FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 31, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 55 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 4 :0 9- cv -0 00 22 -CDL G.J., L.J., AND E.J., INDIVIDUALLYAND ON BEHALF OF G.J., App el la nt s, ve rs us MUSC OGEE COUNT Y SCHOOL DISTRICT, App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J anua ry 31 , 20 12 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e, an d F ORRESTER, * Dis tri ctJu dg e. Fo rres te r, Dis tri ctJu dg e:

Honora ble J . Owen F orre ster, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Georg ia, sitting by

designation.I. Pro cedu ra l H is to ry

Inth is cas e, we sh ou ldbe cal le d upo n t o d et erm in e whe th er the Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e an d t he di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly eval ua te d Ap pe ll an ts ’ cl ai m s tha t the Mu sc og ee Co un ty Scho ol Dis tri ct(“ th e sc ho ol di st ric t” or

“ MCS D”) d idno t co m

pl y with c ert ai n p ro vi si on s o f th e In di vi du al s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Educ at io n Act(“ IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 14 00 et seq ., with res pe ctto se rv ic es itwas t o p ro vi de to G.J., th e el em en ta ry sch oo l-a ge d c hi ldof Ap pe ll an ts E.J. an d L.J . Ins te ad , as t he Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e an d the di st ric t co urt

1 be fo re u s, we m

us t fi rs t o fferou r di sm ay

at t he st at e o f ev en ts whi chha s b ro ug ht us to th is ap pe al . Rath er tha n wo rk in g i n the co ll ab or at iv e m od el an ti ci pa te d b y th e IDEA, App el la nt s an d t he ir c ou ns el ha ve tak enpo si ti on s thr ou gh ou t the co ur se of th is li ti ga ti on th atha ve no fou nd at io n i n t he law an d wo ul d re qu ire th e sc ho ol di st ric t t o g iv e up i m

po rta ntrig ht s g ran te d t o i t u nd er the IDEA. T he sch oo l di st ric t co ul d n otbe ex pe ct edto ag ree t o s uc h re qu es ts . In re vi ewin g t he se m at te rs , th e Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e an d t he di st ric t co urt h av e sp eci fic al ly co m m en te d o n t he di ffi cu lt ie s tha t h av e ari se n due to App el la nt s’ po si ti on s an d t he di st ract io n t he y

ha ve cau se d fr om

th e d ev el op m en t o f a b en efi ci al pro gr am forG.J. Congr ess amende d the I DEA in the Individuals with Disabilit ies Education Improvement 1 Act of 2004, Pub. L . No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (" I DEIA" ), which took e ffe ct on J uly 1, 2005. 2App el la nt s E.J . (fathe r) an d L.J . (m othe r) are th e p aren ts of Ap pe ll an t, G.J.,

a ch il d wi th au ti sm

an d b rai n i njurie s. G.J. i s n on -v erb al an d s el f-ab us iv e. G.J. was fir stfou ndto be eli gi bl e fo r sp eci al educ at io n s erv ic es un de r th e IDEA in Mar ch20 05 aft er the sch oo l d is tri ctpe rfo rm edcert ai n e va lu at io ns . The rec or d rev eal s l it tl e o f wha t h ap pe ne d a m on g t he pa rti es be twee n M arch 20 05 an d an Apr il 23 , 20 08 , in di vi du al iz ededuc at io n p ro gr am (“ IEP”) m eet in g wh ere t he sc ho ol di st ric t s ou gh t Ap pe ll an ts ’ co ns en t t o c om pl et e a trie nn ia l re ev al ua ti on of G.J. Due to di sa gr eem en ts am on g t he pa rti es , no ag reem en t o n c on se ntwas reac he d a t the Apri l 2 3, 2 00 8, m eet in g. On M ay 20 , 20 08 , L.J. ag ai n re fu se d t o s ig n t he co ns en t fo rm an d n ot edon th e fo rm “Notap pr ov edby IEP or p aren ts un ti l l awy ers workou t g ui de li ne s. MCS D can no t ev al ua te [G.J.] for an yth in g.” By Ju ne 3, 2 00 8, E.J . andL.J. were pr ep aredto si gnth e co ns en t fo rm bu t o nl y un de r th e co nd it io ns “ as ex pl ai ne d a nd gr an te d i n t he ad de ndum .” That“ ad de ndum ” co nt ai ne d t he fol lo win g c on di ti on s: (1 ) th e te rm s, s co pe , andus ag e o f th e ev al ua ti on sh al l b e as id en ti fie d fo r th e p ur

po se s o f th is co ns en t as th e IEP m eet in g co nc ern in g [G.J .] , hel d o n 4 -2 3- 08 on ly; (2 ) th e ev al ua ti on sh al l b e co nduc te d b y Dr. Lank en au ; (3 ) th e ev al ua ti on sh al l b e co nduc te d p ur su an t t o t he eth ic al st an dard s o f th e Am eri canPsycho lo gi cal Ass oc ia ti on an d, i f di ffer en t, al so pu rs ua ntto th e st an da rd s an d e th ic al an d ru le s 3[s ic ] of th e Geo rg iaSta te Co m

po si te Bo ardforap pl ie d l ic en se d ps y ch ol og is ts ; (4 ) th e ev al ua ti on sh al l i nc lu de anin it ia l m eet in g wi thth e p aren ts pr io r to th e ev al ua ti on to di sc us s al l as pe ct s o f th e ev al ua ti on an d t he ir c on se nt , in cl ud in g t he id en ti fic at io n o f th e ti m e an d lo cat io n o f th e ev al ua ti on , anditsh al l n otbe co ns id ered co m pl et e unt il th e ev al ua to r affo rd s the pa ren ts th e o pp ortu ni ty ata m utua ll y co nv en ie ntti m e an d p la ce t o m eetto di sc us s the ev al ua ti on an d i ts res ul ts pri or to it s s ub mis si on to or u se by the IEP te am ; (5 ) th is co ns en t i s b as edup on th e in fo rm at io n p ro vi de d t o t he pa ren t(s ) atth e IEP m eet in g o r inany pri orwrit te n n ot ic e an d gr an te d i n re li an ce upo n s uc h i nf orm at io n a ndth es e te rm s. Any chan ge s re qu es te d b y th e ev al ua to r orto th e ev al ua to r or th e Sy st em

sh al l i nv al id at e th is co ns en t an d re qu ire ad di ti on al no ti ce an d s ub se qu en t co ns en t. The pa ren ts do no t ag ree t ha t th e “ Exa m

pl es of As se ss m en t In st ru m en ts ” at ta ch edto th e ev al ua ti on co ns en t fo rm

is anad equa te no ti ce fo r th e p ur po se s of ob ta in in g c on se nt ; (6 ) th e ev al ua ti on sh al l b e m ai nt ai ne d a s co nf id en ti al an d s ha ll no t be us edor d is tri bu te d i n any pers on al id en ti fy in g fa sh io n b y an y th irdpa rty, pers onor e nt it y witho utpri orno ti ce an d writ te n c on se nt ; an d (7 ) th is co ns en t i s n ota waiv er o f an y rig ht s o r act io ns no t ex pl ic it ly ide nt ifi ed , no r sh ou ldan y im pl ie d wai ve r be pr es um ed . Se e ALJ, Fi na l Ord er, AR1 -8 4, at3-4 . Notsu rp ris in gl y , th e sc ho ol di st ric t re fu se d to acce de to th es e co nd it io ns . Sin ce the n, the pa rti es ha ve en ga ge d i n t hr ee years

4of

li ti ga ti on su rro un di ng th e m an ne r in whi chth e is su e o f ree va lu at io n was ha nd le d. On J ul y 21 , 20 08 , App el la nt s fi le d aDue P ro ces s Hea rin g R eque st (Co m pl ai nt ) wit h t he Offic e o f St at e Adm in is tra ti ve Heari ng s i n Geo rg ia . This adm in is tra ti ve he ari ng ha s b een refe rredto by the parti es as G.J .-1 ( G.J. v. MCSD , OSAH-DOE-SE-0 90 21 67 -1 06 -Mi ll er). Ap pe ll an ts ’ co m pl ai ntinG.J.-1 is len gt hy an d wi de -ran gi ng . In g en eral term s, Ap pe ll an ts all eg edth atth e sc ho ol di st ric t fai le d t o: pro vi de pro pe r no ti ce u nd er 2 0 U.S.C. § 14 15 (c)( 1) ; co m pl y with Heari ng Pro cedur e Ri gh ts fou ndin34 C.F.R. § 30 0.5 04 (a)( 2) an d (c ); t im el y pr ov id e rec or ds un de r 34 C.F.R. § 30 0.5 01 (a), § 30 0.6 13 an d § 30 0.6 14 ; p erm it pr op er p aren t p art ic ip at io n; pro vi de no ti ce o f pr og res s an d v al idpro gr es s re po rts ; im pl em en t o r de ve lo p an app ro pr ia te IEP; a ll ow ac ces s t o t he pro gr am an d ob se rv at io n; all ow co ns id erat io n o f pl acement; an d o fferanap pr op ria te an d s afe pl acement. Ap pe ll an ts als o a ll eg edth atth e sc ho ol di st ric t: vi ol at edde ci si on s m ad e in IEP m eet in gs , pro vi si on s an d a gr eem en ts ; al te redan d c reat edreco rd s; was ho st il e to th e p aren ts ; p ro vi de d a n i ll eg al an d v oi d p la cem en t; an d d en ie d t he pa ren ts th e ri gh t t o i nf

orm edco ns en t. App el la nt s co nt en de d tha t the se pro cedur al vi ol at io ns form edth e b as is fora cl ai m of r el ie f be cau se th e act io ns im pe de d G.J .’ s ri gh t t o a“ free an d app ro pr ia te 5publ ic educ at io n” (“ FAPE”) und er the IDEA. T he y als o a ss ert edth atth e sc ho ol di st ric t s ub st an ti ve ly den ie d G.J . a free an d app ro pr ia te educ at io n b ecau se of t he se vi ol at io ns . Fin al ly, App el la nt s cl ai m edth atth e sc ho ol di st ric t d en ie d t he m th ei r he ari ng rig ht s b ecau se App el la nt s d idno t h av e th e ap pr op ria te acce ss to do cu m en ts an d o th er m at eri al s fo r a h eari ng be fo re the Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e. Sev eral m on th s l at er, o n S ep te m be r 25 , 20 08 , App el la nt s fi le d asep arat e co m pl ai ntbe fo re the Offic e o f St at e Adm in is tra ti ve Heari ng s, G.J. v. MCSD , OSAH-DOE-SE-IEE-0 90 83 79 -1 06 -Mi ll er (G.J .-2) . This co m pl ai ntso ug htan in de pe nd en t educ at io na l ev al ua ti on (“ IEE”) atpubl ic ex pe ns e an d arig htto ha ve a pr iv at e ev al ua ti on . The Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e co ns ol id at edth e two pr oc eed in gs an d i ss ue d t wo Fi na l Ord ers on Nov em be r 19 , 20 08 . In G.J.-1 , alt ho ug h t he Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e rec og ni zedth at App el la nt s al le ge d “ nu m ero us pro cedur al an d s ub st an ti ve vi ol at io ns of I DEA and [s ou gh t] var io us form s o f rel ie f, in cl ud in g apri va te res id en ti al pl acement a t p ub li c ex pe ns e, co m

pe ns at ory educ at io n, an d a tt orne y ’s fees ,” th e jud ge fou ndth at App el la nt s wer e n oten ti tl edto pro ceedon th es e cl ai m s b ecau se “ Defen da ntis no lo ng er o bl ig at edto pro vi de sp eci al educ at io n s erv ic es to hi m un de r IDEA.” Se e ALJ, Fi na l Ord er, AR1 -8 4, at5-6 . The jud ge co nt in ue d:

6Here, the Pla in ti ff’s p aren ts ha ve effe ct iv el y refu se d t o c on se ntto th e Defen da nt ’s IDEA-m an da te d t rie nn ia l re ev al ua ti on . As a co ns eque nc e o f th is refu sa l, the Pla in ti ff i s n oten ti tl edto rece iv e sp eci al educ at io n s erv ic es fro m th e Defen da nt ; an d, s in ce the Defen da ntis no t re qu ire d t o p ro vi de servi ces , th is Co urt i s u nabl e to gr an t an y of the rel ie f so ug htby the Pla in ti ff. Id. at 6 . In G.J.-2 , th e Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e fo un d tha t a s tu de ntha s a r ig htto anin de pe nd en t educ at io na l ev al ua ti on (ei th er p ub li cl y or p riv at el y

fun de d) on ly whe n the sch oo l d is tri ctha s al ready pe rfo rm edanev al ua ti on or r eev al ua ti on with whi chth e p aren t d is ag rees . Se e ALJ, Fi na l Ord er AR2 -3 0, at6, 8 -9 . Becau se th e jud ge fou ndth atth e p aren ts ha d e ffec ti ve ly refus edto co ns en t t o t he reev al ua ti on , th e jud ge fou ndth atth e p aren ts were n oten ti tl edto anin de pe nd en t educ at io na l ev al ua ti on . Id

. The de ci si on s o f th e Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e were app eal edto th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a. Befo re the di st ric t co urt, App el la nt s ad de d c la im s u nd er the Am eri can s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Act , 42 U.S.C. §§ 12 13 1 et seq . , as wel l as Sect io n 5 04 of t he Reh ab il it at io n Actof 1 97 3, 2 9 U.S.C. § 7 94 , and42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. Th e d is tri ctco urt h el d: (1) altho ug h Ap pe ll an ts di d no t “ refu se ” to have G.J. reev al ua te d t o t he ex te ntth atth e sc ho ol di st ric t wo ul d n o lo ng er b e requi redto pro vi de servi ces to G.J., App el lant s co ul d n otdi ct at e th e

7te rm s an d c on di ti on s o f th e ree va lu at io n; (2) App el lant s ar e n oten ti tl edto an

“ in de pe nd en t educ at io na l ev al ua ti on ” atth is ti m e; an d (3 ) be cau se App el la nt s d id no t ex haus t the ir a dm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s, the sch oo l d is tri ct ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s App el la nt s’ no n- IDEA cla im s wo ul d b e g ran te d. 2 W e rev ie w qu es ti on s o f la w, in cl ud in g i nt erp ret at io n o f th e IDEA, de no vo . Se e , e.g . , W

alker Cn ty . Sch . Dis t. v. Ben ne tt ex r el . Benn et t , 20 3 F .3d12 93 , 12 95 n.6 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d et erm in at io n t o e xc lu de ad di ti on al ev id en ce fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Id. Whe th er the di st ric t co urt pr op erl y de te rm in edth atth e p aren ts fai le d t o c on se ntto th e ree va lu at io n i s a m ix edqu es ti onof l aw an d fa ctsubjec t t o de no vo rev ie w. Id. at 1 29 5 n .7. We rev ie w sp eci fic fin di ng s o f fac t fo r cl ear e rro r. Id. II . Dis cus si on Und er the po st -2 00 4 IDEA am en dm en ts , a stud en t re cei vi ng sp eci al educ at io n s erv ic es m

us t b e ree va lu at ed“ atlea ston ce ev ery 3 years, u nl es s the pa ren t an d t he lo cal educ at io na l ag en cy ag ree t ha t a r eev al ua ti on is un ne ces sa ry .” 20 U.S.C. § 1 41 4( a)(2 )(B) (ii ). Paren ta l co ns en t i s re qu ire d fo r a ree va lu at io n. 2 0 U.S.C. § 1 41 4( c)(3 ). “ Co ns en t” is de fin edas: The Appe llants do not appeal the district c ourt’s dismissal of the non-IDEA c laims and 2 have the ref

ore a bandoned a

ny claim that the district cour t erre d in doing so. 8(a) The pa ren t h as be enful ly info rm edof a ll in fo rm at io n re le va nt to th e act iv it y

forwhi chco ns en t i s s ou gh t . . .; (b ) The pa ren t u nd ers ta nd s an d a gr ees inwrit in g t o the carry in g ou t o f th e act iv it y

forwhi chhi s o r he r co ns en t i s s ou gh t, an d th e co ns en t d es cri be s tha t ac ti vi ty andli st s the reco rd s (i f an y ) th atwil l b e rel eas edan d t o wh om ; an d (c)( 1) The pa ren t u nd ers ta nd s tha t the gra nt in g o f co ns en t i s vo lu nt ary on th e p artof t he pa ren t an d m ay be rev ok edat any ti m e. 34 C.F.R. § 30 0.9 . “ If the pa ren t re fu se s t o c on se ntto th e ree va lu at io n, the [s ch oo l d is tri ct ] m ay , bu t i s n otrequi redto , pu rs ue th e ree va lu at io n b y us in g t he co ns en t o ve rri de pro cedur es ” in th e reg ul at io ns . 34 C.F.R. § 30 0.3 00 (c)( 1) (ii ); se e al so Sc ha ff er ex r el . Sch af

fe r v. Weas t , 54 6 U.S. 4 9, 5 3- 54 , 12 6 S . Ct. 5 28 , 53 2 (2 00 5) . In M.T.V. v. DeKal b C

ou nt y S ch oo l Distri ct , 44 6 F .3d11 53 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ), we he ldth atwhen co nduc ti ng a reev al ua ti on , a sc ho ol is “ en ti tl edto reev al ua te [a ch il d] by an expe rt o f it s ch oi ce.” Id. at 1 16 0. “ The sch oo l ca nn ot be for cedto rel y

so le ly on an i nd ep en de ntev al ua ti on co nduc te d a t the paren ts ’ be he st .” Id. (qu ot at io n a ndcit at io n o m it te d) . “ Eve ry co urt t o c on si de r th e IDEA’ s reev al ua ti on requi rem en ts ha s co nc lu de d i f a s tu de nt ’s par en ts wanthi m to rece iv e sp eci al educ at io n u nd er IDEA, th ey m us t al lo w th e sc ho ol it se lf t o re ev al ua te th e

9stud en t an d t he y can no t fo rce the sch oo l t o re ly sol el y on anin de pe nd en t ev al ua ti on .” Id. (qu ot at io n a ndcit at io n o m it te d) . App el la nt s fi rs t ar gu e th atth e sc ho ol di st ric t n ev er g av e th em an op po rtu ni ty to co ns en t b ecau se itne ve r in fo rm edth em ab ou t wh attes ts itin te nd ed to us e, bu t ra th er g av e th em bl an k fo rm s t o s ig n. Th e rec or d i s n otas b are a s App el la nt s s ug ge st . There is no di sp ut e th atth e ree va lu at io n was di sc us se d a t the Apr il 23 , 20 08 , in di vi du al iz ededuc at io n p ro gr am m eet in g. No ag reem en t was reac he d a ndsev eral da y s l at er, the sch oo l d is tri ctsen t the st an da rd“ Pare nt al Co ns en t fo r Eva lu at io n” form to App el la nt s. Th e fo rm st at es th atG.J. was refe rredby the IEP te am

forreev al ua ti on . It al so st at edth at [i]f y ouha ve an y

qu es ti on s ab ou t wh y

we feel y ou r ch il d n eed s te st in g o r wan t t o kno w m or e d et ai ls ab ou t the ev al ua ti on , pl eas e cal l y ou r ch il d’s s ch oo l. If you a gr ee t o h av e th is ev al ua ti on do ne , y ou can reque stto kn ow the ex actti m e an d p la ce tha t i t wi ll oc cu r. You wil l h av e a ch an ce t o d is cu ss th e res ul ts fol lo win g t he ev al ua ti on . Youwil l al so be in vi te d t o am eet in g t o d is cu ss th e fi nd in gs . No ch an ge s wi ll be m ad e in y ou r ch il d’s educ at io na l p ro gr am un ti l we ho ldth e m eet in g. Th e in di vi du al ev al ua ti on m ay in cl ud e te st s i n t he fo ll owi ng area s: vi si on , hea rin g, m ot orsk il ls , so ci al /e m ot io na l, ach ie ve m en t, s pe ech/l an gu ag e o r othe rs . An ex pl an at io n o f th es e area s i s i nc lu de d. Yo urpa ren ta l ri gh ts are i nc lu de d, wh ic h s ho w th at y ouha ve cert ai n ri gh ts reg ard in g c on se ntan d e va lu at io n p ro cedur es . Se e Pare nt al Co ns en t fo r Eva lu at io n (a tt ach in g P aren ts Rig ht s i n S pe ci al Edu cat io n a ndExam

pl es of As se ss m en t In st ru m en ts ). The fo rm th enask s the

10pa ren ts to ch eckeit he r: “ Yes , I ag ree f orth e Mu sc og ee Co un ty Scho ol Sy st em to ev al ua te m

y ch il d” or “No, I d o n otag ree fo r th e fo ll owi ng reas on s.” Inth is cas e, th e p aren ts refu se d t o s ig n t ho se form s an d t he n p ro vi de d t he ir own len gt hy “ Add en du m ” as di sc us se d abo ve . Becau se th e p aram et ers of reev al ua ti on ha d b een di sc us se d a t the Apri l 2 3, 2 00 8, i nd iv idua li zededuc at io n pr og ram m eet in g a ndex am

pl es of t es ti ng were p ro vi de d i n t he co ns en t fo rm , we co nc lu de th atth e p aren ts were p ro vi de d wi th su ffi ci en t i nf orm at io n o n wh ic h t o co ns en t. The pa ren ts , th em se lv es , st at e th aton e o f th e rea so ns th ey di d n otsi gn of f on th e sc ho ol di stric t’s co ns en t fo rm is th atth e fo rm

di d n otrefl ectth e di sc us si on th e p art ie s h addu rin g t he IEP m eet in g. Thus , itis no t s o m uc h l ackof in fo rm at io n t he paren ts op po se , bu t the m an ne r inwhi chth e ev al ua ti on was t o b e co nduc te d. To be cle ar, the pa ren ts di d n otag ree t o t he m an ne r of reev al ua ti on , bu t tha t i s a d iff

eren t m at te r th anwhet he r th ey were g iv enin fo rm at io n abo utth e reev al ua ti on . The di stric t co urt fo un d t ha t due to th e num be r of co nd it io ns ap pe nd ed , App el la nt s h adno t p ro vi de d c on se ntwhen th ey pro po se d the Add en du m to th e sc ho ol di st ric t. Se e Dis t. Ct . Orde r, R4 -3 5- 18 -1 9. We fin d t he re i s ab so lu te ly no ba si s upo n wh ic h any part y co ul d d is ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on on th is is su e. App el la nt s’ con di ti on s v it ia te d a ny rig ht s the sch oo l d is tri ctha d u nd er 11th e IDEA forth e ree va lu at io n p ro ces s, s uc h a s wh o i s t o c on du ctth e in te rv ie w, th e

pr es en ce o f th e p aren ts du rin g the ev al ua ti on , no t p erm it ti ng th e ev al ua ti on to be us edinli ti ga ti on ag ai ns t Ap pe ll an ts , andwhet he r th e p aren ts rece iv edth e in fo rm at io n p rio r to th e sc ho ol di st ric t. We fin d, the refo re, n o e rro r in th e d is tri ct co urt’s co nc lu si on th atdu e to th e ex te ns iv e n atur e o f th e co nd it io ns de m an de d b y th e p aren ts , th e p aren ts ha d re fu se d t o p ro vi de co ns en t t o t he sch oo l d is tri ctforth e reev al ua ti on . 3 Inco nt ras t t o t he Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e, ho wev er, the di stric t co urt fo un d tha t thi s re fu sa l t o c on se ntdi d n otres ul t i n t he pa ren ts rel in qu is hi ng an y rig htto servi ces un de r th e IDEA. Se e id. at21 . Rath er, the di stric t co urt h el d t ha t be cau se a reev al ua ti on ha d n ev er b eenord eredby eith er the Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e o r a co urt, Ap pe ll an ts ha d n otrefu se d areev al ua ti on aft er i t h adbe en or de red . Id. G.J .’s father testified via

aff idavit that at some point, the pare nts had agree d to withdraw 3 the conditions contained in the A ddendum. SeeE.J . Aff., ¶ ¶ 39, 41. Howe ver, the re is no indication that these attempted withdrawa ls of the conditions were made in writing. Fur thermore , Paragraph 41 doe s not describe a withdra wal of a ll conditions. R ather , it states that the par ents would agreeto the ree valuation so longas the school district agree d not to use the ree valuation in litigation ag ainst the pare nts. This is a significa nt condition. Given the history of the par ties’ intera ctions, it was unlikely that the par ents and the sc hool district would be able to agree to an individualiz ed educ ation program a fter the ree valuation. The sc hool district could not waive in a dvance its right to use its ree valuation in any challeng e the pa

rents made to the individualiz ed educ ation program propose d by the school district, particula rly when the pa

rents would reta in the right to use their independe nt educational evaluations. We find, there fore , that the district court did not commit clear err or in deter

mining that the pa

rents had ne ver w ithdrawn their conditions to the ree valuation. 12It i s atth is po in t i n the li ti ga ti on wher e th e o ldad ag e “ no go odde edgo es

unpu ni sh ed ” co m es to be ar. Rec og ni zi ng th e d eg ree t o wh ic h t he rel at io ns hi p be twee n the pa ren ts an d t he sch oo l h addi si nt eg rat edan d t he ti m e wit h wh ic h G.J . ha d b een witho uta reev al ua ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edth atth e b es t co ur se of act io n was forth e co urt t o “ gr an t s uc h re li ef as th e co urt d et erm in es is ap pr op ria te ,” as itm

us t, u nd er 2 0 U.S.C. § 14 15 (i) (2 )(C) (ii i), a ndord er Ap pe ll an ts to co ns en t t o areev al ua ti on . Id. The di stric t co urt, h owe ve r, pl acedcert ai n c on di ti on s o n t he reev al ua ti on , in cl ud in g t ha t the reev al ua ti on co ul d b e u se d fo r an y pu rp os e p erm it te d b y

th e IDEA, th e sc ho ol di st ric t wo ul d p ic k t he ev al ua to r, co ns ul t wi th App el la nt s t o fi nd a m utua ll y ag reeabl e d at e, an d p ro vi de rel ev an t i nf orm at io n t o t he pa ren ts . Se e Dis t. Ct . Prd er. R4 -3 5- 22 -2 3. Th e co urt al so pro vi de d tha t the ev al ua to r co ul d reque stad di ti on al tes ts , th e res ul ts wou ldno t b e sh aredbe y on d tha t wh ic h i s co nt em pl at edby the IDEA, andth e p art ie s wo ul d re cei ve th e res ul ts of t he tes t at th e sa m e ti m e. Id. at 2 3. If t he pa ren ts di sa gr eedwith t he res ul ts of t he reev al ua ti on , th e p aren ts co ul d s eekanin de pe nd en t educ at io na l ev al ua ti on . Id. Thu s, the di st ric t co urt at te m pt edto m ov e th e p art ie s t owa rdth e m ai n g oa l o f th e IDEA whi chis to pro vi de th e ap pr op ria te servi ces to th e stud en t, a g oa l wh ic h co ul d b e rea ch edon ly by co m pl et in g t he reev al ua ti on pro ces s. Th e d is tri ctco urt’s

13rem edy

di d n otfor ce the pa ren ts to rel in qu is h t he ir r ig ht s t o s erv ic es un de r th e IDEA inord er t o c ha ll en ge an y fin di ng s o f th e ree va lu at io n. Itals o a dd res se d t he reas on ab le co nc ern s o f th e p aren ts , in cl ud in g the rig htto be in fo rm edof c ert ai n as pe ct s o f th e ree va lu at io n. App el la nt s d is ag ree wi th th e fi nd in gs of t he di st ric t co urt, ar gu in g fi rs t tha t an y supp ort fo r th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er fo un d i n M.T.V. is no t h el pf ul be cau se M.T.V. ha s b een effe ct iv el y ov erru le d b y

th e 2 00 4 a m en dm en ts to th e IDEA whi ch di d n ottak e eff

ectun ti l Jul y

1, 2 00 5, an d t he refo re, d idno t ap pl y to ou r co ns id erat io n i n M.T.V. Se e 44 6 F .3dat 1 15 7 n .2. Itis no t cl ear t o u s tha t thi s i s th e cas e. W e d o re co gn iz e th atth e 2 00 4 a m en dm en ts setforth th atth e sc ho ol di st ric t h adth e ri gh t t o s eeka du e p ro ces s h eari ng if p aren ts refu se d t o c on se ntto anev al ua ti on . Se e S

ch af fe r , 54 6 U.S. at53 , 12 6 S . Ct. at53 2. 4 Inan y ev en t, we d o n otfin d i t n eces sa ry to de te rm in e whe th er the 20 04 am en dm en ts ab ro ga te d M.T.V. be cau se un li ke th e Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e, th e di st ric t co urt d idno t fi ndth atApp el la nt s wai ve d e nt it le m en t t o s erv ic es du e to th e

Appellants’ a

rgument that if the school district wante d to proce ed with the re evaluation 4 in light of the pa

rents’ r efusa l to consent, it was re quired to file its own re quest for a due proc ess hearing, is a

bit disi ng enuous in light of themanner in which the par ents attempted to block the school district’s eff

orts to take that ver

y course of ac tion before the Administrative L aw Judge . 14di sa gr eem en t o ve r co ns en t an d i t i s thi s p orti onof t he 20 04 am en dm en ts up on

whi chApp el lant s fo cu s. The re i s n o que st io n t ha t the IDEA gran ts “br oa d d is cret io n” to th e d is tri ct co urt. Se e , e.g . , Dra

pe r v. At la nt a In de

p. S ch . Sys . , 51 8 F .3d12 75 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). W e fi ndth atgi ve n t he ho st il e ci rcu m st an ces he re, the di st ric t co urt wo rk ed adm irabl y

to de ve lo p t he pa ram et ers forreev al ua ti on th atwou ldad dr es s the co nc ern s o f bo th th e sc ho ol di st ric t an d t he pa ren ts , as wel l as ge t the educ at io na l pr oc es s fo r G.J. m ov in g a ga in . There fo re, we fi ndno erro r in th e m an ne r in whi ch th e d is tri ctco urt re so lv edth e ree va lu at io n i ss ue . W e tu rnno w to whethe r anin de pe nd en t educ at io na l ev al ua ti on sh ou ldha ve be engrant edat t he pa ren ts ’ reque st . Becau se no reev al ua ti on ha d t ak enpl ace due to th e p aren ts ’ refu sa l t o c on se nt , th e d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edth atApp el la nt s h ad no rig htto a publ ic ly fun de d i nd ep en de nteduc at io na l ev al ua ti on . Se e Dis t. Ct . Ord er, R4 -3 5- 24 . For t he same reaso n, the co urt al so fou ndth atApp el la nt s d id no t h av e a ri gh t t o apri va te ly fun de d i nd ep en de nteduc at io na l ev al ua ti on . Id. at 25 . Pare nt s h av e a ri gh t u nd er ce rta in cir cu m st an ces “ to ob ta in anin de pe nd en t educ at io na l ev al ua ti on of t he ch il d.” 20 U.S.C. § 1 41 5( b) (1 ). A pare ntha s a r ig ht to ev al ua ti on “ atpubl ic ex pe ns e if th e p aren t d is ag rees with a n e va lu at io n 15ob ta in edby a publ ic ag en cy .” 34 C.F.R. § 30 0.5 02 (b )(1 ). “ A par en t i s en ti tl edto

on ly one in de pe nd en t educ at io na l ev al ua ti on at p ub li c ex pe ns e eac h t im e th e publ ic ag en cy

co nduc ts anev al ua ti on with wh ic h t he pa ren t d is ag rees .” Id. § 30 0.5 02 (b )(5 ). The di stric t co urt co rrec tl y de te rm in edth atth e st atut ory pro vi si on s fo r a publ ic ly fun de d i nd ep en de nteduc at io na l ev al ua ti on ne ve r ki ck edinbe cau se no reev al ua ti on ev er o ccurred . The ri gh t t o apubl ic ly fun de d i nd ep en de nt educ at io na l ev al ua ti on do es no t o bt ai n u nt il th ere i s a r eev al ua ti on with wh ic h t he pa ren ts di sa gr ee. The IDEA do es no t s pe ci fic al ly addres s wh enpa ren ts m ay ob ta in a pr iv at el y fu nd edin de pe nd en t educ at io na l ev al ua ti on . Obv io us ly, th e IDEA do es no t g ov ern th e ri gh t o f paren ts to tak e th ei r ch il d t o a ny pri va te ly pai d e va lu at orat a ny tim e th ey wis h. Ra th er, the IDEA regu la te s the m anne r in whi chsu chanev al ua ti on can be us edinth e d ev el op m en t o f a s pe ci al educ at io n p ro gr am . The IDEA pr ov id es th at“ [i]f th e p aren t . . . sh ares with t he publ ic ag en cy anev al ua ti on ob ta in edat p riv at e ex pe ns e, th e res ul ts of t he ev al ua ti on – (1 ) Mu stbe co ns id ered by the publ ic ag en cy , if i t m eet s ag en cy cri te ria , inan y

de ci si on m ad e wit h re sp ect to th e p ro vi si on of F APE to th e ch il d . . .” Id. § 3 00 .50 2( c).

16App el la nt s’ con te nt io n wi th res pe ctto th e in de pe nd en t educ at io na l

ev al ua ti onco nduc te d a t p riv at e ex pe ns e se em s re al ly to b e ab ou t wh ethe r th e pa ren ts ’ ch os enev al ua to rs wou ldha ve acce ss to ob se rv e G.J. i n t he sch oo l s et ti ng . The re i s s can t d ev el op m en t o f la w onth is is su e. Bo th pa rti es po in t t o an adm in is tra ti ve rul in g o f th e Offi ce o f Sp eci al Edu cat io n P ro gr am s i n t he Uni te d St at es Depa rtment o f Edu cat io n, Let te r t o Ma mas , 42 IDELR 10 (OSEP, May 26, 20 04 ). Ther e, th e ag en cy co m m en te d t ha t [w]hil e th e IDEA ex pe ct s p aren ts of c hi ldrenwith d is ab il it ie s t o h av e anex pa nd edrol e inth e ev al ua ti on an d p la cem en t o f th ei r ch il dr en an d b e p art ic ip an ts , alo ng with s ch oo l p ers on ne l, i n d ev el op in g, rev ie win g, an d re vi si ng th e IEPs for th ei r ch il dr en , nei th er the st atut e no r th e reg ul at io ns im

pl em en ti ng th e IDEA pro vi de a ge ne ral en ti tl em en t fo r pa ren ts of c hi ldrenwith d is ab il it ie s, o r th ei r pr of es si on al rep res en ta ti ve s, t o o bs erv e th ei r ch il dr eninan y curren t cl as sr oo m

or p ro po se d e du cat io na l p la cem en t. The de te rm in at io n o f who ha s ac ces s t o c la ss ro om s m ay be ad dr es se d b y

Sta te an d/ or

lo cal po li cy . Howev er, we en co ur ag e sc ho ol di st ric t p ers on ne l an d p aren ts to workto ge th er i n ways th atm eetth e n eed s o f bo th th e p aren ts an d th e sc ho ol , in cl ud in g p ro vi di ng op po rtu ni ti es forpa ren ts to ob se rv e th ei r ch il dr en ’s cla ss ro om s an d p ro po se d p la cem en t o pt io ns . In ad di ti on , th ere m ay

be cir cu m st an ces inwhi chacce ss m ay ne edto be pr ov id ed . For e xa m

pl e, if pa ren ts in vo ke th ei r ri gh t t o a n in de pe nd en t educ at io na l ev al ua ti on of t he ir c hi ld , andth e ev al ua ti on requi res ob se rv in g the ch il d i n t he educ at io na l p la cem en t, the ev al ua to r m ay

ne edto be pro vi de d a cces s t o t he pl acement. Id. at 2 . Con tra ry

to th e p art ie s’ ass ert io ns , we fin d n o m an da te eit he r fo r or ag ai ns t ac ces s i n t hi s ag en cy rul in g. Ra th er, the pro ces s co nt em pl at es co op erat io n

17be twee n p aren ts an d s ch oo l ad m in is tra to rs . The d is tri ctco urt n ot edth at

App el la nt s d idrece iv e p erm is si on forth ei r ex pe rts to ob se rv e G.J. i n t he cl as sr oo m

so m et im e in 20 07 or 2 00 8. Th ei r ob se rv at io ns were i nc lu de d i n t he ir rep ort wh ic h re co m

m en de d t he co ns id erat io n o f res id en ti al pl acement f orG.J. Se e Dis t. Ct . Orde r, R4 -3 5- 24 n.1 1. Fu rth er, Ap pe ll an ts cit edon ap pe al to po rti on s o f Dr. Bab co ck ’s affi da vi t wh ere h e d es cri be s h is ob se rv at io ns of G.J . inth e cl as sr oo m . Se e Gray

Bri ef, at14 -1 5. Thus , so m e o bs erv at io n o f G.J. i n t he cl as sr oo m

set ti ng di d o ccu r. Incraf ti ng it s re m edy

on reev al ua ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt an ti ci pa te d t ha t the sc ho ol di st ric t wo ul d h av e a ree va lu at io n d on e b y it s ev al ua to r an d a ls o reco gn iz edth atth e p aren ts ha d o bt ai ne d the ir o wn i nd ep en de nteduc at io na l ex am in at io ns whi chco nt ai ne d re co m m en da ti on s o n p la cem en t. So th atall in fo rm at io n wo ul d b e b ro ug htto th e tabl e, th e d is tri ctco urt o rd eredth atth e IEP te am co ns id er an y

in fo rm at io n p ro vi de d b y G.J.’s paren ts , “ in cl ud in g t he rep orts pr ep aredby Plai nt iff

s’ exp ert .” Se e Dis t. Ct . Orde r, R4 -3 5- 23 -2 4. Th e d is tri ct co urt’s o rd er, the refo re, co ns id eredob se rv at io n o f G.J. b y App el la nt s’ cho se n ev al ua to rs . 5 We make no comment a s to whether the pare nts would need the oppor tunity to conduct 5 additional observation as a re sult of the school district’s proposed e ducational pr ogram ba sed on the re evaluation that later took place . 18App el la nt s al so co m pl ai n t ha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t h ear a dd it io na l ev id en ce b efo re ru li ng onth e m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t. We hav e d is cu ss ed atlen gt h t he pro cedur e fo r ad jud ic at in g m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t i n t he IDEA con te xt . Se e , e.g . , Lo re n F. ex r el . Fis he r v. At la nt a In de p. S ch . Sys . , 34 9 F.3 d 1 30 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . Alth ou ghitis oft encal le d asu m m ary jud gm en t pr oc eed in g, co urts ha ve m or e acc ur at el y de sc rib editas ajud gm en t o n t he reco rd . Id. at 1 31 3. Ev enif fa ct s ar e in di sp ut e, co urts m ay us e th e “ su m

m ary jud gm en t” pr oc es s. Id. Nothi ng ba rs a di st ric t co urt fr om fact -fi nd in g u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of Ci vi l Pr oc edur e 5 2 i n IDEA ca se s. Id. at 1 31 3- 14 . The d is tri ctco urt re vi ews th e reco rdof t he st at e adm in is tra ti ve ag en cy an d wh ere t he co urt d oe s n otrece iv e an y ad di ti on al ev id en ce, we s ta nd“ in th e sa m e sh oe s as th e d is tri ctco urt i n re vi ewin g th e adm in is tra ti ve reco rdan d m ay , th eref or e, acc ep t the co nc lu si on s o f th e ALJ an d d is tri ctco urt tha t ar e supp orte d b y th e rec or d a ndrejectth os e th atare n ot .” Id. (qu ot at io n a ndcit at io n o m it te d) . Des pi te th e fac t tha t the st atut e sa y s the di st ric t co urt “ sh al l h ear a dd it io na l ev id en ce atth e reque stof apa rty,” 20 U.S.C. § 1 41 5( i)( 2) (C)( ii ), we ha ve no t pr ev io us ly read t ha t as a m an da te to tak e ad di ti on al ev id en ce an y ti m e a p arty

so reque st s. A di stric t co urt i s p erm it te d t o a ccep t ad di ti on al ev id en ce, b utis no t requi redto do so . The “ IDEA sp eci fic al ly pro vi de s tha t the co urt m ay tak e 19ad di ti on al ev id en ce an d m ay fas hi on rel ie f th atth e co urt d eem s ap pr op ria te .” Sc ho ol Bd. o f Co ll ie r C

nt y. v. K.C. , 28 5 F .3d97 7, 9 81 (11 thCir . 20 02 ) (quo ta ti on an d c it at io ns om it te d) . “ The de te rm in at io n o f wha t i s ‘add it io na l’ evi de nc e m us t be lef t t o t he di sc ret io n o f th e tr ia l co urt wh ic h m us t b e car efu l n otto all ow s uc h ev id en ce t o c ha ng e th e ch arac te r of th e h eari ng fro m

on e o f re vi ewto a tr ia l

de no vo .” Id. (qu ot at io ns an d c it at io ns om it te d) . W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to de ny a m ot io n fo r ad di ti on al ev id en ce fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n. W alker Cn ty . , 20 3 F .3dat 1 29 5 n .6. The on ly sp eci fic ev id en ce Ap pe ll an ts ass ertth ey wou ldha ve want edto pre se ntis th e affi da vi t o f Dr. Ric ha rdEll io tt . The p orti on of Dr. El li ot t’s af fid av itcit edby the pa ren ts is si m

pl y hi s “ ex pe rt o pi ni on ” th atth e Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e g otth e is su e o f in fo rm edco ns en t wro ng . Con se ntis am pl y di sc us se d i n t he reg ul at io ns pr om ul ga te d u nd er the IDEA. It is anis su e o f law up onwhi chno ex pe rt o pi ni on is ge ne ral ly requ ire d. Si m il arl y , Dr. Elli ot t’s t es ti m on y co nc ern in g wh atth e m ed ic al pro fes si on tea ch es do ct or s wi th res pe ctto co ns en t i s s im pl y irr el ev an t t o wha t m ig htbe requi redun de r th e IDEA. Se e Ell io ttAff., ¶ 8 (c it edby App el la nt s, Gray Bri ef, at16 ). Ther efo re, we fi ndno erro r in th e d is tri ctco urt’s re fu sa l t o co ns id er the affi da vi t o f Dr. Ell io tt .

20Now tha t we h av e d et erm in edth atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in set ti ng

fo rth reas on ab le co nd it io ns forG.J.’s reev al ua ti onan d i n d et erm in in g tha t App el la nt s wer e n oten ti tl edto eit he r a p riv at e o r publ ic ly fun de d i nd ep en de nt educ at io na l ev al ua ti on , we m us t co ns id er o ne fin al arg um en t b y App el la nt s. Bec au se th e Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e d et erm in edth atth e p aren ts ’ refu sa l t o co ns en t t o t he reev al ua ti on m ean t tha t the pa ren ts ha d wai ve d a ny serv ic es un de r th e IDEA, sh e d idno t co ns id er an y of Ap pe ll an ts ’ arg um en ts with re sp ectto th e al le ge d m ul ti pl e p ro cedur al vi ol at io ns of t he IDEA. Appe ll an ts rai se d t ho se pr oc edur al arg um en ts at e achlev el of r ev ie w, in cl ud in g b efo re the di st ric t co urt. The di st ric t co urt d et erm in edth atth os e is su es were m oo t i n l ig htof the factth at th e d is tri ctco urt d ire ct edth ata reev al ua ti on tak e p la ce. Bas edon rep res en ta ti on s m ad e atora l ar gu m en t, we d o kno w no w th ata reev al ua ti on to okpl ace a ndanin di vi du al iz ededuc at io n p ro gr am was e st ab li sh ed fo r G.J. i n J un e 2 01 1. An y is su es with re sp ectto th atev al ua ti on wou ldbe hand le d in sep arat e li ti ga ti on . Desp it e th is fact , App el la nt s d o n otbe li ev e th atth e p as t IDEA vi ol at io ns are m oo t b ecau se th ey ass ertth atforth ree years, G.J . went witho utanad equa te in di vi du al iz ededuc at io n p ro gr am an d t ha t u nd er Dra

pe r , G.J. is no w ent it le d t o a dd it io na l co m pe ns at ory servi ces be y on d t ha t wh ic h wo ul d b e st atut or il y

pro vi de d i n a cco rd an ce wi th a “ free an d app ro pr ia te publ ic educ at io n.” 2151 8 F .3dat 1 28 0 (r eco gn iz in g t ha t “ co m pe ns at ory educ at io n” is “ ap pr op ria te rel ie f whe re re sp on si bl e au th or it ie s h av e fai le d t o p ro vi de a ha nd ic ap pe d s tu de nt with a n app ro pr ia te educ at io n” un de r th e IDEA). Inth ei r m ot io n fo r pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t b efo re the di st ric t co urt, App el la nt s as ke d t ha t the co urt fi ndth atth e sc ho ol di st ric t h advi ol at ednu m ero us pr oc edur al saf

eg ua rd s u nd er the IDEA. Appe ll an ts arg ue d t ha t the sch oo l d is tri ct ha d d en ie d t he ir r ig htto in fo rm edpa ren ta l co ns en t b y no t fu ll y in fo rm in g t he m

of th e d et ai ls of t he pro po se d re ev al ua ti on . They al so co nt en de d tha t the sch oo l di st ric t h adim

pr op erl y he ldIEP m eet in gs inAug us t 2 00 8 a ndAug us t 2 00 9 a t ti m es th atth e sc ho ol di stric t was aware t he pa ren ts co ul d n otatt en d, an d co m po un de d t hi s erro r by un il at eral ly alte rin g G.J .’ s IEP a t tho se m eet in gs witho ut th e p aren ts ’ co ns en t an d wi th ou t s eek in g ahe ari ng . App el la nt s av erre d t o t he di st ric t co urt tha t the sch oo l d is tri ctfai le d t o c on si de r G.J.’s uni qu e n eed s, pl acement a ndservi ces be cau se th e d is tri ctha d asec on d a tt orne y att en d t he Apri l 20 08 IEP m eet in g u na nn ou nc edan d the sch oo l d is tri ctrefu se d t o c on si de r res id en ti al pl acement a s an alt ern at iv e to sch oo l p la cem en t. Fi na ll y , App el la nt s arg ue d t ha t the sch oo l d is tri ctvi ol at edit s o wn “Not ic e o f Pro cedur al Safe gu ard s” pr ov id edto App el la nt s wh enit(a) d idno t fu ll y ex pl ai n a ll of t he pro cedur es as so ci at edwith t he reev al ua ti on , (b) fai le d t o p ro vi de ful l re co rd s b efo re the Apri l 2220 08 an d Au gu st20 08 IEP m eet in gs , (c) o pp os edApp el la nt s’ des ire to have

publ ic an d p riv at e in de pe nd en t educ at io na l ev al ua ti on s wi th ou t s eek in g ahe ari ng , an d (d ) fai le d t o s eeka he ari ng whi chres ul te d i n Ap pe ll an ts ’ in ab il it y to co nf ro nt an d c ro ss -ex am in e wit ne ss es . 6 W e h av e ad dr es se d m an y of t he is su es inou r res ol ut io n o f th e p art ie s’ di sa gr eem en ts co nc ern in g t he reev al ua ti on pro ces s an d wh ethe r App el la nt s wer e en ti tl edto pri va te or p ub li c in de pe nd en t educ at io na l ev al ua ti on s. Thus , we nee d no t fu rth er d is cu ss App el la nt s’ pro cedur al de fect s re ga rd in g i ss ue s o f co ns en t t o reev al ua ti on pro cedur es or t he pri va te /p ub li c in de pe nd en t educ at io na l ev al ua ti on . Bec au se we res ol ve d t ho se qu es ti on s ag ai ns t Ap pe ll an ts , th os e co m pl ai nt s co ul d no t fo rm th e b as is of a n a rg um en t tha t G.J . was d en ie d afree an d app ro pr ia te publ ic educ at io n b as edon th e sc ho ol di st ric t’s ac ti on s i n t ho se area s. W e al so fin d tha t Ap pe ll an ts ’ arg um en t tha t the sch oo l d is tri ctrefu se d t o co ns id er re si de nt ia l p la cem en t fo r G.J. t o b e in te rtwi ne d wi th th e ree va lu at io n is su e. The s ch oo l d is tri ctco ul d n otm ak e anin fo rm edde ci si on ab ou t re si de nt ia l pl acement u nt il itco nduc te d areev al ua ti on , a pr oc es s tha t co ul d n ottak e p la ce

We rec ognize that Appellants listed many more proc edura l violations i n their Second 6 Amended Complaint befor e the Administrative L aw Judge . Howeve r, bec ause A ppellants only raised c erta in of those violations before the district court, we focus our attention on those Appellants’ a

rgue the district cour

t should have consider ed.

23un ti l the pa ren ts co ns en te d. We hav e ru le d t ha t the di st ric t co urt ap pr op ria te ly

res ol ve d t he is su e o f co ns en t t o t he reev al ua ti on an d t he refo re, we fi ndno pr oc edur al de fectwith t he factth atth e sc ho ol di st ric t wo ul d n otco ns id er res id en ti al pl acement u nt il th e ree va lu at io n was co m pl et ed . The rem ai ni ng pro cedur al pro bl em s ra is edby A pp el la nt s ar e: (1) th e sc he du li ng of t he Aug us t 2 00 8 a ndAug us t 2 00 9 IEP m eet in gs at t im es th e p aren ts co ul d n otatt en d, (2 ) no t p ro vi di ng ful l re co rd s b efo re the Aug us t 2 00 8 IEP m eet in g, (3 ) anad di ti on al att orne y fro m th e sc ho ol di st ric t at te nd in g t he Apri l 20 08 IEP m eet in g wi th ou t p rio r no ti ce, an d (4 ) fai lu re o f th e sc ho ol di st ric t t o s eek a h eari ng to res ol ve cert ai n i ss ue s. Notev ery pr oc edur al de fectres ul ts ina vi ol at io n o f th e IDEA. Rath er, “ [i]n ev al ua ti ng whet he r a p ro cedur al de fectha s d ep riv eda stud en t o f a FAPE, th e co urt m us t co ns id er the im

pa ctof t he pro cedur al de fect , andno t m erel y th e d efec t pe r se .” See W

eiss byW eiss v. Sc ho ol

Bd. o f Hi ll sb or ou gh Cn ty . , 14 1 F .3d99 0, 9 94 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) (ad op ti ng ord er o f di st ric t co urt). Th us , forex am pl e, itis cle ar th atth e ad di ti on of o ne un an no un cedco un se l fo r th e sc ho ol di st ric t atth e Apr il 20 08 IEP m eet in g c an no t h av e d ep riv edG.J. of a free an d app ro pr ia te publ ic educ at io n. No r can th e “ fai lu re” o f th e sc ho ol di st ric t t o s eeka du e p ro ces s he ari ng be sai d t o h av e subs ta nt iv el y im pa ct edth e educ at io n re cei ve d b y G.J. The 24cas e was alr eady pro ceed in g o n the ba si s o f two du e p ro ces s co m pl ai nt s fi le d b y th e p aren ts . App el la nt s h av e n otbe enab le to ad equa te ly exp la in to an y tri bu na l why the y were h arm edby the sch oo l d is tri ct ’s fai lu re t o fi le for a du e p ro ces s he ari ng , parti cu la rly where th e sc ho ol di st ric t d id , infact , att em ptto fil e a co m pl ai ntbe fo re the Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e an d Ap pe ll an ts op po se d t he fil in g of th atco m pl ai nt . Rem ai ni ng , th en , are the pa ren ts ’ al le ga ti on s re ga rd in g t he Aug us t 2 00 8 a nd 20 09 IEP m eet in gs . It i s i m po rtantto co ns id er the ti m in g a ndco nt ex t o f th es e ev en ts inord er t o d et erm in e whe th er an y im pa ct edG.J.’s rig htto a free an d ap pr op ria te publ ic educ at io n. Th e Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e is su edhe r fi na l or de rs on Nov em

be r 19 , 20 08 . At th atti m e, sh e d et erm in edth atby the ir r efu sa l t o co ns en t t o t he reev al ua ti on , th e p aren ts ha d fo rfei te d t he ir r ig ht s t o s pe ci al educ at io na l s erv ic es un de r th e IDEA. The p aren ts ap pe al edth atde ci si on to th e di st ric t co urt, wh ic h i ss ue d i ts ord er o n M arch6, 2 01 0. W e h av e p rev io us ly dis cu ss edth e IDEA’ s s ta tu to ry requi rem en ts for

su ch

“ in te rim” peri od s. In CP v. Leo n C ou nt y S ch oo l Bo ar d o

f Fl or id a , 48 3 F .3d11 51 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) , we hel d tha t Sect io n 1 41 5(

j) pro vi de s tha t “ du rin g t he pe nd en cy of a ny pr oc eed in gs co nduc te d p ur su an t t o [t he IDEA] , un le ss th e St at e o r lo cal ag en cy

an d t he pa ren ts ot he rwis e ag ree, the ch il d s ha ll rem ai n i n 25th e th en -curren t educ at io na l p la cem en t o f su chch il d ... unt il all su ch

pr oc eed in gs ha ve be enco m pl et ed .” The S up rem e Co urt h as he ldth at Sect io n 1 41 5(

j) is “un equi vo cal ,” st at in g “ pl ai nl y ” th ata sc ho ol bo ard sh al l n ot ch an ge th e cu rren t educ at io na l p la cem en t u nl es s o r un ti l i t can ag ree o n a n a lt ern at iv e p la cem en t wi th th e p aren ts , or u nt il th e is su e is res ol ve d t hr ou gh th e adm in is tra ti ve he ari ng pro ces s. Hon ig v. Doe , 48 4 U.S. 3 05 , 32 3, 1 08 S.Ct . 59 2, 6 04 , 98 L.Ed.2d68 6 (1 98 8) (quo ti ng 20 U.S.C. § 1 41 5( e)(3 ) (n ow co di fie d a t 2 0 U.S.C. § 14 15 (j))). Id. at 1 15 6 (f

oo tn ot e o m it te d) . Thes e are so m et im es refe rredto as “ st ay -p ut ” pr ov is io ns . Thu s, wh il e th e p art ie s’ com pl ai nt s wer e m ak in g t he ir wa y th ro ug h th e li ti ga ti on pro ces s, G.J .’ s p la cem en t an d IEP wou ldno t ch an ge un le ss th e pa ren ts an d t he sch oo l d is tri ctag reedon su cha ch an ge or ach an ge was m an da te d th ro ug h t he adm in is tra ti ve he ari ng pro ces s. As we s ta te d abo ve , we do kn ow tha t G.J . rem ai ne d i n p la cem en t atth e sc ho ol di st ric t an d was ev en tu al ly reeva lu at edinJu ne 20 11 . In n on e o f th ei r pl ead in gs be fo re the di st ric t co urt o r ou r co urt h av e App el la nt s d es cri be d i n a ny de ta il whatch an ge s wer e al le ge dl y m ad e b y th e sc ho ol di st ric t atth e 2 00 8 and 20 09 IEP m eet in gs or o n wh atpo rti on s o f th e IEP the pa ren ts withd rew co ns en t. The paren ts di d n otrem ov e G.J. t o adi ffer en t educ at io na l p ro gr am , no r ha ve th ey art ic ul at edan y

effo rts th ey

ha ve un de rta ke n t o m ak e up fo r an y pe rcei ve d g ap s i n G.J.’s IEP wh il e th es e ap pe al s wer e p en di ng . Thu s, re gard le ss of wh ethe r th e di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y

de te rm in edth atth es e is su es were “ m oo t,” the re i s n o b as is

26fo r m ak in g ade te rm in at io n t ha t an y pro cedur al fai lu res with re gardto th e Aug us t 20 08 an d 2 00 9 IEP m eet in gs im pa ct edth e educ at io n re cei ve d b y G.J. to an y subs ta nt iv e d eg ree. Fo r al l o f th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we AFFIRM th e o rd er o f th e d is tri ctco urt.

27