Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01320/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01320-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
County School Board of Hanover County, Virginia
Appellant
J. P.
Appellee
Karl Peterson
Appellee
Linda Peterson
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

J. P., a minor, by and through his 

parents and next friends, Karl

Peterson and Linda Peterson; KARL

PETERSON; LINDA PETERSON,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF HANOVER

COUNTY, VIRGINIA,

Defendant-Appellant.  No. 06-2068

VIRGINIA SCHOOL BOARDS

ASSOCIATION,

Amicus Supporting Appellant,

CHILDREN’S LAW CENTER, of the

University of Richmond School of

Law; VIRGINIA OFFICE FOR

PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY,

Amici Supporting Appellees. 

J. P., a minor, by and through his 

parents and next friends, Karl

Peterson and Linda Peterson; KARL

PETERSON; LINDA PETERSON,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,  No. 07-1320

v.

COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF HANOVER

COUNTY, VIRGINIA,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal: 07-1320 Doc: 64 Filed: 02/14/2008 Pg: 1 of 14
Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(3:06-cv-00028-REP)

Argued: December 6, 2007

Decided: February 14, 2008

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge Traxler wrote the

opinion, in which Judge Niemeyer and Senior Judge Hamilton joined.

COUNSEL

ARGUED: (No. 06-2068) John Francis Cafferky, BLANKINGSHIP

& KEITH, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Philip Carter Strother, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. (No. 07-1320) Bradford

Allen King, HARRELL & CHAMBLISS, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellant. Robert Jackson Allen, STROTHER LAW OFFICES,

P.L.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: (No. 06-

2068) Yvonne S. Wellford, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Hanover, Virginia; Bradford A. King, HARRELL & CHAMBLISS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert Jackson Allen,

STROTHER LAW OFFICES, P.L.C., Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees. Kathleen S. Mehfoud, REED SMITH, L.L.P., Richmond,

Virginia, for Amicus Supporting Appellant. Adrienne E. Volenik,

Director, Jovonni Armstead, Kathleen Murphy, Rebecca Rockwood,

Andrea Tompkins, Jerrell Williams, Third Year Law Students, Disability Law Clinic, Children’s Law Center, RICHMOND SCHOOL

OF LAW, University of Richmond, Virginia; Jonathan Martinis, VIRGINIA OFFICE FOR PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY, Richmond, Virginia, for Amici Supporting Appellees. (No. 07-1320)

Yvonne S. Wellford, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY,

2 J. P. v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD

Appeal: 07-1320 Doc: 64 Filed: 02/14/2008 Pg: 2 of 14
Hanover, Virginia, for Appellant. Philip Carter Strother, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellees. 

OPINION

TRAXLER, Circuit Judge: 

In this case arising under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), the parents of J.P., a young boy with autism, challenged the sufficiency of an individualized education program ("IEP")

developed for J.P by the County School Board of Hanover County,

Virginia. After the state hearing officer concluded that the IEP was

adequate, the parents sought to overturn that decision in federal district court. Examining the case de novo, the district court determined

that the hearing officer’s factual findings were not regularly made and

were entitled to no deference. The district court concluded that the

IEP for J.P. was not adequate, that the private school where the parents had enrolled J.P. was an appropriate placement, and that the

School Board was therefore obligated to pay the costs of the private

school. In a subsequent order, the district court awarded the parents,

as prevailing parties, attorneys fees and costs of more than $180,000.

The School Board appeals the district court’s decision on the merits

of the parents’ IDEA claims (appeal no. 06-2068) and separately

appeals the attorney’s fee order (appeal no. 07-1320). 

We conclude that the district court failed to give the required deference to the state hearing officer’s decision, and we therefore vacate

the district court’s order (no. 06-2068) and remand with instructions

that the district court reconsider the question of the appropriateness

of the IEP proposed for J.P. We likewise vacate the district court’s

order awarding attorney’s fees and costs (no. 07-1320), and we

remand for reconsideration of the parents’ entitlement, should they

remain prevailing parties, to an award of attorney’s fees. 

I. Appeal No. 06-2068

Under the IDEA, all states receiving federal funds for education

must provide disabled schoolchildren with a "free appropriate public

J. P. v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 3

Appeal: 07-1320 Doc: 64 Filed: 02/14/2008 Pg: 3 of 14
education" ("FAPE"). 20 U.S.C.A. § 1412(a)(1)(A) (West Supp.

2007). A FAPE "consists of educational instruction specially designed

to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child, . . . supported by

such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from the

instruction." Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 188-89 (1982)

(internal quotation marks omitted).1

A school provides a FAPE by developing an IEP for each disabled

child. Appropriate IEPs "must contain statements concerning a disabled child’s level of functioning, set forth measurable annual

achievement goals, describe the services to be provided, and establish

objective criteria for evaluating the child’s progress." MM v. School

Dist., 303 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2002); see 20 U.S.C.A.

§ 1414(d)(1)(A). An IEP is sufficient if it is "reasonably calculated to

enable the child to receive educational benefits." Rowley, 458 U.S. at

207. 

A.

J.P. was born on January 4, 1994, and was diagnosed as autistic at

eighteen months. In 2001, J.P. began school as a first grader in a special education program at Battlefield Park Elementary School in Hanover County. The parents were not satisfied with the progress J.P. was

making at Battle Creek, and in May 2003, the parents enrolled him

in the Spiritos School, a private school specializing in the education

of autistic children. 

Spiritos uses the "applied behavioral analysis" ("ABA") approach

to teaching autistic children. The ABA approach is a form of the

Lovaas methodology, which "relies heavily on extremely structured

teaching and comprehensive data collection and analysis." Deal v.

Hamilton County Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840, 845-46 (6th Cir. 2004);

see G v. Fort Bragg Dependent Sch., 343 F.3d 295, 300 n.6 (4th Cir.

2003). The central component of the Lovaas-ABA methodology is

1The Rowley Court was considering the requirements of the "Education of the Handicapped Act." See Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S.

176, 179 (1982). That act was amended in 1990 and retitled as the IDEA.

See Gadsby ex rel. Gadsby v. Grasmick, 109 F.3d 940, 942 n.1 (4th Cir.

1997). 

4 J. P. v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD

Appeal: 07-1320 Doc: 64 Filed: 02/14/2008 Pg: 4 of 14
"discrete trial" training or therapy, which "involves breaking down

activities into discrete tasks and rewarding a child’s accomplishments." MM, 303 F.3d at 528 n.8. Research has indicated that early

intervention with ABA methods can be very successful. See Deal, 392

F.3d at 845 n.2.

J.P. made significant gains at Spiritos during the following year.

The parents, however, returned him to the public school system for

the 2004-05 school year, because they wanted him to succeed in the

public school setting. 

The IEP developed by the School Board for the 2004-05 school

year (the "2004 IEP") placed J.P. in a self-contained special education

class at Rural Point Elementary School. An addendum to the 2004

IEP provided for an instructional aide to be assigned to J.P. exclusively, thus giving J.P. one-on-one instruction. The IEP stated that the

aide would "receive[ ] training in methods that are proven to work"

with autistic children, and that the Board would "arrange for the aide

to receive training from a Certified Behavior Analyst from a program

such as the Faison School."2 J.A. 192. The addendum also stated that

J.P.’s academic setting "will include opportunities for [J.P.] to receive

discrete trials when and where the instructional personnel deem

appropriate." J.A. 192. 

Although the parents agreed to the 2004 IEP, they quickly became

concerned about J.P.’s progress at Rural Point. By June 2005, the parents had concluded that J.P. was regressing rather than progressing

under the 2004 IEP. The School Board, however, believed that J.P.

was making sufficient progress under the IEP, and the board proposed

for the 2005-06 school year an IEP (the "2005 IEP") that was essentially the same as the 2004 IEP. Because the parents believed that J.P.

had made no progress under the 2004 IEP, they also believed that he

would not make progress under the largely identical 2005 IEP. The

parents requested that J.P. be placed (at public expense) in a private

specialty school like Spiritos. When the county denied that request,

the parents enrolled J.P. in the Dominion School, a private school for

2The Faison School is a private school that uses ABA methodology to

teach autistic children. See County Sch. Bd. v. Z.P., 399 F.3d 298, 301

(4th Cir. 2005). 

J. P. v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 5

Appeal: 07-1320 Doc: 64 Filed: 02/14/2008 Pg: 5 of 14
autistic children. In accordance with their rights under the IDEA, see

20 U.S.C.A. § 1415(f)(1), the parents sought a due process hearing to

determine whether the proposed 2005 IEP was adequate to provide

J.P. with a FAPE. 

After considering the evidence presented during the due process

hearing, the state hearing officer rejected the parents’ request that the

School Board reimburse them for the cost of J.P.’s tuition at Dominion, concluding that J.P. had made more than minimal progress during

the 2004-2005 school year and that both the 2004 IEP and the proposed 2005 IEP were appropriate under the IDEA and governing law.

The parents then commenced this action in federal district court seeking review of the hearing officer’s ruling. 

The district court determined that the hearing officer’s factual findings were not regularly made and were therefore entitled to no deference. Resolving the underlying factual questions de novo, the district

court concluded that J.P. had made no progress at Rural Point under

the 2004 IEP. And because the 2005 IEP was, in essence, a continuation of the 2004 IEP, the district court concluded that the 2005 IEP

was not reasonably calculated to enable J.P. to receive educational

benefits. The district court concluded that Dominion was an appropriate placement for J.P. and that the School Board must therefore reimburse the parents for the costs of educating J.P. at Dominion. This

appeal followed. 

B.

The appropriateness of an IEP is the central issue in most IDEA

cases. Whether an IEP is appropriate is a factual question, see DiBuo

v. Board of Educ., 309 F.3d 184, 188 n.8 (4th Cir. 2002), one that the

IDEA charges the district court with answering based on the preponderance of the evidence, see 20 U.S.C.A. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii); Kirkpatrick v. Lenoir County Bd. of Educ., 216 F.3d 380, 384 (4th Cir.

2000). The IDEA, however, also requires the district court to "receive

the records of the administrative proceedings," 20 U.S.C.A.

§ 1415(i)(2)(C)(i), an obligation that "carries with it the implied

requirement that due weight shall be given to these proceedings."

Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206. 

6 J. P. v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD

Appeal: 07-1320 Doc: 64 Filed: 02/14/2008 Pg: 6 of 14
In this circuit, we interpret Rowley’s "due weight" requirement to

mean that the findings of fact made in the state administrative proceedings must "be considered prima facie correct, akin to the traditional sense of permitting a result to be based on such fact-finding,

but not requiring it." Doyle v. Arlington County Sch. Bd., 953 F.2d

100, 105 (4th Cir. 1991). If the findings are not "regularly made,"

however, they are not entitled to deference. Id.; see also County Sch.

Bd. v. Z.P., 399 F.3d 298, 305 (4th Cir. 2005) ("[F]actual findings

made during the state administrative proceeding are entitled to a presumption of correctness, so long as the findings were ‘regularly

made.’"). 

The district court in this case believed that the hearing officer’s

decision did not sufficiently explain how the hearing officer assessed

the credibility of the witnesses and did not provide a sufficiently

detailed analysis of the hearing officer’s resolution of the legal and

factual issues in the case. The district court concluded that these deficiencies in the hearing officer’s opinion prevented the court from

determining that the factual findings were regularly made, and the

district court therefore gave no weight to the hearing officer’s findings. 

On appeal, the School Board contends that the district court erred

by giving the hearing officer’s opinion no weight. The School Board

argues that the deficiencies identified by the district court do not support the conclusion that the hearing officer’s findings were not regularly made. "Whether a district court has accorded the proper due

weight to the administrative proceedings is a question of law—or at

least a mixed question of law and fact—to be reviewed de novo by

an appellate court." MM, 303 F.3d at 531 (internal quotation marks

omitted). 

(1)

When determining whether a hearing officer’s findings were regularly made, our cases have typically focused on the process through

which the findings were made: "Factual findings are not regularly

made if they are reached through a process that is far from the

accepted norm of a fact-finding process." Z.P., 399 F.3d at 305 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Doyle, 953 F.2d at 105 ("[I]n

J. P. v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 7

Appeal: 07-1320 Doc: 64 Filed: 02/14/2008 Pg: 7 of 14
deciding what is the due weight to be given an administrative decision

under Rowley, we think a reviewing court should examine the way in

which the state administrative authorities have arrived at their administrative decision and the methods employed."). In this case, there is

nothing in the record suggesting that the hearing officer’s process in

resolving the case was anything other than ordinary. That is, the hearing officer conducted a proper hearing, allowing the parents and the

School Board to present evidence and make arguments, and the hearing officer by all indications resolved the factual questions in the normal way, without flipping a coin, throwing a dart, or otherwise

abdicating his responsibility to decide the case. Indeed, none of the

deficiencies in the hearing officer’s opinion identified by the district

court have anything to do with the process through which the hearing

officer made the required factual findings; as we will explain, the district court’s criticisms instead focus on the manner in which the hearing officer expressed his view of the case. 

Although our IDEA cases have generally focused on the process of

fact-finding when determining whether a hearing officer’s factual

findings were regularly made and thus entitled to deference, we

assume that, in a proper case, the manner in which a hearing officer’s

factual findings are presented could be so deficient as to deprive the

opinion of the deference to which it would otherwise be entitled under

Rowley and Doyle. Cf. Springer v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd., 134 F.3d

659, 663 n.* (4th Cir. 1998) (concluding that Doyle did not require

that deference be given to the opinion of the first-level state hearing

officer over that of the state officer reviewing that opinion in part

because the decision of the first-level state hearing officer was "both

cursory and conclusory" and thus was properly rejected by the

reviewing officer). The question, then, is whether the hearing officer’s

opinion in this case was so deficient as to warrant the district court’s

rejection of the hearing officer’s factual findings. 

(2)

In his written opinion, the hearing officer stated that he "found all

the witnesses credible, and all the experts qualified to testify within

their fields." J.A. 141. The hearing officer also specifically found

J.P.’s mother to be a very knowledgeable and credible witness, but the

8 J. P. v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD

Appeal: 07-1320 Doc: 64 Filed: 02/14/2008 Pg: 8 of 14
opinion otherwise contains no specifics about the hearing officer’s

view of the credibility of the witnesses. 

The district court found the hearing officer’s opinion to be "virtually useless in assessing the credibility of the witnesses." J.A. 1828.

The district court explained that

Under Doyle, a hearing officer’s credibility determinations

are to be given due weight where they are normally made.

However, because the State Hearing Officer here made no

credibility determinations except with respect to [the

mother], obviously no weight can be given to the State

Hearing Officer’s absent credibility determination. . . . 

Where, as here, the testimony of the witnesses, factual

and expert, are at odds over important points, often significantly so, a finding that all witnesses are credible means that

disparate, sometimes dramatically opposed, recitations of

fact are accepted as true. That is neither possible nor helpful,

and it certainly makes it impossible to give any weight to

the State Hearing Officer’s factual findings. 

J.A. 1829. On appeal, the School Board contends that the hearing

officer’s explanation of his credibility assessments was sufficient and

that the district court therefore erred by using the hearing officer’s

approach to the credibility issue as a basis for rejecting the hearing

officer’s findings. We agree. 

Preliminarily, we confess some puzzlement over the district court’s

view of the credibility question. We find nothing improper or unusual

in the hearing officer’s statement that he found all witnesses credible.

As we understand it, the statement simply means that the hearing officer determined that all of the witnesses believed what they told the

hearing officer. That is, the statement reflects the hearing officer’s

view that, for example, the School Board’s witnesses believed J.P.

made progress under the 2004 IEP and thus were not lying when they

testified to that effect, and the parents’ witnesses similarly believed

J.P regressed under the 2004 IEP and thus were not lying when they

testified to that effect. The hearing officer’s belief that all of the witnesses were testifying about the facts as the witnesses perceived them

J. P. v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 9

Appeal: 07-1320 Doc: 64 Filed: 02/14/2008 Pg: 9 of 14
to be does not mean, as the district court concluded, that the hearing

officer must have accepted as true "disparate, sometimes dramatically

opposed, recitations of fact." J.A. 1829. It means only that the hearing

officer could not dispose of the case by branding the witnesses of one

side or the other as dissemblers unworthy of belief, and that the hearing officer was therefore required to decide whether he found the

School Board’s evidence or the parents’ evidence to be more persuasive. 

While the hearing officer did not explicitly state that he found the

School Board’s witnesses more persuasive, our case law does not

require an IDEA hearing officer to offer a detailed explanation of his

credibility assessments. See Z.P., 399 F.3d at 306 ("Doyle . . . requires

the district court to explain its reasons for rejecting the findings of the

hearing officer; it does not require the hearing officer to explain in

detail its reasons for accepting the testimony of one witness over that

of another."). Moreover, because the hearing officer ultimately determined that J.P. made more than minimal progress under the 2004 IEP

and that the 2005 IEP was adequate (views that were advocated by

the School Board’s witnesses and disagreed with by the parents’ witnesses), it is apparent that the hearing officer in fact found the School

Board’s evidence more persuasive. Such implicit credibility assessments "are as entitled to deference under Doyle as explicit findings."

Id. at 307. Accordingly, the district court erred by relying on the

absence of explicit credibility findings to conclude that the hearing

officer’s findings were not regularly made and thus were not entitled

to deference under Doyle. 

(3)

The district court also concluded that deference to the hearing officer’s findings was not required because the hearing officer’s opinion

was insufficiently detailed. For example, the district court criticized

the hearing officer’s "terse, conclusory" summaries of testimony, J.A.

1828, and the court stated that the hearing officer’s "failure to recite,

much less differentiate and evaluate, the opinions of experts makes it

impossible to identify the hearing officer’s views on the expert evidence." J.A. 1829. According to the district court, "the complete lack

of written analysis in the State Hearing Officer’s opinion" prevented

10 J. P. v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD

Appeal: 07-1320 Doc: 64 Filed: 02/14/2008 Pg: 10 of 14
the court from determining whether the hearing officer’s findings of

fact were regularly made. J.A. 1831.

The School Board argues on appeal that the hearing officer’s opinion was sufficiently detailed to permit the district court to understand

the basis for the hearing officer’s resolution of the parents’ claims.

The School Board contends that the level of detail and explanation

demanded by the district court far exceeds that required by the IDEA

and this court’s case law and is unreasonable given the role of a state

hearing officer and the nature of IDEA administrative proceedings.

We agree. 

As the School Board observes, the hearing officer’s opinion complied with all statutory requirements. The opinion clearly satisfied the

federal requirement that the administrative fact-finding and decision

be in writing unless the parents request the decision in electronic

form. See 20 U.S.C.A. § 1415(h)(4); 34 C.F.R. § 300.512(a)(5)

(2007). The hearing officer’s opinion likewise satisfied Virginia’s

requirement that the opinion include written determinations of

whether the parents received proper notice, whether the child has a

disability, whether the child needs special education and related services, and whether the school is providing a free and appropriate education. See 8 Va. Admin. Code § 20-80-76(J)(17). And while we have

on occasion remanded IDEA cases to the hearing officer when the

opinion failed to address a critical issue, see, e.g., JH v. Henrico

County Sch. Bd., 326 F.3d 560, 568-69 (4th Cir. 2003), our case law

has never suggested that any particular level of detail is required in

the hearing officer’s decision. If anything, our case law suggests that

the level of detail required of a hearing officer is relatively low. Cf.

Z.P., 399 F.3d at 306 (explaining that Doyle "does not require the

hearing officer to explain in detail its reasons for accepting the testimony of one witness over that of another"). 

In this case, we simply cannot conclude that the hearing officer’s

opinion was insufficiently detailed. The 25-page opinion included

summaries of the witnesses’ testimony, an outline of the relevant

legal standards, and the hearing officer’s findings of fact and legal

conclusions. Although the district court stated that the hearing officer

failed to even recite the opinions of the expert witnesses, the opinion

in fact summarized the expert testimony, just as it did the lay testiJ. P. v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 11

Appeal: 07-1320 Doc: 64 Filed: 02/14/2008 Pg: 11 of 14
mony. While the summaries were relatively short (typically a page or

two), the summaries by and large captured the essence of the witnesses’ testimony on the central issues of the case. Under these circumstances, the district court’s description of the opinion as

completely lacking in written analysis is difficult to understand. 

We recognize, however, that the hearing officer’s opinion could

have been more thorough. As the district court noted, only two of the

factual findings made by the hearing officer addressed issues about

which the parties disagreed, and those findings are about as bareboned as they could be. See J.A. 147 ("During the 2004-2005 school

year, [J.P] made progress in speech and language, behavior, and academics. . . . This progress was not minimal or trivial."). And while

it is apparent that the hearing officer was persuaded by the School

Board’s evidence and its assertion that J.P. was making progress

under the 2004 IEP, the opinion offers no explanation of which evidence the hearing officer found to be most important or why the hearing officer was persuaded by the School Board’s evidence. As we

noted above, however, neither the governing statutes, regulations, or

case law requires the hearing officer to provide the detailed analysis

demanded by the district court. While it would of course be preferable

for hearing officers to explain their analysis in as much detail as possible, a hearing officer’s failure to meet this aspirational standard does

not provide a basis for concluding that the factual findings contained

in a statutorily compliant written opinion were not regularly made and

therefore not entitled to deference.3

3Assuming that a hearing officer’s opinion could be so short on details

that it could not be effectively reviewed by the district court, the district

court would not be entitled to simply reject the hearing officer’s findings

out-of-hand. Given the statutory requirement that the district court "receive the records of the administrative proceedings," 20 U.S.C.A.

§ 1415(i)(2)(C)(i), and the Rowley Court’s requirement that the district

court give due weight to the findings made by the hearing officer, we

believe the proper course of action would be for the district court to

remand the matter to give the hearing officer an opportunity to flesh out

his opinion. See, e.g., JH v. Henrico County Sch. Bd., 326 F.3d 560, 568-

69 (4th Cir. 2003) (remanding to hearing officer because hearing officer

did not make findings on critical issue). 

12 J. P. v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD

Appeal: 07-1320 Doc: 64 Filed: 02/14/2008 Pg: 12 of 14
It must be remembered that in Virginia, the IDEA hearing officers

are lawyers appointed through the Supreme Court of Virginia to serve

as judges in IDEA due process hearings. See generally Hearing Officer Sys. Rules of Administration, http://www.courts.state.va.us/

publications/hearing_officer.html (last visited Jan. 17, 2008); see also

8 Va. Admin. Code § 20-80-76(D). The hearing officers operate

under tight time constraints—in non-expedited cases, a written opinion must be issued within 45 days after a request for a due process

hearing is received. See 8 Va. Admin. Code § 20-80-76(L)(1). As

pointed out by an amicus in this case, this short time-frame means

that the written opinions may be issued before a transcript has been

prepared. Under these circumstances, hearing officers (who have no

state-provided law clerks or clerical support) cannot be expected to

craft opinions with the level of detail and analysis we expect from a

district judge. By rejecting the hearing officer’s opinion in this case

for lack of detail, the district court improperly held the hearing officer

to a standard not dictated by statute or case law and one which

ignored the constraints under which an IDEA hearing officer operates.

C.

For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that none of the deficiencies in the hearing officer’s opinion identified by the district court

are sufficient to support the district court’s determination that the

hearing officer’s factual findings were entitled to no deference

because they were not regularly made. Accordingly, we hereby vacate

the district court’s judgment and remand for reconsideration of the

question of the adequacy of the 2005 IEP. See Z.P., 399 F.3d at 310-

11 (remanding for reconsideration by district court under the proper

legal standard because the district court improperly rejected findings

of hearing officer as "not regularly made" and thus gave them no

weight). On remand, the district court shall reconsider whether the

2005 IEP was adequate to fulfill the School Board’s obligation to provide J.P. with a free appropriate public education, giving deference to

the hearing officer’s decision. If after according deference to the hearing officer’s decision the district court again concludes that the 2005

IEP was inappropriate and did not provide J.P. with a free appropriate

public education, the district court must explain its decision. See

Doyle, 953 F.2d at 105 ("[W]hen fact-findings are regularly made and

J. P. v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 13

Appeal: 07-1320 Doc: 64 Filed: 02/14/2008 Pg: 13 of 14
entitled to prima facie correctness, the district court, if it is not going

to follow them, is required to explain why it does not.").4

II. Appeal No. 07-1320

The IDEA authorizes a district court to award attorney’s fees to

parents who prevail on their IDEA claims. See 20 U.S.C.A.

§ 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I). Because we have vacated the district court’s

order (appeal no. 06-2068) granting relief to the parents on their

IDEA claims, the parents cannot at this juncture be considered the

prevailing parties. Accordingly, we hereby vacate and remand the district court’s order (appeal no. 07-1320) awarding attorney’s fees to

the parents. If the parents prevail on the merits of their IDEA claims

after remand, the court may again consider the parents’ entitlement to

an award of attorney’s fees. We express no opinion on the merits of

the School Board’s current challenges to the fee award, and we likewise express no opinion as to whether or in what amount fees should

be awarded to the parents if they prevail after remand. 

VACATED AND REMANDED

4Given our conclusion that a remand is required, we need not consider

the School Board’s other challenges to the district court’s decision. 

14 J. P. v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD

Appeal: 07-1320 Doc: 64 Filed: 02/14/2008 Pg: 14 of 14