (if the child is, or may be, participating in the

regular education environment)”; “not less than 1 special education teacher, or where

appropriate, not less than 1 special education provider of such child”; and a school district

representative qualified to provide or supervise provision of “specially designed

instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities,” “knowledgeable about

the general education curriculum,” and “knowledgeable about the availability of

resources” of the district. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B). The IEP Team must include “an

individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results, who may

be a member” of one of the other categories. Id. Whenever appropriate, the child with a

disability should be included as a member of the IEP Team. Id. 

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 80 Filed 12/11/08 Page 10 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 11 -

After an initial evaluation determining that a child is a child with a disability, as

defined in the IDEA, a reevaluation of each child with a disability must be conducted if

the child’s parents or teacher requests a reevaluation or at least once every three years,

unless the parent and the local educational agency agree that a reevaluation is

unnecessary. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(2). 

The IDEA provides procedures for parents and schools to resolve disputes

regarding the provision of educational services to children with disabilities, including

opportunity to serve a due process complaint and request an impartial due process

hearing. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f). A parent or agency must request the hearing within two

years of the date the parent or agency knew or should have known about the alleged

action that forms the basis of the complaint. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C). The two-year

limit does not apply if the parent was prevented from requesting the hearing by “specific

misrepresentations by the local educational agency that it had resolved the problem

forming the basis of the complaint” or by “the local educational agency’s withholding of

information from the parent that was required ... to be provided to the parent.” 20 U.S.C.

§ 1415(f)(3)(D).

B. Analysis

The Court has jurisdiction to review the ruling of the ALJ pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331 and 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(A). 

1. A Two-Year Limitation Period Applies.

The IDEA limits the time within which to file a due process complaint to two years

with two exceptions. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C), (D). The exceptions are (i) when the

local educational agency made specific misrepresentations that it had resolved the

problem forming the basis of the complaint and (ii) when the local educational agency

withheld information from the parent that the IDEA requires the agency to provide to the

parent. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(D). 

The Parenteaus do not allege that the District misrepresented that it had resolved

the problem forming the basis of the complaint or that the District withheld information

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 80 Filed 12/11/08 Page 11 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 12 -

the IDEA expressly requires the District to provide to the parent. They contend only that

the District did not inform them that, allegedly, the District did not have an autism expert,

did not properly form Cody’s IEP Team, did not have qualified and adequately trained

personnel to teach autistic children, and paid for other autistic children to be served at

private schools specializing in education for autistic children. The Parenteaus provide no

authority that the IDEA would require such disclosures even if they were true. The IDEA

does not extend the time to file a due process complaint where, as here, the parents have

been fully informed of procedural requirements and rights under the IDEA and have

participated in and have been fully informed about all IEP proceedings for their son. 

Therefore, the ALJ correctly determined that the exceptions to the two-year

limitation period as set forth in 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(D) do not apply and properly

limited the Parenteaus’ claim to those events dating from November 27, 2004. Even if

the two-year limitation period did apply, it would not affect the outcome of this case

because, as described below, the Court finds no IDEA violation in 2003-04.

2. Superintendent Kapp Does Not Have Individual Liability Under

the IDEA.

The IDEA authorizes parents to file a due process complaint and requires the local

educational agency to respond to the due process complaint. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2). It

refers only to parents and the local educational agency in the context of the administrative

proceedings and provides that any aggrieved party “shall have the right to bring a civil

action with respect to the complaint presented pursuant to this section.” 20 U.S.C.

§ 1415(2)(A). The IDEA does not provide any procedure for adding individual school

officials to the due process complaint that forms the basis for a civil action. See also S.W.

by J.W. v. Warren, 528 F. Supp. 2d 282, 298 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (because the IDEA

abrogates state immunity under the Eleventh Amendment from claims for violations of

the statute, there is no justification to permit IDEA claims against individual defendants).

Therefore, Superintendent Kapp has no individual liability for the Parenteaus’

IDEA claim.

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 80 Filed 12/11/08 Page 12 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 13 -

3. Cody’s IEPs Were Reasonably Calculated to Enable Cody to

Receive a Meaningful Educational Benefit.

The Parenteaus contend that the District provided “only procedural compliance

with the law,” but failed to provide Cody with a free appropriate public education. Their

challenge relies primarily on allegations that Cody’s IEP Team should have included an

autism expert; Cody’s IEP goals and objectives should have been quantitatively

measurable; Cody’s progress under the IEPs should have been measured quantitatively;

the District should have provided Cody services based on the Applied Behavioral

Analysis methodology with intensive, quantitative data collection and precisely structured

reinforcement; and the District failed to provide Cody a meaningful educational benefit

because, in the parents’ opinion, did not make any educational progress in the school

years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06. 

The IDEA does not require the District to include an “autism expert” on Cody’s

IEP Team. The District included all of the people the IDEA requires to be included on an

IEP Team. Moreover, because the State of Arizona does not certify special education

autism experts, there would be no standard by which a school district could determine

who would qualify as an “autism expert.”

The District provided Cody with qualified special education teachers. In addition,

the District provided qualified paraprofessionals, a qualified speech/language therapist,

and a qualified occupational therapist.

The District satisfied the IDEA’s requirements for an initial evaluation and

reevaluation at least once every three years by providing educational evaluations in 2003

and 2006. 

The District satisfied the IDEA’s requirements for developing and revising Cody’s

IEPs with measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals. The

District also satisfied the IDEA’s requirements for reviewing Cody’s IEPs periodically,

but not less frequently than annually, to determine whether Cody was achieving his

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 80 Filed 12/11/08 Page 13 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 14 -

annual goals and for revising the IEPs to address any lack of expected progress, the

results of any reevaluation, and Cody’s anticipated needs.

Educational progress can be measured based on qualitative data as well as

quantitative data. Cody’s records demonstrate that he made slow, but significant,

educational progress during the school years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06. The IDEA

does not make the District a guarantor of each student’s educational progress.

The IDEA does not require the District or its teacher to use specific teaching

methods, strategies, or curricula. It requires the District to employ qualified educators

who make professional judgments regarding the most appropriate teaching methods,

strategies, and curricula to use based upon an individual student’s needs to deliver an IEP

calculated to provide meaningful educational benefit to that student. The District has

done so.

4. Even If the District Had Violated the IDEA, the Parenteaus

Would Not Be Entitled to Any Remedy.

The Parenteaus seek compensatory education for the District’s alleged failure to

provide Cody a free appropriate public education. The Parenteaus, understandably,

would like to somehow make up for progress they believe Cody did not make during a

period in which they allege he could have made more progress had he been provided

different educational services. However, during the administrative proceedings, pretrial

judicial proceedings, and even when asked by the Court during trial, the Parenteaus did

not disclose what specific compensatory education they seek for Cody. Even if they had

established by a preponderance of the evidence that the District failed to provide Cody a

free appropriate public education as required by the IDEA, the Parenteaus concede that

the District currently is providing Cody all of the services they have requested. 

It would make no sense to order the District to provide additional staff for Cody

because the District already provides two paraprofessionals to work with Cody, one to

interact with Cody using Applied Behavioral Analysis methods and one to collect data

regarding Cody’s behavior. Similarly, it would make no sense to order the District to

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 80 Filed 12/11/08 Page 14 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 15 -

provide additional training for those working with Cody because it appears the District

has provided the autism consultants and training for paraprofessionals the Parenteaus

have requested, and the Parenteaus claim to be “ecstatic” about Cody’s current progress. 

The District already provides Cody with summer programs, and the Parenteaus did not

produce any evidence that Cody would benefit from school-year services added on to the

full-day program the District currently provides him. The District already provides Cody

more than the IDEA requires and additional compensatory education would serve no

useful purpose.

Even if the District had failed to provide Cody a free appropriate public education

in any of the school years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06, the Court would not order

compensatory education for Cody where the Parenteaus did not request any specific

compensatory education, did not properly disclose a claim for any specific compensatory

education, and did not produce any evidence that such compensatory education likely

would enable Cody to make up for “lost time.” 

C. Conclusions

The Court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Cody’s IEPs for the

2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06 school years were reasonably calculated to provide

meaningful educational benefit, and the District did not fail to provide Cody a free

appropriate public education as required by the IDEA. The Court adopts all of the ALJ’s

findings and affirms her decision.

The foregoing opinion constitutes findings of fact and conclusions of law in

accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).

V. Remaining Claims

In addition to Count One (Violation of IDEA), Plaintiff’s Complaint includes

Count Two (42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Violation of IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

Act of 1973, as amended), Count Three (Violation of Due Process and Denial of Property

and Liberty Interests in a Free Public Education), and Count Seven [sic] (42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)). Although the IDEA does not restrict

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 80 Filed 12/11/08 Page 15 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 16 -

 rights and remedies independently available through other sources of law, “where the

underlying claim is one of violation of the IDEA, plaintiffs may not use § 1983–or any

other federal statute for that matter–in an attempt to evade the limited remedial structure

of the IDEA.” Diaz-Fonseca v. Puerto Rico, 451 F.3d 13, 29 (1st Cir. 2006). During trial

on Count One, Plaintiffs conceded they must withdraw at least one of their claims. 

The Complaint does not allege facts beyond the bare minimum to support the

IDEA claim, and the Court has determined that the District provided Cody with a free

appropriate public education and has not violated the IDEA. The rest of the Complaint

does not appear to state a claim upon which relief can be granted on any legal basis. 

Therefore, the Plaintiffs will be ordered to show cause why the rest of the Complaint

should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ appeal under the IDEA from the

Administrative Law Judge Decision dated May 14, 2007, in No. 07C-DP-07019-ADE, is

denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs show cause by December 24, 2008,

why the remainder of the Complaint beyond Count One (Violation of IDEA) should not

be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

Defendants may file a response by January 16, 2009, and Plaintiffs may file a reply by

January 23, 2009.

DATED this 11th day of December, 2008.

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 80 Filed 12/11/08 Page 16 of 16