Source: https://casetext.com/case/bucks-cty-dept-of-mental-v-commonwealth
Timestamp: 2020-02-26 00:12:33
Document Index: 773624564

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1439', '§ 1439', '§ 1415', '§ 1439', '§ 1415', '§ 1439', '§ 1415', '§ 1415', '§ 1439', '§ 1432', '§ 303', '§ 303', '§ 303', '§ 303', '§ 1436', '§ 303', '§ 1436', '§ 303', '§ 1431', '§ 1431', '§ 1431', '§ 1433', '§ 1411', '§ 1400', '§ 300']

Bucks Cty. Dept. of Mental v. Commonwealth, 379 F.3d 61 | Casetext
Bucks Cty. Dept. of Mental v. Commonwealth
Ruby J. ex. rel L.L. v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
Plaintiff's argument relies on School Committee of the Town of Burlington, Massachusetts v. Department of…
TIM CARLA GEFFRE ON BEHALF v. LEOLA S. DIST. 44-2
See alsoFick ex rel. Fick v. Sioux Falls School Dist. 49-5, 337 F.3d 968, 970 (8th Cir. 2003). Reimbursing…
Full title:BUCKS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION, Appellant v.…
379 F.3d 61 (3d Cir. 2004)
affirming the district court's consideration of equitable factors in fashioning "appropriate" relief under the IDEA
Summary of this case from Deptford Township School District v. H.B
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; (D.C. Civil Action No. 01-cv-03254), District Judge: Berle M. Schiller.
Robert O. Baldi, Esquire (Argued), 123 West Bridge Street, New Hope, PA 18938, Counsel for Appellant.
Doris M. Leisch, Esquire (Argued), Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare, Room 302, 1400 Spring Garden Street, State Office Building, Philadelphia, PA 19130.
Daniel M. Fellin, Esquire, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Public Welfare, 3rd Floor West, Health Welfare Building, 7th Forster Streets, Harrisburg, PA 17120, Amicus-Comm. Of PA.
Gary S. Mayerson, Esquire (Argued), Mayerson Associates, 250 West 57th Street, Suite 624, New York, N.Y. 10107, Counsel for Appellees.
Before: SLOVITER, ROTH and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.
We will affirm the District Court. After taking into account "equitable considerations," School Committee of the Town of Burlington, Massachusetts v. Department of Education of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359, 374 (1985), we hold that under the particular circumstances of this case, where a trained service provider was not available and the parent stepped in to learn and perform the duties of a trained service provider, reimbursing the parent for her time spent in providing therapy is "appropriate" relief.
Barbara de Mora's daughter, I.D., was diagnosed with pervasive developmental delay, cerebral palsy, and deafness. Because I.D. has developmental delays, she was eligible for early intervention services under Part C of IDEA. Under IDEA, the Office of Mental Retardation of the Pennsylvania Department of Welfare administers the Pennsylvania Early Intervention Program for infants and toddlers from birth up to age three. Bucks County is the local mental health and mental retardation office responsible for coordinating services for I.D.
The parties agreed to refer to de Mora's daughter as I.D.
De Mora grew dissatisfied with I.D.'s program because she did not feel I.D. was benefitting from it. In September 1999, de Mora requested that I.D.'s IFSP be amended to provide for additional hours of therapy. She also indicated to Bucks County a preference for the Lovaas methodology of early intervention training and asked Bucks County to hire Patricia Laudon, a Lovaas-trained therapist, to provide the Lovaas training. Bucks County refused to provide more hours of therapy and also refused to provide a Lovaas training program for I.D. Because de Mora was convinced that the Lovaas training would benefit I.D., she hired, without Bucks County's support, Laudon, who in turn provided in-home therapy to I.D. from October 8, 1999, through April 10, 2000.
Lovaas training is a type of discrete trial training where lesson formats and behavioral reinforcements are used to teach specific skills.
Because Laudon was not able to spend as many hours with I.D. as I.D. needed and because de Mora was unable to find another person trained in Lovaas methodology, Laudon trained de Mora so that de Mora would be able to provide the Lovaas therapy to I.D. Laudon held one-on-one workshops where de Mora would act as the Lovaas therapist as Laudon coached her. De Mora read and learned discrete trial training teaching guidelines and other books on the Lovaas methodology. Lisa Parker, the Early Intervention Coordinator at Bucks County, testified at the due process hearing that, in her opinion, de Mora was qualified to train I.D. De Mora spent many hours working with I.D. as a Lovaas therapist without Laudon's presence. When de Mora was deposed, she gave specific examples of training exercises she executed when training I.D.I.D.'s therapists provided affidavits confirming that de Mora was acting as a Lovaas therapist, not as a mother, when she was working with I.D.
De Mora appealed the Hearing Officer's decision to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The court noted that when determining the appropriateness of the IFSP, the Hearing Officer should have examined evidence of I.D.'s progress before the Lovaas training began, as opposed to her progress while both the Lovaas and IFSP services were provided. The court found that Bucks County did not prove that the services they provided to I.D. before the private Lovaas training began produced meaningful progress toward the IFSP goals, and therefore the IFSP was not "appropriate" for I.D. De Mora v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 768 A.2d 904, 908 (Pa. Commw. 2001). Because I.D. was making progress toward her goals as a result of the combination of the private Lovaas training and the services Bucks County was providing, the court held that the private Lovaas training was appropriate. Id. On the issue of providing an "appropriate" remedy for de Mora under 20 U.S.C. § 1439(a)(1), the court held that even though I.D. was no longer eligible for services under Part C of IDEA because she was over three years old, de Mora was "entitle[d] to reimbursement for her expenses in providing I.D. with private Lovaas training." Id. The court remanded the case back to the Hearing Officer to make findings as to the "actual costs" incurred by de Mora in providing the private training. Id. Bucks County did not appeal the Commonwealth Court's decision.
On remand from the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, the Hearing Officer ordered Bucks County to reimburse de Mora $3,520 for expenses she incurred in paying Laudon and $6,842 for the time she personally spent providing the Lovaas training. On the issue of reimbursing de Mora for the time she spent training I.D., the Hearing Officer commented:
The $3,520 award represents 88 hours Laudon spent training I.D. from October 8, 1999, to December 14, 1999. The $6,842 award represents 311 hours de Mora spent training I.D. during the same time period. Laudon and de Mora continued training I.D. through April 10, 2000, the date on which I.D. lost eligibility for early intervention services. However, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania limited the Hearing Officer's consideration of reimbursement to the number of hours Laudon and de Mora spent from October 8, 1999, to December 14, 1999, because the pleading only addressed this period of time. De Mora v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 768 A.2d 904, 908 n. 16.
Equitable consideration would indicate that there should be a recompense for the expenditure of time by Mrs. de Mora in providing I.D. with what the County should have provided. Were the County to have provided I.D. with the discrete trial training in the place of Mrs. de Mora, it would have incurred the cost of implementing discrete trial training for I.D.
The only issue Bucks County appealed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was whether it was proper to reimburse de Mora for the time she spent with I.D. Bucks County did not appeal the Hearing Officer's order to reimburse de Mora for the costs she incurred from hiring Laudon. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of de Mora. Bucks County Dep't of Mental Health/Mental Retardation v. de Mora, 227 F. Supp.2d 426 (E.D.Pa. 2002). The District Court concluded that IDEA does not preclude de Mora from obtaining reimbursement for time expended providing early intervention services to I.D., nor is de Mora precluded from being reimbursed because of her lack of formal certification to provide the training. Id. at 427.
20 U.S.C. § 1439(a)(1). Accordingly, the traditional standard for reviewing summary judgments is not applicable. As to findings of fact, the proper standard of review for the District Court, and this Court, is "modified de novo." S.H., 336 F.3d at 270. Under this approach, reviewing courts are "required to defer to the . . . [hearing officer's] factual findings unless . . . [they] can point to contrary nontestimonial extrinsic evidence on the record," id., or "unless the record read in its entirety would compel a contrary conclusion." Id. (quoting Carlisle Area Sch. v. Scott P., 62 F.3d 520, 529 (3d Cir. 1995). If the reviewing court receives additional evidence, it is "free to accept or reject the agency findings depending on whether those findings are supported by the new, expanded record." Id. (quoting Oberti v. Bd. of Educ. of the Clementon Sch. Dist., 995 F.2d 1204, 1220 (3d Cir. 1993)). If the reviewing court does not receive additional evidence, "it must find support for any factual conclusions contrary" to the hearing officer's and "must explain why it does not accept the . . . findings of fact to avoid the impression that it is substituting its own notions of sound . . . policy for those of the agency it reviews."Id. As for the legal standards applied by the District Court, our review is plenary. Id.
Congress envisioned that the cooperative process of developing, reviewing, and modifying IFSPs would lead to disagreements between parents and the local agency in charge of administering the program. It is easy to foresee that conflicts will arise when parents and local agencies have different perspectives on what services are best for the child. To protect the family's right to early intervention services, Congress incorporated "procedural safeguards" into IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1415, 1439. These safeguards give the parents "[t]he opportunity . . . to examine records relating to assessment, screening, eligibility determinations, and the development and implementation of the . . . [IFSP]" and mandate "[w]ritten prior notice to the parents . . . whenever the State agency or service provider proposes to initiate or change or refuses to initiate or change . . . the provision of appropriate early intervention services."See id. § 1439(a)(4), (6). IDEA also entitles the parents to an impartial due process hearing. See id. § 1415(f).
See id. § 1439(a)(1). On judicial review of a hearing officer's decision, the court "shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate." Id. B. Reimbursing parents for the cost of private replacement therapy is an "appropriate" remedy for IDEA violations.
The Supreme Court in School Committee of the Town of Burlington, Massachusetts v. Department of Education of Massachusetts, interpreted IDEA's provision mandating reviewing courts to grant "appropriate" relief as conferring broad discretion on those courts, and stated that "the only possible interpretation is that the relief is to be `appropriate' in light of the purpose of the Act." 471 U.S. 359, 370 (1985). The Court inBurlington held that reimbursing parents for expenses incurred from placing their child in private school is "appropriate" relief when a court has found that the public school placement was inappropriate and that the parents' private placement was appropriate. Id.
In Burlington, the Court interpreted the remedial provision under Part B of the Education of the Handicapped Act, IDEA's predecessor, which grants eligible children the right to "free appropriate education." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(a). While Part C of IDEA provides services to infants and toddlers, up to age three, in accordance with an IFSP, Part B provides special education services to children from age three to twenty in accordance with an individualized education plan (IEP). The remedial provisions under Part B and Part C are, however, identical. Compare 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(B) with 20 U.S.C. § 1439(a)(1) (both stating that the court "shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate.").
We also have broadly interpreted the term "appropriate." In W.B. v. Matula, we "discern[ed] nothing in the text or history suggesting that relief under IDEA is limited in any way, and certainly no `clear direction' to rebut the presumption that all relief is available." 67 F.3d 484, 494 (3d Cir. 1995). We also
Because the Commonwealth Court determined that the privately delivered services were appropriate and because Bucks County's denial of these services made the IFSP inappropriate and constituted a violation of IDEA, under Burlington and under our own precedent, de Mora is entitled to reimbursement for the privately delivered services. Bucks County does not appeal the Hearing Officer's reimbursement award for the costs de Mora incurred from hiring Laudon, however. It challenges the reimbursement award for the time de Mora personally spent with I.D. That question is an issue of first impression for this Court. C. Under Burlington , paying de Mora for her time would constitute reimbursement, not damages.
The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare filed a brief as Amicus Curiae. The Department argues that paying de Mora for her time would not be "appropriate" relief because she never incurred any out-of-pocket expenses by providing services to I.D. herself. The Department contends further that paying de Mora for the time she personally spent would constitute a damages award, and damages are not recoverable under IDEA.
471 U.S. at 370-371. A damages award on the other hand is recompense for "generalized pain and suffering." Matula, 67 F.3d at 495; see also Polera v. Bd. of Educ. of the Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 288 F.3d 478 (2d Cir. 2002) (noting that a damages award "is redress for a broad range of harms associated with personal injury, such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, harm to reputation, or other consequential damages.").
De Mora is not seeking recompense for her or I.D.'s pain and suffering, mental anguish or other "damages" as a consequence of Bucks County's violation of IDEA. Reimbursement involves a " post hoc determination of financial responsibility," Burlington, 471 U.S. at 371, and if Bucks County had provided the Lovaas training to I.D. as de Mora requested, it would have borne the full expense of the therapy. In fact, as a result of the " post hoc determination of financial responsibility" in this case, Bucks County will actually be paying less than the cost it would have borne had it met its burden of providing the services in the first instance.
It is true that the typical reimbursement cases involve reimbursing actual out-of-pocket expenses. See e.g., Burlington, 471 U.S. 359 (cost of private education); Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993) (cost of private education); Adams v. Oregon, 195 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 1999) (cost of private therapy). However, "appropriate" should not be read so narrowly so as to preclude de Mora from being paid for her time just because she did not write a check to a third party. If we limited reimbursement to actual out-of-pocket expenses, we would give a narrow construction to "appropriate," and this would be contrary to both the Supreme Court's broad interpretation of the term in Burlington and our own broad interpretation in Matula.
Reimbursing parents for the time and services necessary for their child, when there has been an IDEA violation, is not unheard of. The First Circuit in Hurry v. Jones, 734 F.2d 879 (1984) held that in fashioning "appropriate" relief, reimbursement should not be limited to out-of-pocket expenses. In Hurry, the school's failure to provide door-to-door transportation violated the Education of the Handicapped Act (IDEA's predecessor). The main issue was whether the parents were entitled to reimbursement for driving their child to and from school.Id. at 883-84. The court noted that it held an "expansive view of reimbursement" and concluded that the father was entitled not only to reimbursement for the weekly transportation costs he incurred, but also to "compensation for the expenditure of time and effort" for delivering the services that the state should have provided. Id. at 884; see also Barnesville Exempted Village Sch. Dist., 26 IDELR 1168, (LRP) No. 97-1 (June 30, 1997) (mother entitled to reimbursement for time she spent home-schooling her son); cf. Straube v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F. Supp. 1164, 1182 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (distinguishing Hurry and holding that a father was not entitled to compensation for time spent raising money to send his son to private school because his time was not spent on delivering the services but on raising money). The only danger that theHurry court recognized in allowing this type of reimbursement was the potential for excessive reimbursement. Hurry, 734 F.2d at 884.
D. Under Florence County , the Hearing Officer awarded a "reasonable level of reimbursement" to de Mora for her time.
The Supreme Court in Florence County cautioned that reimbursement would not be "appropriate" if the cost of the private replacement is unreasonable. 510 U.S. 7, 16 (1993). The Court noted that "[c]ourts fashioning discretionary equitable relief under IDEA must consider all relevant factors, including the appropriate and reasonable level of reimbursement that should be required." Id.; accord Adams v. Oregon, 195 F.3d 1141, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999) (Parents "are entitled to reimbursement if their private placement and tutoring . . . was appropriate and reasonable.").
The Department argues that the amount the Hearing Officer awarded is not a "reasonable level of reimbursement," yet it does not offer any explanation why the amount is unreasonable. In fact, the amount that the Hearing Officer awarded de Mora for her time is a "reasonable level of reimbursement." First, de Mora is reimbursed for her time at $22/hour, approximately half the rate that Laudon charged. Second, the Hearing Officer noted that "the hourly rate so submitted [for de Mora] is within the range of the cost of a teacher had the County employed such for I.D." June 3, 2001 Decision of Hearing Officer at A54. We take note of the Hearing Officer's finding that $22 an hour is within the range of the cost that Bucks County would have had to pay and conclude that the level of reimbursement awarded is reasonable. We also conclude that the total number of hours of Lovaas training was not excessive. The Lovaas program recommends a total of 40 hours per week of training, and the combined number of hours of training provided by de Mora and Laudon amounted to 40 hours per week. Therefore, reimbursing de Mora for 40 hours of private therapy is reasonable. See T.H. v. Bd. of Educ. of Palatine Cmty. Consol. Sch. Dist., 55 F. Supp.2d 830, 844-45 (N.D.Ill. 1999) (reimbursement cost not excessive because 38-hour Lovaas program does not exceed the range of appropriate treatment levels recommended by experts).
E. De Mora is entitled to reimbursement even though she does not fit IDEA's definition of "qualified personnel."
Bucks County argues that reimbursing de Mora would not be "appropriate" because she is not "qualified personnel." Bucks County is correct in asserting that de Mora is not "qualified personnel" as defined by IDEA and its regulations. She does not have a formal education in behavioral science and does not hold a license or certification to practice in the field.
0 U.S.C. § 1432(4)(F); see also 34 C.F.R. § 303.12(e) (containing a similar list of professions). "Qualified" is defined in the regulations as "a person [who] has met State approved or recognized certification, licensing, registration, or other comparable requirements that apply to the area in which the person is providing early intervention services." 34 C.F.R. § 303.22.
There is support, however, from the Supreme Court for the proposition that although the state is required to use "qualified personnel" when the state is providing the services, parents are not required to find a replacement who meets the definition of "qualified personnel" when the state fails to provide appropriate services and there is an IDEA violation. Florence County, 510 U.S. at 14. In Florence County, the Supreme Court held that parents were entitled to reimbursement for private education expenses even though the private school did not meet state standards. The Court reasoned that if parents were required to place their children in schools that do meet the state's requirements, it would eliminate their right to withdraw their child from the inappropriate placement and the child's right to an appropriate education. Id. at 14.
Similarly, the requirement that "qualified personnel" deliver the services under Part B of IDEA does not make sense in the context of choosing substitutions for therapy. De Mora's rejection of the existing IFSP, and Bucks County's failure to modify the plan to conform to her wishes, are the reasons she decided to look for a private therapist. It would be inconsistent with IDEA's goals to forbid parents from using a replacement to provide appropriate early intervention services "`simply because that . . . [person] lacks the stamp of approval of the same . . . system that failed to meet the child's needs in the first place.'" Id. at 14 (citingCarter v. Florence County Sch. Dist. Four, 950 F.2d 156, 164 (4th Cir. 1991)). F. De Mora should be reimbursed because she acted as a service provider and provided therapy to I.D.
Bucks County also argues that Laudon was not qualified to train de Mora and that Laudon and de Mora did not implement a professional discrete trial program. Bucks County asserts that Laudon did not develop a written curriculum to document the program and that neither Laudon nor de Mora kept daily logs or records covering I.D.'s success.
Second, as the District Court remarked, Bucks County's argument that de Mora did not document I.D.'s success and therefore did not implement a proper discrete trial training program does not square with its position with respect to Laudon. Bucks County Dep't of Mental Health/Mental Retardation, 227 F. Supp.2d at 430. According to Bucks County, Laudon did not document I.D.'s success during the time that she and de Mora were using the new program. Bucks County challenges the reimbursement award to de Mora for her time on that ground, yet it did not challenge the award with respect to Laudon. In addition, Bucks County blames de Mora for not integrating the Lovaas-based therapy into the IFSP. It was de Mora, however, who wanted in the first place to integrate as program into the IFSP. Bucks County turned her away.
We now reach the crucial question in this appeal. Can de Mora, as a parent, be reimbursed for providing the Lovaas training to I.D. Bucks County and the Department argue that reimbursing de Mora would be compensating her for doing exactly what Congress intended parents to do, i.e., actively participate in the provision of the early intervention services. They argue that while Congress intended parents to be actively involved, Congress did not contemplate compensating parents for their participation. Congress did indeed contemplate parental involvement and participation in the provision of early intervention services. The Early Intervention Program is directed at meeting the needs of eligible children and the needs of families "related to enhancing the child's development." 34 C.F.R. § 303.12; accord 34 C.F.R. § 303.11 Under IDEA, early intervention services include family training and counseling. The state must provide "a family-directed assessment of the resources, priorities, and concerns of the family and the identification of the support and services necessary to enhance the family's capacity to meet the developmental needs of the infant or toddler." 20 U.S.C. § 1436(a)(2), 1432(4)(E); 34 C.F.R. § 303.12(c)(2). The parents are expected to participate in the development of the IFSP, and "[t]he contents of the . . . [IFSP] shall be fully explained to the parents and informed written consent from the parent shall be obtained prior to the provision of early intervention services." 20 U.S.C. § 1436(a)(3), (e); 34 C.F.R. § 303.12(a)(2).
Second, and more significantly, Congress could not have intended that de Mora expend valuable time litigating the appropriateness of I.D.'s IFSP in order to thereafter obtain a compensatory remedy. This is because Part C evidences a recognition that the timely provision of appropriate services to disabled infants and toddlers between birth and age three is crucial for their development. In enacting Part C, Congress recognized that these beneficiaries in particular "would be at risk of having substantial developmental delay if they d[o] not receive early intervention services." 20 U.S.C. § 1431(b)(4). The House Committee on Education and Labor specifically acknowledged this problem when it stated that "[i]t is also the Committee's intent that the procedures developed by the State result in speedy resolution of complaints because an infant's development is rapid and therefore undue delay could be potentially harmful." H.R. Rep. No. 99-860, at 14 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2401, 2415. By providing early intervention services during these crucial first three years of a disabled child's life, Congress sought "to minimize their potential for developmental delay," 20 U.S.C. § 1431(a)(1), and "to reduce the educational costs to our society . . . by minimizing the need for special education and related services after infants and toddlers with disabilities reach school age." Id. § 1431(a)(2).
June 3, 2001 Decision of Hearing Officer at A52-53. The District Court agreed and found that "Mrs. de Mora, in providing the Lovaas training, acted well beyond the parental role contemplated under Part C." Bucks County Dep't of Mental Health/Mental Retardation v. De Mora, 227 F. Supp.2d at 429. The District Court was required to defer to this finding unless it could point to contrary nontestimonial extrinsic evidence.S.H., 336 F.3d at 270. There is no contrary nontestimonial extrinsic evidence that the District Court could have relied on to make a different finding. A reading of the entire record does not compel a different finding. Furthermore, the additional evidence the District Court received, in the form of depositions and affidavits, supports the Hearing Officer's findings.
The evidence here supports the conclusion that de Mora acted not only as a generalizer but also as an implementer. De Mora is familiar with the discrete trial training techniques. When questioned, de Mora was able to give concrete examples of how she worked with I.D. as an implementer to master certain tasks. She testified that she was very learned in the teaching guidelines, and noted the importance of strict adherence to the guidelines in order to achieve positive results. Finally, the affidavits from four other therapists who were present in the home with de Mora and observed de Mora perform the Lovaas training confirm that De Mora was acting as a therapist, not as a mother, when she was working with I.D. G. "Equitable considerations" favor reimbursing de Mora.
The Department of Public Welfare correctly points out that Part C of IDEA, which governs early intervention services for infants and toddlers, includes parents and children in service delivery, whereas Part B, which governs special education services for school-age children, includes only children in service delivery. This difference, they assert, strengthens their argument that the time de Mora spent with I.D. was time for which Congress intended her to spend and not be compensated.
This argument overlooks the crucial finding that, as we discussed, de Mora not only acted as a parent, as Congress intended, but also acted as a service provider. Furthermore, this argument overlooks the fact that parental involvement is contemplated throughout all of IDEA. While eligible children and their families are the recipients of services under Part C, 20 U.S.C. § 1433 ("provide early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families"), and children alone are the recipients of services under Part B, 20 U.S.C. § 1411 ("provide special education and related services to children with disabilities"), this does not mean that Congress envisioned parental involvement to differ as soon as a child turns three years old, becomes eligible for special education services, and loses eligibility for early intervention services. As the Supreme Court noted in Burlington, "[i]n several places, [Part B of] the Act emphasizes the participation of the parents in developing the child's educational program and assessing its effectiveness." 471 U.S. at 368; see also 20 U.S.C. § 1400(c), 1401(19), 1412(7), 1415(b)(1)(A), (C), (D), (E), 1415(b)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.345 (1984).
The Department of Public Welfare also argues that de Mora should not be compensated because the Lovaas program places emphasis on parental involvement, and "Mrs. de Mora's involvement in her child's programming was entirely consistent with the parental role expected by and, indeed, critical to the success of . . . the Lovaas program in particular." It is true that the Lovaas program, like IDEA, envisions parental involvement. In particular, under the Lovaas program, parents are supposed to reinforce the skills that the children have already learned from working with the therapist. Parental involvement in this capacity is designed with the aim of generalizing skills the child learns into unstructured daily activities. O. IVAR LOVAAS ET AL., TEACHING INDIVIDUALS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DELAYS, 311 (Pro Ed 2002) (see Chapter 32 titled "Involving Parents in Treatment"). Like IDEA, however, the Lovaas program does not envision parents acting as service providers, as de Mora did here.
The Department urges us to reverse the District Court's decision because "[a]lthough intending to constrain the effect of its decision, the district court instead identified considerations that will apply to virtually every successful administrative challenge to an IFSP under Part C." To the extent the Department is expressing a concern over the potential financial burden on Bucks County, it is not a viable one. Bucks County had the opportunity, upon de Mora's request, to provide appropriate early intervention services. If Bucks County had complied with IDEA's mandate, they "need not worry about reimbursement claims."Florence County, 510 U.S. at 15.
Moreover, affirming the District Court will not have as far reaching effects as the Department of Public Welfare imagines. Reimbursement under the particular facts of this case will be limited to situations where 1) there has been a violation of IDEA and appropriate private services were provided, see Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370, 2) the amount of the reimbursement is reasonable, see Florence County, 510 U.S. at 16, and 3) a trained service provider was not available so that the parent stepped in to act as the trained service provider and not as a parent.
Finally, "equitable considerations are relevant in fashioning relief."Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374. Bucks County carries the burden of providing appropriate early intervention services, but Bucks County failed to meet this burden. De Mora was left with a choice. She could have accepted the original IFSP, which at the time she thought would be to I.D.'s detriment, or she could have found appropriate replacement services. She opted to find someone to provide the Lovaas training. However, she ran into yet another obstacle — the one person she did find could not work the hours that I.D. needed under the program to obtain better results. De Mora could not find another provider to work the remaining hours so she chose to train in discrete trial methodology and provide the therapy to I.D. herself. She spent many hours in training with Laudon and acted as an implementer of discrete trial therapy. "It would be an empty victory to have a court tell . . . [de Mora] several years later that . . . [she] was right" but that she is not entitled to reimbursement for the time she spent providing therapy. Id. at 370. If that were the case, the family's right to appropriate early intervention services at no cost would be denied.
I am concerned that the majority has set a precedent that opens a wide gap between that which is properly reimbursable and that which is not. Parental involvement with a disabled child should be expected as a matter of course. Nonetheless, because the majority takes pains to limit the scope of its decision, and in particular because of its conclusion that "a trained service provider was not available," I join its judgment, albeit with reservations.
I am personally familiar with Bucks County. It is not in the wilderness. It borders the City of Philadelphia, and is home to numerous fine hospitals, medical centers and professionals. However, I have no basis to dispute the majority's conclusion that Mrs. de Mora could not find a qualified professional. I have no personal familiarity with the Lovaas program and therefore do not know whether it is or is not commonly available.
elaborating that there is nothing in the text or legislative history to indicate a limit on what is appropriate relief
Summary of this case from Bristol Twp. Sch. Dist. v. Z.B.
noting that an "`appropriate' remedy [for denial of FAPE] encompasses the power of a court to order school authorities to provide compensatory education to a child"
Summary of this case from Penn Trafford School District v. C.F