[PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 15 48 3

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cv -0 07 27 -TW T K.A., a min or , by an d t hr ou gh he r pa ren ts an d n ex t fr ie nd s, F.A. an d A.A. an d F .A. andK.A., Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us FULTON COUNTYSCHOOL DISTRICT, Defen da nt- 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 North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Dece m be r 20 , 20 13 ) Befo re PRYOR, JORDAN an d KLEINFELD, Cir cu itJu dg es . * KLEINFELD, Ci rcu itJu dg e:

The Honor able Andr ew J. Kleinfeld, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, * sitti ngby designation. Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 1 of 33Thi s i s a c ha ll en ge to th e p ro cedur es a sc ho ol di stric t u se d i n d ev el op in g

an d c hang in g a n i nd iv idua li zededuc at io n p ro gr am fora di sabl edch il d. I. FACTS The sch oo lc hi ld , K.A., ha s Do wn’s Syndro m e. Her co nd it io n i s n otas di sabl in g a s t ha t g en et ic di so rd er i s fo r so m e, so he r paren ts th in k s he canbe ne fit fro m so m e cl as se s t ha t i nc lu de ch il dr enwitho utdi sabi li ti es . She ha s b een cl as si fie d a s h av in g a“ m il d i nt el le ctua l d is ab il it y ” an d a“ sp eech -la ng ua ge im pa irment.” Und er the Ind iv idua ls with Di sabi li ti es Edu cat io n Act(IDEA), K.A. is en ti tl edto a “ free ap pr op ria te publ ic educ at io n” im pl em en te d t hr ou gh an

“ in di vi du al iz ededuc at io n p ro gr am ” (IEP). Aft er re pe at in g k in de rg art en , th e sc ho ol di st ric t an d h er p aren ts go t t og ethe r du rin g t he sp rin g o f he r se co nd ki nd erg art eny ear a ndde si gn eda on e-year in di vi du al iz ededuc at io n p ro gr am for fir stgra de , as t he y

ha d fo r ki nd erg art en . The fi rs t-g rad e IEP p uthe r in reg ul ar cl as se s fo r so m e subjec ts , andinsp eci al cla ss es forot he rs .

2 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 2 of 33Onc e fi rs t g rad e st art edth e fo ll owi ng Aug us t, h er t each ers sai d s he was

di srup ti ve an d h av in g d iff ic ul ty keep in g up wi th th e cu rri cu lu m . The s ch oo l di st ric t m etwith t he pa ren ts to di sc us s the pro bl em s an d the IEP. The s ch oo l pe rs on ne l wan te d h er t o b e le ss “ m ai ns tre am ed ,” th atis , to ha ve m or e ti m e in sp eci al cla ss es with o th er d is ab le d c hi ld renan d l es s i n re gu la r cl as se s. Mo st si gn ifi can tl y , th ey

want edto tra ns fer h er t o adi ffer en t el em en ta ry sch oo l an d p la ce he r in a “ m il dl y

in te ll ectua ll y

di sabl ed ” p ro gr am . Her pa ren ts di d n otag ree. Th ey wan te d t o k eep he r in th e sa m e sc ho ol , hav e th e sc ho ol ass ig n a n a id e to he r, an d gi ve he r m or e ti m e to ad

jus t. Befo re fi na li zi ng th ei r di sa gr eem en t o r th e sc ho ol di st ric t’s p la n, the pa ren ts reque st edan d t he di st ric t ag reedto anop po rtu ni ty for the m to ob se rv e wha t wo ul d be th ei r daug ht er’s n ew sc ho ol . They di d s o, an d c on cl ud edth atsh e wou ldbe be tt er o ff s tay in g i n t he same sch oo l. The y th ou gh t the ne w sch oo l was to o fa r fro m wher e th ey

li ve d, an d t ha t the ir d au gh te r’s so ci al sk il ls wou ldsu fferinth e le ss m ai ns tre am edpro gr am . The p aren ts an d s ch oo l p ers on ne l h ada “ te am m eet in g” to di sc us s t he IEP. The s ch oo l d is tri ctde ci de d o ve r th e p aren ts ’ ob jecti on s t o a m en d t he IEP an d re qu ire th e ch il d t o a tt en d t he ne w sch oo l an d t he le ss m ai ns tre am edpro gr am . 3

Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 3 of 33The IDEA has a pr oc edur e in whi chth e p aren ts or s ch oo l d is tri ctm ay

“pr es en t” a co m

pl ai ntif t he y

are d is sa ti sf

ie d wi th th e in di vi du al iz ededuc at io n pr og ram th e te am ad op ts . The ch il d s ta y s p utinth e o ldsch oo l u nd er the ol d IEP un ti l the co m

pl ai ntis res ol ve d. Th e p aren ts pre se nt eda co m pl ai ntag ai ns t im pl em en ta ti on of t he ne w IEP, th e “ st ay pu t” pro vi si on wentin to effe ct , andK.A. st ay edat h er s ch oo l und er the ol d IEP th ro ug h t he en d o f th e sc ho ol y ear wh enth e IEP ex pi red . The pa ren ts wentth ro ug h t he ap pe ll at e p ro ces s p ro vi de d fo r by the st atut e: a

“ du e p ro ces s h eari ng ” b efo re an in de pe nd en t h eari ng off ic er, fo ll owe d b y

an ap pe al to a fed eral di st ric t co urt. The he ari ng off ic er d is m is se d t he ir c la im s, an d th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e sc ho ol di stric t. The pa ren ts ch al le ng e th e p ro cedur es us edto ad op t the ne w IEP, no t i ts subs ta nc e. The paren ts ’ is su es on ap pe al bo il do wn t o t he fol lo win g: (1) K.A.’ s p aren ts were de pr iv edof p rio r writ te n n ot ic e an d n ot ic e o f th ei r pr oc edur al rig ht s as requi redby th e IDEA; (2 ) th e sc ho ol di st ric t, n otth e p aren ts , sh ou ldha ve ha d t o re qu es t a due pr oc es s h eari ng an d d efen d t he pro po se d IEP ; (3 ) th e d is tri ctco urt ap pl ie d t he wro ng st an da rdof r ev ie w to th e h eari ng off ic er’s d eci si on an d o ug htto ha ve tak en ad di ti on al ev id en ce; and(4) th e p aren ts are en ti tl edto rel ie f un de r 42 U.S.C. § 4 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 4 of 3319 83 be cau se th e sc ho ol di st ric t’s ac ti on s v io la te d t he ir r ig ht s u nd er the IDEA and

th e Co ns ti tu ti on .

II . ANALYSIS A. Moo tn es s Bec au se fir stgra de an d t he on e-year IEP atis su e is ov er, the fir stis su e is whe th er the pa ren ts ’ ch al le ng e is m oo t. We con cl ud e th atitis no t, u nd er the

“ cap ab le of r ep et it io n, yet ev ad in g re vi ew” ex cep ti onto th e g en eral rul es for m oo tn es s. The ex cep ti on ap pl ie s wh ere “ (1 ) th e ch al le ng edact io n i s i n i ts

1 du rat io n t oo sh ort t o b e fu ll y li ti ga te d p rio r to ces sa ti on or e xp ira ti on ; an d (2 ) th ere i s a r eas on ab le ex pe ct at io n t ha t the same com pl ai ni ng party will be subjec t t o th e sa m e act io n a ga in .” A reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n i s “ m or e th ana m ere 2

Davis v. F ed. Elec tion Com m’n, 554 U.S. 724, 735 (2008). 1 I d. 2 5 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 5 of 33po ss ib il it y

th atth e co nduc t atis su e wil l re cu r, bu t fa r le ss th anab so lu te cert ai nt y .” 3 The Supr em e Co urt h el d i n Ho ni g v . Doe, a cas e u nd er the Edu cat io n o f th e 4 Han di cap pe d Act , th e m at eri al ly sim il ar p red eces so r st atut e to th e IDEA, th at be cau se th e co nduc t g iv in g ri se to th e d is pu te inth atcas e was reas on ab ly lik el y to recu r an d t he admin is tra ti ve an d ju di ci al pro ces s was to o “ po nd ero us ” fo r m ean in gf ul an d t im el y

rev ie w eve r to tak e p la ce, the “ cap ab le of r ep et it io n, yet ev ad in g re vi ew” ex cep ti on ap pl ie d. Ho ni g c on tro ls th is cas e. The fir strequi rem en t i s s at is fie d, b ecau se di sp ut es ov er i nd iv idua li zed educ at io n p ro gr am s ar e g en eral ly too sh ort i n dur at io n t o b e fu ll y li ti ga te d p rio r to ces sa ti on or e xp ira ti on . IEPs t y pi cal ly lastforon ly one y ear, as th is on e d id , and 5 jud ic ia l re vi ew of

a ch al le ng edpro gr am

“ in va riabl y

tak es m or e th anni ne m on th s to co m pl et e, no t t o m en ti on th e ti m e co ns um eddu rin g t he pre ced in g s ta te

Bourg eois v. Peters, 387 F .3d 1303, 1309 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted). 3 484 U.S. 305, 317-23 (1988). 4 See id. at 322-23. 5 6 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 6 of 33adm in is tra ti ve he ari ng s.” The “po nd ero us ” ad min is tra ti ve an d ju di ci al rev ie w 6 pr oc es s m eas ur edag ai ns t the bre vi ty of a s ch oo l year to whi ch anIEP ap pl ie s sa ti sf ie s t he sh ortn es s o f ti m e requi rem en t fo r th e m oo tn es s ex cep ti on . The li ke li ho odof r ecu rren ce re qu ire m en t i s s at is fie d b ecau se th ere i s a reas on ab le expe ct at io n t ha t the sch oo l d is tri ctwil l s eekto am en d K.A.’s IEP in th e fu tu re, wit h l es s m ai ns tre am in g andpo ss ib ly a dif fere ntsch oo l, wh il e th e p aren ts wil l wan t m or e m ai ns tre am in g a t the same sch oo l. The paren ts wil l h av e th e sa m e pr oc edur al ob

jecti on s t ha t the y

rai se inth is cas e. The cas e fo r rec urren ce i s s tro ng er h ere t ha n i n Ho ni g a nditwas s tro ng en ou ghth ere. In Hon ig , an e m ot io na ll y di sturbe d s tu de ntwas s us pe nd edfor m is be ha vi or . The Co urt tho ug hthe was l ik el y en ou gh to m is be have ag ai n s o t he

“ cap ab le of r ep et it io n” requi rem en t was sat is fie d. His futur e m is be ha vi orwas, as 7 th e d is se ntpo in te d o ut , at l eas t s om ewh atsp ecu la ti ve . By co nt ras t, K.A. has a 8 ge ne ti c d efec t, tris om

y 21 (Down ’s Syndro m e), wh ic h wi ll no t ch an ge an d wi ll
Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley , 458 U.S. 176, 186 n.9 (1982). 6 Honig , 484 U.S. at 318-22. 7 I d. at 337-38 (Sca lia, J ., dissenting) . 8 7 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 7 of 33cau se educ ab il it y di ffi cu lt ie s t hr ou gh ou t h er s ch oo li ng . K.A. ha s m an y y ears of sc ho ol in g l eft . Her pa ren ts are i nt en si ve ly inv ol ve d i n h er educ at io n, an d the re i s no reas on to th in k t ha t the ir d ev ot io n t o the ir d au gh te r rea li zi ng whatpo te nt ia l s he ha s wi ll di min is h. No r is th ere a ny reaso n t o d oubtth atth e sc ho ol di st ric t’s co nc ernwith h er ef

fecton ot he r stud en ts an d t he de m an ds he r ne ed s p la ce o n t he sc ho ol wil l d im in is h. The sch oo l d is tri ctha s n otdi sc la im edth e p os si bi li ty of ch an gi ng he r pl acement wh enth is li ti ga ti on en ds . K.A.’ s 2 01 1 IEP , subs eque ntto th e o ne at 9 is su e h ere, s ai d t ha t s he was “ si gn ifi can tl y be lo w gra de lev el ,” an d t he tea m m eet in g m in ut es sh ow tha t h er p aren ts an d s ch oo l p ers on ne l co nt inue to di sa gr ee on ho w bes t t o e du cat e h er. W e are li ke ly loo ki ng at t he same pro cedur al ba tt le be twee n h er s ch oo l an d h er p aren ts ev ery y ear, d ev ol vi ng in to co m pl ai nt s, “ st ay pu t” requi rem en ts , andap pe ll at e p ro ces se s ad dr es si ng th e y ear a lre ady pa st , un ti l on e si de or t he ot he r gi ve s up. Compare Sac rame nto City Unified Sch. Dist. v. Rache l H., 14 F.3d 1398, 1403 ( 9th Cir. 9 1994) (holdingthat a ca se wa s not moot because theschool district and the pa rents had conflictingviews on mainstrea m placeme nt that were “continuing. . . and [would] arise fre quently”), w ith L illbask ex rel. Mauc laire v. State of Conn. Dept. of Educ ., 397 F.3d 77, 87- 89 (2d Cir. 2005) (f

inding that a

n I EP challeng e wa s not capa ble of repetition in part beca use the school district acknow ledg ed that the c hild had flourished in the plac ement plaintiffs wa nted for him and had no plans to move the c hild). 8

Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 8 of 33Thu s, ev enth ou gh th e sc ho ol y ear tha t the ch al le ng edIEP ap pl ie d t o i s

ov er, the is su es rai se d fa ll withi n t he “ cap ab le of r ep et it io n, yet ev ad in g re vi ew” ex cep ti on to m oo tn es s. K.A.’ s ca se is no t m oo t, s o we h av e juri sd ic ti on to ad dr es s th e m eri ts . B. The IDEA Sta tu to rySc he me The sch em e fo r es tabl is hi ng an d a m en di ng in di vi du al iz ededuc at io n pr og ram s i s s etou t i n ade ta il ed , com pl ex st atut e, th e In di vi du al s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Edu cat io n Actat 2 0 U.S.C. § 14 00 et s eq . The b as ic st ru ctur e is th ataft er a ch il d is cla ss ifi ed(as K.A. has be en ) as di sabl ed , th e lo cal educ at io n a ge nc y m us t de ve lo p a n i nd iv idua li zededuc at io n p ro gr am for th e p art ic ul ar ch il d, wi th a du rat io n fr om

on e to th ree years. The IEP i s a wri tt enst at em en t tha t d es cri be s 1 0 th e ch il d’s ac ad em ic pe rfo rm an ce an d h ow t he ch il d’s d is ab il ity affe ct s h er educ at io n, s ta te s m eas ur ab le educ at io na l g oa ls an d s pe ci al ne ed s o f th e ch il d, es tabl is he s h ow the ch il d’s p ro gr es s wi ll be m eas ur edan d re po rte d, an d s ta te s t he se rv ic es av ai labl e, ba se d o n p eer- rev ie wedres earc h, t o e nabl e th e ch il d t o a tt ai n th e g oa ls , adv an ce educ at io na ll y , andpa rti ci pa te with d is ab le d a ndno nd is ab le d 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(2)( a), ( d)(4) , (d)( 5). 1 0 9 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 9 of 33ch il dr en . The p oi ntof t he en ti re co m pl ex pro cedur al ap pa ratus is to pro vi de 1 1 wha t the st atut e te rm s a “ free ap pr op ria te publ ic educ at io n” for di sabl edch il dr en . 1 2
Eve ry st ep inth e ch il d’s p ro gr es s t hr ou gh sch oo l, u nd er the IEPs a nd am en dm en ts th atwil l b e ad op te d fr om ti m e to ti m e, in vo lv es th e ch il d’s p aren ts . The sch oo l d is tri ct s ar e n otto pro ceedon th ei r own . Ins te ad , dec is io ns are m ad e by an “ IEP Team ,” who se m em be rs hi p i s s ta tu to ril y

de fin ed , with t he fir st m em be rs of t he tea m

to be th e p aren ts . The Supr em e Co urt i n S ch affe r v. Weas t 1 3 de sc rib ed“ th e co op erat iv e p ro ces s . . . bet weenparen ts an d s ch oo ls ” as “ [t]he co re of th e st atut e.” “ Co ng res s re pe at ed ly em ph as iz edth ro ug ho utth e [IDEA] the 1 4 ne ces si ty of pa ren ta l p art ic ip at io n i n b ot h the de ve lo pm en t o f th e IEP an d a ny subs eque ntass es sm en ts of i ts effe ct iv en es s.” 1 5

I d. § 1414(d)( 1)(A) (i). 1 1 I d. § 1401(9) ( “The term ‘f ree appropriate public educ ation’ mea ns special e ducation 1 2 and re lated ser

vices that – (A ) have been pr ovided at public expense, unde r public super vision and dire ction, and without charg e; (B ) mee t the standards of the State educ ational ag ency ; (C) include an a

ppropriate presc hool, elementar y school, or sec ondary

school educ ation in the State involved; and (D) are provided in conf ormity with the individualiz ed educ ation program re quired under se ction 1414(d) of

this ti tle.”). I d. § 1414(d)( 1)(B ). 1 3 546 U.S. 49, 53 (2005). 1 4 Honig , 484 U.S. at 311. 1 5 10 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 10 of 33Pare nt s ar e n otm ere s pe ct at or s, o r sp ect at or s wi th a ri gh t t o c om pl ai n a nd se ekredres s, o f sc ho ol di st ric t p ers on ne l wh o e st ab li sh pro gr am s fo r th ei r di sabl ed ch il dr en . They are f

ul l p art ic ip an ts inth e p ro ces s. Th is m ak es pra ct ic al sen se , as well as p ro vi di ng a de cen t l ev el of r es pe ctforth e v ie ws o f a d is ab le d c hi ld ’s pa ren ts . Sch oo l d is tri ct s emplo y pro fes si on al s t rai ne d i n e du cat in g c hi ld renwith di sabi li ti es an d d es ig ni ng ap pr op ria te pro gr am s wi th th e b en efi ts of e du cat io na l res earc h l it eratur e. Bu t p aren ts ha ve kn owl ed ge th atsch oo ls lac k abo utth ei r own ch il dr en . A teach er kno ws h ow a c hi ldfun ct io ns incla ss , bu t n o s ch oo l d is tri ct em pl oyee orco ns ul ta ntsh ares th e p aren ts ’ kn owl ed ge of the hi st ory , tem pe ram en t, be ha vi or , gen eral ab il it ie s, an d p ro bl em s o f th ei r pa rti cu la r ch il d. Fo r ex am pl e, a pa ren t ca n s ay

whet he r a ch il d wh o i s ap pa ren tl y no t ex pr es si ve at s ch oo l cr ie s ev ery aft ern oo n wh ensh e co m es ho m e, orwhethe r a ch il d wh o s ay s “ I can ’t” fo r ta sk s atsch oo l ac tu al ly w il l p erfo rm th em at h om e if

th e ch il d i s en co ur ag ed , or i f th e ta sk s ar e b ro ke n d own in to sm al le r st ep s. Mu ch as aph y si ci anbe ne fit s i n a way th ata ve te rin ari ancan no t, fro m he ari ng ho w th e p at ie nt ’s con di ti on ha s m an ife st edit se lf a ndth e d et ai ls of t he co nd it io n o ut si de he r of fic e, a s ch oo l’s ev al ua ti onan d d ev el op m en t o f a p ro gr am fora di sabl edch il d b en efi ts fro m acqui rin g t he act iv e p art ic ip at io n o f th e p aren ts .

11 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 11 of 33The pro ces s fo r de ve lo pi ng in di vi du al iz ededuc at io n p ro gr am s i s t ha t a t eam

co ns is ti ng of t he pa ren ts , reg ul ar an d s pe ci al educ at io n t each ers , a sc ho ol di st ric t ex pe rt i n d es ig ni ng su ch pro gr am s, an d o th ers with u se fu l ex pe rti se m eetan d ag ree upo n apro gr am . If ch an ge s ar e n eed edbe fo re the IEP ex pi res , 1 6 am en dm en ts m ay

be m ad e ei th er b y

a reco nv en edtea m , or b y a writ te n a gr eem en t be twee n the pa ren ts an d t he sch oo l d is tri ct . The s ta tu te do es no t s ay whet he r th e 1 7 te am m us t ac t b y co ns en su s, m ajor it y

vo te , or o th erwi se . Any

party m ay

“pr es en t a co m pl ai nt ” se tt in g fo rth anall eg edvi ol at io n wi th res pe ctto an y m at te r rel at in g to th e id en ti fic at io n, ev al ua ti on , or e du cat io na l p la cem en t o f th e ch il d, o r th e pr ov is io n o f a fre e ap pr op ria te publ ic educ at io n. The p aren ts an d t he sch oo l 1 8 di st ric t i nv ol ve d i n t he co m pl ai nt“ ha ve anop po rtu ni ty for anim pa rti al du e 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)( B) , (d)( 3). 1 6 I d. § 1414(d)( 3)(F ) (“ Amendments: Chang es to the IEP may be made either by

the 1 7 entire I EP Team or, a s provided in [§ 1414 (d)(3)( D)], by amendingthe I EP rather

than by redr aftingthe entire I EP.”) Section 1414(d) (3)( D) provide s: “Agree ment: In makingchang es to a child’s I EP after

the annua l I EP meetingfor a school year , the par ent of a child with a disability and the loca l educational ag ency may agree not to convene a

n I EP meetingfor the pur poses of makingsuch cha

ng es, and instea d may

develop a

written docume nt to amend or modify the child’s cur

rent I EP.” Section 1415(b)( 6) states that a State must provide: “An opportunity for a ny party to 1 8 prese nt a complaint– (A) w ith respec t to any

matter re lating to the ide ntification, eva luation, or educ ational place ment of the c hild, or the provision of a f ree appropriate public educ ation to such child; and (B ) which se ts forth an a lleg ed violation that occur red not more than 2 year s befor e the date the pa

rent or public a g ency

knew or should have known a

bout the alleg ed ac tion that forms the ba sis of the complaint . . . .” 12 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 12 of 33pr oc es s h eari ng ” be fo re a h eari ng off ic er i f th ey

ha ve no t “ res ol ve d t he 1 9 co m pl ai ntto th e sa ti sf

act io n o f th e p aren ts withi n 3 0 d ay s.” The h eari ng off ic er 2 0 m us t n otbe anem

pl oyee of th e st at e o r th e lo cal educ at io na l ag en cy in vo lv edin th e educ at io n o r car e o f th e ch il d o r a p ers onwith ape rs on al or p ro fes si on al in te res t co nf

li ct in g wi th hi s o bjec ti vi ty. At an y “ im pa rti al du e p ro ces s h eari ng ” 2 1 pa rti es are en ti tl edto “pr es en t ev id en ce an d c on fro nt , cro ss -ex am in e, an d c om pe l th e at te nd an ce o f wit ne ss es .” Agg rie ve d p art ie s m ay fil e ci vi l ac ti on s i n s ta te or 2 2 fed eral co urt, wi th th e co urt t o h ear a dd it io na l ev id en ce an d g ran t re li ef i n i ts di sc ret io n b as in g i ts de ci si on ona pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. W it h s om e 2 3 ex cep ti on s, “ th e ch il d s ha ll rem ai n i n t he th en -cu rren t educ at io na l p la cem en t” du rin g t he pe nd en cy

of thi s l en gt hy pro ces s (the “ st ay -p ut ” p ro vi si on ). Thi s 2 4 I d. § 1415(f) (1)( A) (“ Whenever a complaint has be en re ceive d under subse ction (b)( 6) 1 9 or (k) , the par ents or the loca l educational ag ency involved in such complaint shall have a n opportunity

for a n impartial due proc ess hea ring , which shall be c onducted by the State educational ag ency

or by the local e ducational a g ency , as dete rmined by State law or by

the State educational ag ency .”). I d. § 1415(f) (1)( B) (ii). 2 0 I d. § 1415(f) (3)( A)(i) . 2 1 I d. § 1415(h)( 2). 2 2 I d. §1415(i)(2) . 2 3 I d. § 1415(j) (“ Ex cept a s provided in subsection (k) (4), during thependenc y of any 2 4 proce eding s conducte d pursuant to this section, unless the State or loca l educational ag ency and the par ents otherwise agree , the child shall rema in in the then-cur rent e ducational plac ement of the child. . . .”) . 13

Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 13 of 33el ab or at e an d e xt en de d p ro cedur e (wh ic h m ay ap pl y to a pa stvi ol at io n wi th in two y ears of t he co m

pl ai nt ) es tabl is he s t he ne edforth e “ cap ab le of r ep et it io n, yet ev ad in g re vi ew” m oo tn es s ex cep ti on wher e th e co m pl ai ntch al le ng es an am en dm en t t o t he ch il d’s p ro gr am . K.A.’ s p aren ts arg ue th atth e sc ho ol di stric t d idno t co m pl y with t he IDEA’ s pr oc edur al requi rem en ts . They do no t ch al le ng e th e subs ta nc e o f th ei r daug ht er’s in di vi du al iz ededuc at io n p ro gr am or t he am en dm en t. The ir arg um en ts go on ly to pr oc edur e. C. IDEA Not ic e Req ui re men ts
Inord er fo r th e p aren ts to effe ct iv el y pa rti ci pa te inan d c on tri bu te to th e pr oc es s o f de ve lo pi ng anap pr op ria te IEP fo r th ei r ch il d, the y ne edto kn ow wh at th e sc ho ol pro po se s t o d o a ndwhy, an d wh atha s b een go in g o n wi thth e ch il d a t sc ho ol . There fo re, b efo re a t eam m eet in g a t wh ic h t he sch oo l d is tri ctpro po se s t o ad op t o r am en d a n i nd iv idua li zededuc at io n p ro gr am , th e sc ho ol di st ric t m us t pr ov id e th e p aren ts with: (1) pri orwrit te n n ot ic e th atex pl ai ns whatth e sc ho ol di st ric t p ro po se s t o d o a ndwhy, th e fac to rs th atare re le va ntto th e p ro po sa l, a 14 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 14 of 33de sc rip ti on of t he ev al ua ti ve m etho ds an d re su lt s t he sch oo l d is tri ctus edas aba si s

fo r th e p ro po se d a ct io n, an d ade sc rip ti on of o th er o pt io ns th atwere co ns id ered an d t he reas on s wh y

th ey were re jecte d; (2) anop po rtu ni ty to re vi ew al l re co rd s

2 5 pe rta in in g t o t he ir c hi ld ; an d (3 ) a fu ll ex pl an at io n o f th ei r ri gh ts , in cl ud in g t he ir 2 6 rig ht s t o p art ic ip at e, ob

ject, an d app eal . 2 7 Section 1415(b)( 3) re quires schools to provide: “ Writt en prior noticeto the pare nts of 2 5 the child, in acc ordanc e with subsection (c )(1) , whene ver the local educ ational ag ency-- ( A) proposes to initiate or cha ng e; or (B ) re fuses to initiate or cha ng e, the identific ation, evaluation, or educ ational place ment of the c hild, or the provision of a f ree appropriate public educ ation to the child.” Section 1415(c) (1) state s: “(c) The notice require d by subsection (b)( 3) shall include– (A) a description of the action propose d or re fused by the ag ency ; (B ) an e xplanation of why the ag ency

proposes or r efuse s to take the a ction and a de scription of eac h evaluation procedur e, asse ssment, rec ord, or r eport the a g ency used as a basis for the proposed or

ref used ac tion; (C) a state ment that the par ents of a c hild with a disability have pr otection under

the proc edura l safe guards of

this subchapter a

nd, if this notice is not an initi al re fer ral for evaluation, the means by which a c opy

of a de scription of the proc edura l safeguards c an be obta ined; (D) sour ces f

or par ents to contac t to obtain assistance in under standingthe provisions of this subchapte r; (E) a description of other options considere d by the I EP Team and therea son why those options wer e re jected; a nd (F ) a de scription of the fa ctors that ar e re levant to the ag ency ’s proposal or ref usal.” Section 1415(b)( 1) re quires school districts to provide: “An opportunity for the pa

rents 2 6 of a c hild with a disability to examine all records relatingto such child and to par ticipate in meeting s with respec t to the identification, eva luation, and educ ational place ment of the c hild, and the pr ovision of a fre e appr opriate public e ducation to such c hild, and to obtain an independe nt educational evaluation of the child.” I d. § 1415(d)( 1)(A) (“[a] copy of the proc edura l safeguards available to the pa rents of a 2 7 child with a disability

shall be g iven to the par ents . . . . The pr ocedur al safe guards notice shall include a f

ull ex planation of the pr ocedur al safe guards . . . available unde r this section and unde r regulations promulgated by the Secr etar

y . . . relating to– (A) inde pendent e ducational e valuation; 15

Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 15 of 33K.A.’ s p aren ts arg ue th atth ey di d n otrece iv e ad equa te pri orwrit te n n ot ic e of th e sc ho ol di st ric t’s p ro po se d a m en dm en t t o K.A.’s IEP, an d t ha t the no ti ce o f pr oc edur al saf

eg ua rd s p ro vi de d b y

th e sc ho ol di st ric t d idno t p ro vi de a fu ll ex pl an at io n o f th ei r ri gh ts . Whe th er the in fo rm at io n t ha t the sch oo l d is tri ct pr ov id edto K.A.’ s p aren ts co m pl ie d wi th th e IDEA’ s re qu ire m en ts is a m ix ed qu es ti on of l aw an d fa ct , so we rev ie w de n ov o. 2 8
Not ic e m ay

have be enin ad equa te un de r th e st atut e an d re gu la ti on s. Th e sc ho ol di st ric t d idno t p ro vi de pri orwrit te n n ot ic e b efo re th e te am m eet in g. Th e (B ) prior written notice; (C) par ental conse nt; (D) a cce ss to educational r ecor ds; (E) the opportunity

to present a

nd resolve c omplaints, including-- (i) the time period in which to make a c omplaint; (ii) the opportunity

for the a g ency

to resolve the c omplaint; and (iii) the ava ilability

of mediation; (F ) the c hild's plac ement duringpendenc y of due pr ocess pr ocee dings; (G) pr ocedur es for

students who are subject to place ment in an interim alternative educational setting; (H) r equire ments for unilater al place ment by pare nts of children in priva te schools at public expense; (I ) due pr ocess he aring s, including r equire ments for disclosure of eva luation results and rec ommendations; (J) S tate-le vel appe als (if a pplicable in that State); (K) c ivil actions, including the time pe riod in which to file such a ctions; and (L ) attorne y s’ fe es.”) . L oren F . ex rel Fisher

v. Atlanta Indep. Sch., 349 F .3d 1309, 1313 (11th Cir. 2003). 2 8 16 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 16 of 33sc ho ol di st ric t ar gu es th atitsat is fie d t he no ti ce re qu ire m en t af te r th e te am

m eet in g by pro vi di ng K.A.’ s p aren ts with c op ie s o f th e te am m eet in g m in ut es , th e o ldIEP an d t he am en dm en t, an d K.A.’s educ at io na l re co rd s. Th es e d oc um en ts , ho wev er, were p ro vi de d n otall at o nc e, an d o nl y aft er K.A.’ s fa th er re qu es te d t he m m ul ti pl e ti m es . Nev erthe le ss , we are u nabl e to id en ti fy an y pre jud ic e to K.A. or h er p aren ts fro m an y de fect s i n n ot ic e o r th e d el ay infurni sh in g K.A.’s reco rd s. “ Vio la ti on of an y of t he pro cedur es of t he IDEA is no t a p er s e v io la ti on of t he Act.” In Do e v . 2 9 Alab am a, we he ldth atth e n ot ic e d efi ci en ci es inth atcas e h adno im pa cton th e pa ren ts ’ “ fu ll an d e ffec ti ve pa rti ci pa ti on ” in th e IEP p ro ces s,” s o t he “pu rp os e o f th e p ro cedur al requi rem en t was fu ll y real iz ed ,” an d any tech ni cal vi ol at io n was no t s uf fic ie ntto warran t re li ef. W e rea ffi rm edth is ho ld in g i n Weis s v . Sch oo l 3 0 Bo ardof Hi ll sb or ou gh Co un ty whe re we h el d tha t p aren ts were n oten ti tl edto rel ie f on th ei r cl ai m s t ha t the ir c hi ld ’s sch oo l b oa rdvi ol at edth e IDEA’ s pr oc edur es , in cl ud in g n ot ic e requi rem en ts , bec au se th e fac ts di d n ot“ sh ow t ha t

Weiss v. S ch. B d. of Hillsborough Cnty ., 141 F.3d 990, 996 ( 11th Cir. 1998). 2 9 915 F.2d 651, 662 ( 11th Cir. 1990). 3 0 17 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 17 of 33[th e] pro cedur al de fect s re su lt edinha rm to [th e ch il d], or re stric te d t he [pa ren ts ’] ab il it y to pa rti ci pa te ful ly.” 3 1 The pa ren ts ha ve no t i de nt ifi edan yth in g t he y wou ldha ve do ne di ffer en tl y , an y ev id en ce the y

wou ldha ve in tro du ced , or any con tri bu ti on th ey m ig htha ve m ad e, ha d a ll th e requi redreco rd s an d n ot ic e b een pro vi de d t o t he m a reas on ab le ti m e b efo re an y

of t he tea m

m eet in gs . K.A. ’s par en ts were i nf orm edab ou t a m on th be fo re the pro po se d am en dm en t was sch edul edto tak e p la ce tha t the sch oo l di st ric t wan te d t o m ov e K.A. to an ot he r sc ho ol an d p uthe r in a le ss m ai ns tre am cl as sr oo m . The p aren ts pa rti ci pa te d i n t wo t eam m eet in gs di sc us si ng th e am en dm en t an d o bs erv edth e n ew sc ho ol . The s ch oo l d is tri ctpro vi de d K.A.’s pa ren ts with aPare nt s’ Rig ht s d oc um en t tha t d es cri be d t he pro cedur al saf eg ua rd s av ai labl e to pa ren ts un de r th e IDEA. The s ch oo l d is tri ctex te nd edK.A.’ s t im e at he r ol d s ch oo l b y

a weekso th atitco ul d s eekto res ol ve th e p aren ts ’ co nc ern s. Th e pa ren ts ev en tu al ly obt ai ne d a ll of K.A.’s reco rd s, IEPs , andth e te am m eet in g m in ut es . The p aren ts ’ pa rti ci pa ti on was fu ll an d e ffec ti ve , andth ey do no t cl ai m th atan y pro cedur al vi ol at io ns ha rm edK.A.. W e n eedno t d eci de whet he r th e
Weiss, 141 F.3d at 997. 3 1 18 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 18 of 33va rio us no ti ce re qu ire m en ts were s at is fie d, b ecau se what ev er n ot ic e d efi ci en ci es

th ere m ay ha ve be eninth is cas e, th ey do no t warran t re li ef.

D. IEP Am en dme nt

s All m em be rs of t he IEP te am , in cl ud in g K.A.’s pa ren ts , agr eedon th e fi rs t gr ad e IEP tha t the y

est ab li sh eddu rin g t he sp rin g o f K.A.’ s k in de rg art eny ear. Th e sc ho ol di st ric t s ou gh t t o a m en d K.A.’s IEP ab ou t a m on th aft er s he st art edfir st gr ad e. K.A.’ s p aren ts di d n otag ree t o t he am en dm en t. The sch oo l d is tri cthe lda te am m eet in g a ndth e te am

ad op te d t he am en dm en t. The sch oo l d is tri ctto ldth e pa ren ts th atth e am en dm en t wo ul d g o i nt o e ffec t, unl es s t he pa ren ts pre se nt eda co m pl ai ntan d re qu es te d adu e p ro ces s h eari ng . The st atut e p ro vi de s tha t an in di vi du al iz ededuc at io n p ro gr am m ay be am en de d e ithe r by the “ en ti re IEP Tea m ,” or witho uta te am

m eet in g i f th e p aren ts ag ree. The am en dm en t p ro cedur es are s etforth in20 U.S.C. § 1 41 4( d) (3 )(D) an d

3 2 (F). Se ct io n 1 41 4( d) (3 )(D) p ro vi de s: 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)( D), (F ). 3 2 19 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 19 of 33Agr eem en t: In m ak in g c hang es to a ch il d’s IEP a fte r th e an nu al IEP m eet in g

fo r a s ch oo l year, th e p aren t o f a ch il d wi tha di sabi li ty andth e lo cal educ at io na l ag en cy

m ay ag ree n otto co nv en e anIEP m eet in g fo r th e pu rp os es of m ak in g s uc h c ha ng es , andin st eadm ay de ve lo p awrit te n do cu m en t t o a m en d o r m od ify the ch il d’s cu rren t IEP. Sect io n 1 41 4( d) (3 )(F) st at es : Am en dm en ts : Ch an ge s t o t he IEP m ay be m ad e ei th er b y

th e en ti re IEP Team or, a s p ro vi de d i n [§ 14 14 (d) (3 )(D)], by am en di ng th e IEP rathe r th anby redra fti ng th e en ti re IEP. The sch oo l d is tri ctarg ue s t ha t the IEP te am canam en d a n IEP at atea m m eet in g e ve n i f th e p aren ts do no t co ns en t t o t he pro po se d c ha ng e. K.A.’ s p aren ts ap pa ren tl y

ag ree wi th th e sc ho ol di st ric t, b ecau se th ey do no t cl ai m

a ri gh t t o v et o a p ro po se d a m en dm en t. The y co nc ed e th at“ ne it he r si de ha s a ‘ve to ’ in a co ll ab or at iv e p ro ces s m id -y ear, an d e ach ha s t he rig htto de ci de th e im po rtanc e o f th e ch an ge an d u se th e d is pu te res ol ut io n m ech an is m to res ol ve it .”
W e ag ree, an d re adth e st atut e to m eanth atth e IEP t eam canam en d a n in di vi du al iz ededuc at io n p ro gr am at atea m m eet in g, ev enif t he pa ren ts do no t co ns en t. The st atut e ex pr es sl y requi res pa ren ta l co ns en t fo r a wri tt enam en dm en t whe n the re i s n o t eam

m eet in g, an d c on sp ic uo us ly om it s a r equi rem en t o f pa ren ta l co ns en t i f th e IEP i s amend edat ateam m eet in g. Th is om is si on is be streadas 20 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 20 of 33im

pl y in g ane ga ti ve pre gn an t, tha t p aren ta l co ns en t i s n otrequi redif t he tea m ad op ts anam en dm en t ata te am m eet in g. Th e fac t tha t p aren ta l co ns en t i s ex pl ic it ly requ ire d e ls ewh ere i n s ect io n 1 41 4 s up po rts ou r in te rp ret at io n. Pa ren ta l co ns en t i s re qu ire d b efo re a s ch oo l d is tri ctcanev al ua te a ch il d fo r th e fi rs t t im e, 3 3 be fo re a s ch oo l d is tri ctcanreev al ua te a ch il d, an d b efo re an IEP te am m em be r 3 4 can be ex cu se d fr om

att en di ng anIEP te am

m eet in g. “ As thi s C ou rt h as

3 5 em ph as iz ed , ‘ [w]here C on gr es s kno ws h ow t o s ay so m ethi ng bu t ch oo se s n otto , it s s il en ce i s co nt ro ll in g.’” W e ag ree wi th th e Sev en th Cir cu it(an d K.A.’s 3 6 pa ren ts do no t d is pu te ) th atth e p aren ts do no t h av e a v et o. 3 7 Bu t thi s i s n otth e en d o f ou r an al y si s. K.A.’ s p aren ts arg ue th at , if the pa ren ts do no t ag ree t o a n a m en dm en t, the sch oo l d is tri ctm us t p res en t a co m pl ai nt , reque sta du e p ro ces s h eari ng , andbe ar the bu rd enof p ro of at t he he ari ng be fo re the am en dm en t ca n b e im pl em en te d. We di sa gr ee.

I d. § 1414 (a) (1)( D). 3 3 I d. § 1414 (c) (3). 3 4 I d. § 1414(d)( 1)(C)( ii)(I ). 3 5 United States v. Webb, 655 F.3d 1238, 1257 (11th Cir. 2011) ( quoting In re Griffith, 3 6 206 F.3d 1389, 1394 ( 11th Cir. 2000) (en ba nc)) . Hjortness ex rel. Hjortness v. Ne enah Joint S ch. Dist., 507 F.3d 1060, 1066 ( 7th Cir. 3 7 2007). 21

Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 21 of 33W e are un ab le to id en ti fy an yth in g i n the st atut e th atsu gg es ts Co ng res s in te nd edto requi re s ch oo l d is tri ct s t o p res en t a c om pl ai ntan d p rev ai l ata du e pr oc es s h eari ng inord er t o a m en d a n IEP if the pa ren ts do no t co ns en t. The reg ul at io ns are al so si le nton th is is su e. Inli gh t o f th e IDEA’ s l en gt hy and ex cru ci at in gl y

de ta il edpro cedur al pro te ct io ns , we dec li ne to readin to th e st atut e a si gn ifi can t p ro cedur al requi rem en t tha t Co ng res s d idno t ex pr es s. Sect io n 1 41 5( b) (6 ) pr ov id es th ata St at e m us t g iv e: An o pp ortu ni ty for an y

pa rty to p res en t a c om

pl ai nt– (A) wit h re sp ectto an y

m at te r rel at in g t o t he id en ti fic at io n, ev al ua ti on , or e du cat io na l p la cem en t o f th e ch il d, o r th e p ro vi si on of a fre e ap pr op ria te publ ic educ at io n t o s uc h c hi ld ; an d (B) wh ic h s et s fo rth anall eg edvi ol at io n t ha t o ccu rredno t m or e th an 2 years b efo re the da te th e p aren t o r publ ic ag en cy kn ew orsh ou ld ha ve kn ownab ou t the all eg edact io n t ha t fo rm s t he ba si s o f th e co m pl ai nt . Sect io n 1 41 5( f)(1 )(A) s ay s t ha t: [w]hen ev er a co m

pl ai ntha s b een rece iv edun de r subs ect io n (b )(6 ) . . . th e p aren ts or t he lo cal educ at io na l ag en cy in vo lv edinsu ch co m pl ai ntsh al l h av e anop po rtu ni ty for an im pa rti al du e p ro ces s he ari ng , whi ch sh al l b e co nduc te d b y th e St at e educ at io na l ag en cy or by the lo cal educ at io na l ag en cy , as d et erm in edby Stat e la w or b y th e St at e educ at io na l ag en cy .

22 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 22 of 33Co ng res s amend edth e IDEA in20 04 to cla rif y th atbo th a paren t an d alo cal educ at io na l ag en cy

have “ an op

po rt un it y ” to pre se nta co m

pl ai ntan d h av e a due pr oc es s h eari ng . Whi le th e st atut e sa y s t ha t a s ch oo l d is tri ctm ay pre se nta 3 8 co m pl ai nt , itdo es no t s ay

th atsch oo l d is tri ct s ar e ev er re qu ire d t o d o s o. Th e IDEA sp eci fic al ly stat es th atsch oo l d is tri ct s ca n p res en t a c om pl ai ntan d re qu es t a du e p ro ces s h eari ng incert ai n c irc um st an ces . Whe n “ th e p aren t o f [a ch il d wh o m ay be di sabl ed ] do es no t p ro vi de co ns en t fo r anin it ia l ev al ua ti on . . . orth e pa ren t fa il s t o re sp on d t o areque stto pro vi de th e co ns en t, the lo cal educ at io na l ag en cy m ay pu rs ue th e in it ia l ev al ua ti on of t he ch il d b y ut il iz in g t he pro cedur es de sc rib edinsec ti on [14 15 ] of th is ti tl e.” The s ta tu to ry pro vi si on s t ha t 3 9 sp eci fic al ly addres s IEP am en dm en t p ro cedur es all ow a s ch oo l d is tri ctto am en d anIEP ata te am

m eet in g wi th ou t p aren ta l co ns en t. The st atut e is si le ntas t o whe th er the sch oo l m

us t fi rs t p res en t a c om

pl ai ntan d p rev ai l ata du e p ro ces s he ari ng be fo re the am en dm en t i s v al id . The p aren ts ’ pr op os edin te rp ret at io n h as no supp ort i n t he co m

pl ex an d d et ai le d s ta tu to ry pro vi si on s en act edby Con gr es s an d wo ul d e ffec ti ve ly forec lo se an y ch an ge s t o t he IEP by the tea m witho utth e

S.Rep. No. 108-185, p. 36-37 (2003) (empha sis added). 3 8 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1) (D)( ii)(I ). 3 9 23 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 23 of 33pa ren ts ’ co ns en t. Tha t re su ltwou ldbe in co ns is te ntwith t he ab se nc e o f a

requi rem en t o f pa ren ta l co ns en t i f th e te am am en ds th e IEP.

K.A.’ s p aren ts arg ue th atth e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si oninSch affe r v. W eas t res ol ve s t hi s que st io n i n t he ir f av or . In Sc ha ffer , par en ts were d is sa ti sf ie d 4 0 with t he in it ia l IEP t ha t a s ch oo l d is tri ctpro po se d fo r th ei r so n, s o t he y enro ll ed hi m inpri va te sch oo l an d s ou gh t co m pe ns at io n fo r th e p riv at e sc ho ol tu it io n b y ch al le ng in g t he pro po se d IEP forde nyin g t he ir s on a free ap pr op ria te publ ic educ at io n. Th e is su e inSch affe r was whet he r th e p aren ts or t he sch oo l d is tri ct bo re the bu rd enof p ro of

to sh ow the in ad equa cy

of t he IEP. The Supr em e Co urt

4 1 he ldth atth e “bu rd enof p ers ua si on li es wher e itus ua ll y fal ls , up on th e p arty se ek in g re li ef.” The p aren ts cla im edth atth e IEP was in ad equa te an d s ou gh t 4 2 co m pe ns at io n fo r pr iv at e sc ho ol tu it io n, s o t he y ha d t he bu rd enof p ro of

.

546 U.S. 49 (2005). 4 0 I d. at 56, 62. 4 1 I d. at 56. 4 2 24 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 24 of 33The pa ren ts inSch affe r were t he “pa rty seek in g re li ef,” b ecau se th ey

ch al le ng edth e IEP. Lik ewis e, K.A.’ s p aren ts are the party chal le ng in g t he IEP 4 3 am en dm en t an d c la im in g t ha t the sch oo l d is tri ctvi ol at edth e IDEA’ s p ro cedur al requi rem en ts . They are t he “pa rty seek in g re li ef,” b ecau se th ey ask edth e h eari ng of fic er t o s etasi de th e am en de d IEP . For the paren ts to ha ve th e b ur de n o f pr es en ti ng a co m

pl ai nt , reque st in g adu e p ro ces s h eari ng , andpro vi ng th ei r cas e is co ns is te ntwith t he ho ld in g i n S ch affe r. K.A.’ s p aren ts , th ou gh , do ha ve a co lo rab le arg um en t u nd er d ic tain Sch affe r th atsays: If p aren ts be li ev e th atanIEP is no t ap pr op ria te , th ey m ay see k a n adm in is tra ti ve “ im

pa rti al du e p ro ces s h eari ng .” § 1 41 5( f). Sch oo l di st ric ts m ay

als o s eeksu ch he ari ng s . . . They m ay do so , for ex am pl e, if th ey wis h t o c ha ng e anex is ti ng IEP bu t the pa ren ts do no t co ns en t, o r if

pa ren ts refu se to all ow t he ir c hi ldto be ev al ua te d. 4 4 W e rejectK.A.’ s p aren ts ’ arg um en t tha t the lan gu ag e ab ov e m ean s tha t s ch oo l di st ric ts m

us t al way s s eeka du e p ro ces s h eari ng if t he y wantto am en d an IEP ov er pa ren ts ’ ob

jecti on s. Th e que st io n a t i ss ue inSch affe r was whi chpa rty bear s t he

I d. at 62. 4 3 I d. at 53. 4 4 25 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 25 of 33bu rd enof p ro of , no t wh ic h p arty

m us t p res en t a c om

pl ai ntan d s eeka du e p ro ces s he ari ng . Whe th er the pa ren ts co ul d re co ve r pr iv at e sc ho ol tu it io n turne d o n whe th er the y

co ul d p ro ve by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t the IEP di d n ot pr ov id e anap pr op ria te educ at io n fo r th ei r ch il d. Th e Co urt h adno reas on to ad dr es s wh ethe r th e sc ho ol di st ric t o r th e p aren ts ha d t he burd enof p ro vi ng no nc om pl ia nc e wit h am en dm en t p ro cedur es . Requi rin g t he sch oo l t o m ak e a co m pl ai ntab ou t the tea m ’s am en dm en t wo ul d b e in co ns is te ntwith the au th or it y th e st atut e co nf

ers on th e te am

to m ak e anam en dm en t. Thi s re ad in g o f th e IDEA do es no t d ep riv e p aren ts of avo ic e inth ei r ch il d’s educ at io n. K.A.’ s p aren ts were n ot ifi edof t he pro po se d c ha ng e an d g iv enan ex pl an at io n fo r th e am en dm en t, the y pa rti ci pa te d e xt en si ve ly in the tea m m eet in gs , th ey rece iv edK.A.’ s educ at io na l re co rd s, an d t he y were n ot ifi edof t he ir pr oc edur al rig ht s, i nc lu di ng th e ri gh t t o c ha ll en ge th e am en dm en t b y pre se nt in g a co m pl ai ntan d re qu es ti ng a du e p ro ces s h eari ng . The p aren ts pre se nt eda co m pl ai ntto in vo ke th e “ st ay -p ut ” p ro vi si on , andK.A. rem ai ne d a t h er o ldsch oo l. W e are un ab le to id en ti fy an y erro r inrequi rin g t he pa ren ts to pre se nta co m pl ai nt an d d em an d adu e p ro ces s h eari ng , si nc e th ey di sa gr eedwith t he tea m

de ci si on .

26 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 26 of 33E. Distri ct

Co ur t Sta nd

ar d o f Rev ie w K.A.’ s p aren ts arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinap pl y in g t he su m m ary jud gm en t s ta nd ardlai d o utinLore n F . ex r el . Fis he r v. At la nt a In de pe nd en t Sch oo l Syste m to th ei r cl ai m s. Th ey arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e 4 5 ap pl ie d F .R. Civ . P. 56 su m m ary jud gm en t s ta nd ard s wh enrev ie win g the du e pr oc es s h eari ng off

ic er’s s umm ary de te rm in at io n, b ecau se th ey were n otgi ve n a fu ll op po rtu ni ty to p res en t ev id en ce an d c ro ss -ex am in e wit ne ss es . For t he same reas on , th ey

arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d n otha ve gi ve n d efer en ce t o t he he ari ng off

ic er’s fi nd in gs . InLore n F ., we exp la in edth at

su m m ary jud gm en t [i n IDEA ca se s] has be ende em edap pr op ria te ev enwhen fact s ar e in di sp ut e, an d i s b as edon a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. . . . Thatm ean s t ha t the us ua l F.R . Civ . P. 56 su m m ary jud gm en t p rin ci pl es do no t ap pl y inanIDEA case . Thi s i s n ot su rp ris in g, b ecau se no IDEA j ury tri al rig htex is ts . 4 6

L oren F ., 349 F.3d at 1313. 4 5 I d. 4 6 27 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 27 of 33W e se e n o re as on to de pa rt f ro m th e Lor enF. st an da rdwhenth e h eari ng off ic er ha s g ran te d s umm ary de te rm in at io n. In Lore n F ., th e h eari ng off ic er h adals o de ci de d t he cas e o n s umm ary de te rm in at io n. 4 7 The re were no si gn ifi can t fa ctua l d is pu te s fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o d eci de , an d t he co urt h adno oc cas io n t o d eferto or r ejectth e h eari ng off ic er’s fac tu al fin di ng s. Th e p aren ts do no t i de nt ify any ev id en ce the y m ig htha ve subm it te d t ha t wou ldha ve est ab li sh eda ge nu in e is su e o f fac t re ga rd in g t he ir c la im s. Th e pa ren ts ’ arg um en ts are p ur el y leg al . It i s al so un di sp ut edth atK.A.’ s p aren ts were no ti fie d o f th e p ro po se d c ha ng e, at te nd edtwo IEP m eet in gs at wh ic h the sch oo l di sc us se d a m en di ng K.A.’ s IEP, o bs erv edat t he ne w sch oo l wh ere K.A. wou ld ha ve be enpl aced , recei ve d a ll of K.A.’s reco rd s, an d p res en te d aco m pl ai nt . Any de fect s i n the no ti ce g iv ento K.A.’ s p aren ts di d n otsi gn ifi can tl y im pe de th e pa ren ts ’ parti ci pa ti on inth e IEP p ro ces s. Th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y st at edth e Lore n F . st an da rd , ful ly revi ewedth e ad m in is tra ti ve reco rd , andin de pe nd en tl y an al y zedeach of t he pa ren ts ’ cl ai m s. It s ap pl ic at io n o f th e Lor enF. st an da rdwas no t erro ne ou s.

I d. at 1316 n.6. 4 7 28 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 28 of 33F. Addit io na l Evi de nc e

The IDEA st at es th aton ap pe al of adu e p ro ces s h eari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt

“ sh al l re cei ve th e rec or ds of the adm in is tra ti ve pro ceed in gs [an d] sh al l h ear ad di ti on al ev id en ce atth e reque stof apa rty. . . .” K.A.’ s p aren ts an d the sch oo l 4 8 subm it te d c ro ss -m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t t o t he di st ric t co urt. Par en ts th en subm it te d am ot io n fo r a s ch edul in g o rd er o n t he cro ss -m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t. The y

att ach eda pr op os edord er, l at er i ss ue d b y th e d is tri ctco urt, wh ic h st at edth at“ m ot io ns forad di ti on al ev id en ce u nd er the IDEA andan y pre tri al ord er are h el d i n abe y an ce u nt il th e Co urt re so lv es th e cro ss -m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t.” Pa ren ts no w cla im th atwhen th e d is tri ctco urt i ss ue d t hi s o rd er i t vi ol at edth e st atut e. The di stric t co urt h as di sc ret io n t o d et erm in e whe th er o r no t t o a ll ow p art ie s to supp le m en t the adm in is tra ti ve reco rdinIDEA case s. “ Des pi te th e fac t tha t the 4 9 st atut e sa y s t he 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 a pa rty,’ we ha ve no t p rev 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 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C). 4 8 Walker Cnty . Sch. Dist. v. Benne tt, 203 F.3d 1293, 1298 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting 4 9 Town of B urling ton v. Dep’t of E duc., 736 F .2d 773, 791 (1st Cir. 1984)). 29 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 29 of 33an y

ti m e a p arty

so reque st s. A di st ric 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 re qu ire d t o d o s o.” Had K.A.’s pa ren ts pro ffer edev id en ce, 5 0 th e d is tri ctco urt an d we wo ul d h av e b een pre se nt edwith adi ffer en t ca se , pro babl y on e in vo lv in g t he ap pr op ria te ne ss of t he IEP orpre jud ic e fro m

so m e d efec t i n t he no ti ce. As t hi s p ur el y

leg al cas e was pre se nt ed , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n wh enitis su edth e p aren ts ’ pr op os edord er an d t he n d eci de d t he cas e o n su m m ary jud gm en t.

G. 42 U.S.C. §

19 83 Cla ims W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t o n pa ren ts ’ se ct io n 1 98 3 c la im s. The d is tri ctco urt ru le d t ha t p aren ts co ul d n otsu e 5 1 un de r se ct io n 1 98 3 fo r IDEA st atut ory vi ol at io ns , bec au se th e IDEA co nt ai ns a co m pr eh en si ve en fo rcem en t s ch em e. W e joi n t he Fir st , Thi rd , Fou rth , Nin th , and Ten thCir cu it s, an d h ol d t ha t s ect io n 1 98 3 a ct io ns forde ni al of r ig ht s co nf erre d b y th e IDEA are b arre d b ecau se th e IDEA’ s co m pr eh en si ve en fo rcem en t s ch em e G.J . v. Muscog ee Cnty . Sch. Dist., 668 F.3d 1258, 1268 (11th Cir. 2012). 5 0 McCormick v. City

of F t. L auder dale, 333 F .3d 1234, 1242-43 (11th Cir. 2003). 5 1 30 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 30 of 33pr ov id es th e so le rem edy forst atut ory

vi ol at io ns . W ere the re s om e ri gh t atis su e

5 2 co nf erre d b y th e Co ns ti tu ti on or o th er fed eral laws an d n otby the IDEA, we wou ld be pre se nt edwith adi ffer en t que st io n. Th e cl ai m s i n t hi s ca se th ou gh are en ti rel y ba se d o n ri gh ts arg uabl y

co nf erre d b y th e IDEA.
InSm it h v . Rob in so n, th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t a h an di cap pe d c hi ld 5 3 co ul d n otpu rs ue a se ct io n 1 98 3 a ct io n u nd er the Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e b ecau se th e IDEA’ s p red eces so r st atut e, th e Edu cat io n o f th e Han di cap pe d Act , pro vi de d a co m pr eh en si ve alt ern at e en fo rcem en t s ch em e. Inres po ns e, Co ng res s amend edth e Act, i nc lu di ng whatis no w 20 U.S.C. § 1 41 5( l). Se ct io n 1 41 5( l) s ta te s:

“Not hi ng inth is ch ap te r sh al l b e co ns tru edto res tri ctor l im itth e rig ht s, p ro cedur es , andrem ed ie s av ai labl e u nd er the Co ns ti tu ti on , th e Am eri can s wi thDis ab il it ie s Actof 1 99 0, t it le V of the Reh ab il it at io n Act o f 19 73 , or o th er Fe de ral st atut es pro te ct in g t he rig ht s o f ch il dr en an d you th with d is ab il it ie s . . . .”

Diaz-Fonse ca v. Puer

to Rico, 451 F.3d 13, 29 (1st Cir. 2006) (“ We hold that where the 5 2 underlying c laim is one of violation of the I DEA, plaintiffs may not use § 1983–or any

other fede ral statute f

or that matter–in a

n attempt to evade the limited remedial struc ture of the I DEA.” ); AW v. J erse y

City , 486 F.3d 791, 803 ( 3d Cir. 2007) (en ba nc); Sellers v. Sch. B d. of Manassa s, Va., 141 F .3d 524, 529-531 (4th Cir. 1998); B lancha rd v. Morton Sch. Dist., 509 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2007); Padilla v. Sch. Dist. No. 1 in Denver, 233 F .3d 1268, 1273 (10th Cir. 2000). The Sec ond and Seventh Circuits hold that plaintiffs ca n bring§ 1983 claims for IDEA violations. Mrs. W . v. Tirozz i, 832 F.2d 748, 755 (2d Cir. 1987); Ma rie O v. Edg ar, 131 F .3d 610, 621 (7th Cir. 1997). 468 U.S. 992, 1013 (1984). 5 3 31 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 31 of 33W e ag ree wi th th e Fo urth Cir cu it ’s in te rp ret at io n o f se ct io n 1 41 5( l):

[b ]y pre se rv in g ri gh ts an d re m ed ie s “ un de r th e Co ns ti tu ti on ,” se ct io n [1 41 5( l)] do es pe rm itpl ai nt iff s t o re so rt t o s ect io n 1 98 3 fo r co ns ti tu ti on al

vi ol at io ns , no twi th st an di ng th e si m il ari ty of su ch cl ai m s t o t ho se st at eddi rect ly und er IDEA. Bu t s ect io n [1 41 5( l)] do es no t p erm itpl ai nt iff

s t o s ue un de r se ct io n 1 98 3 fo r anIDEA vi ol at io n, whi ch is st at ut or

y in na tu re. Not hi ng insec ti on [14 15 (l) ] ov erru le s th e Co urt’s d eci si on inSm it h t o t he ex te ntithe ldth atCo ng res s in te nd edIDEA to pro vi de th e so le rem ed ie s fo r vi ol at io ns of t he same st atut e. 5 4 K.A.’ s p aren ts arg ue th atth e sc ho ol de pr iv edth em of the ir c on st itut io na l rig htto du e p ro ces s wh enth e sc ho ol refu se d t o re qu es t a due pro ces s h eari ng , ci ti ng ou r de ci si on inMan eck e v . Sch oo l Bo ardof P in el la s C ou nt y . InMan eck e, 5 5 a sc ho ol di st ric t re fu se d t o s ch edul e a due pro ces s h eari ng form or e th ana y ear, ev enth ou gh th e p la in ti ffs ha d p res en te d aco m pl ai ntan d re qu es te d adu e p ro ces s he ari ng . W e h el d t ha t the pa ren ts ’ co ns ti tu ti on al du e p ro ces s ri gh ts were v io la te d, be cau se th ey

were d en ie d a cces s t o adu e p ro ces s h eari ng . The s ch oo l d is tri ctin 5 6 th is cas e, ho wev er, d idno t d en y K.A.’ s p aren ts a du e p ro ces s h eari ng . K.A.’ s pa ren ts pre se nt eda co m

pl ai nt , hadth ei r cas e h eardby a hear in g o ffi cer, ap pe al ed

Sellers, 141 F.3d at 530 (emphasis in orig inal). 5 4 762 F.2d 912 ( 11th Cir. 1985). 5 5 I d. at 919. 5 6 32 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 32 of 33to th e d is tri ctco urt, an d a re n ow b efo re u s. Th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in

di sm is si ng th e p aren ts ’ se ct io n 1 98 3 c la im s. II I. CONCLUSI ON Co ns ci en ti ou s p aren ts ha ve a le gi ti m at e in te res t i n s ecurin g t he be st educ at io n t he ir c hi ldcanab so rb . Sch oo l d is tri ct s h av e a l eg it im at e in te res t i n pr ov id in g app ro pr ia te educ at io n fo r di sabl edch il dr en , whi le ass ur in g t ha t ap pr op ria te educ at io n fo r ot he r ch il dr endo es no t u ndul y su fferfro m

di srup ti on or ex pe ns e. Thes e le gi ti m at e in te res ts are i n t en si on , bu t s om eh ow m us t b e b al an ced . The st atut ory

sch em e as expl ai ne d abo ve ap pe ars to be a pr act ic al way to do th at .

AFFIRMED.

33 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 33 of 33