Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/701/223/443778/
Timestamp: 2019-08-26 08:59:21
Document Index: 685912995

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1401', '§ 1415', '§ 1401', '§ 1417', '§ 1412', '§ 1401', '§ 1412', '§ 1401', '§ 1415', '§ 1412', '§ 1412', '§ 1415', '§ 1421']

Daniel Abrahamson, Etc., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. Corrine Hershman, et al., Etc., Defendants, Appellants, 701 F.2d 223 (1st Cir. 1983) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › First Circuit › 1983 › Daniel Abrahamson, Etc., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. Corrine Hershman, et al., Etc., Defendants, Appel...
Daniel Abrahamson, Etc., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. Corrine Hershman, et al., Etc., Defendants, Appellants, 701 F.2d 223 (1st Cir. 1983)
US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit - 701 F.2d 223 (1st Cir. 1983)
Argued Oct. 5, 1982. Decided Feb. 24, 1983
Daniel Abrahamson is a severely retarded 16-year-old child whose parents have brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the authority of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (the Act), 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. (1978). The Abrahamsons challenge the individualized educational plan (IEP)1 which Daniel's local school board, in Sharon, Massachusetts, proposes for him and which was upheld as sufficient by various Massachusetts reviewing agencies. Instead of day school training only, Daniel's parents seek a residential placement for him. The district court ruled that Daniel's right to a "free appropriate public education" within the meaning of the Act would not be met by the proposed IEP and ordered a residential placement. The Sharon School Committee (hereinafter Sharon), which bears the primary financial responsibility for any program provided to Daniel, has appealed.2
The Abrahamsons then appealed the BSEA decision to the district court under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e) (2). Sharon filed a cross-complaint against DOE's order that Sharon fund Daniel's residential placement pending appeal. On January 29, 1981 the district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring Sharon to continue paying for the placement. On February 1, 1981, the district court remanded the case to the BSEA for reconsideration in light of the interim decertification of Spear and its replacement, at the request of DOE, by ERI. On remand the hearing officer reaffirmed his earlier decision.
The central question before us is whether or not the district court erred in finding that the IEP proposed by Sharon failed to afford Daniel with a "free appropriate public education" as defined by the Act because Daniel required some form of residential care in order to achieve educational progress.6 In analyzing that question we are guided by the Supreme Court's decision in Board of Education v. Rowley, --- U.S. ----, 102 S. Ct. 3034, 73 L. Ed. 2d 690 (1982).
Id. at ----, 102 S. Ct. at 3048. At the same time, the Court rejected the argument proposed by the district court that the Act required schools to provide services that would enable handicapped children to achieve their "full potential commensurate with the opportunity provided other children." 483 F. Supp. 536 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 632 F.2d 945 (2d Cir. 1980). The Court found that "the language of the statute contains no requirement like the one imposed by the lower courts--that states maximize the potential of handicapped children 'commensurate with the opportunity provided to other children.' " --- U.S. at ----, 102 S. Ct. at 3042.
In the instant case, however, the district court did not order residential care in order to maximize Daniel's potential. Rather the court found that educational benefits which could only be provided through residential care were essential if Daniel was to make any educational progress at all. Daniel's unique condition was found to demand that he receive round-the-clock training and reinforcement. Given the evidence before the district court, see supra, we cannot say that this conclusion was clearly erroneous. Doe v. Anrig, 692 F.2d 800, 808 (1st Cir. 1982).
To be sure, the Act does not authorize a residential as opposed to a day school placement in so many words. However, it requires states to provide to handicapped children at no cost to their parents, "special education," and this term is defined to include "home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions." 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(16); 1401(18); 1412. Regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Department of Education pursuant to authority conferred by the Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1417(b), provide that
Sharon argues that Daniel's needs for residential care should not be considered educational because much of what will be provided him in a residential program will resemble custodial care. The district court found, however, that Daniel would not merely receive custodial care in a residential placement, but would receive training and reinforcement there that was essential in order for him to make any educational progress whatever. To be sure, what Daniel will be taught in a residential program, as well as in the CHARMSS day program,8 will concern skills of daily life, subjects that are not normally covered in ordinary curriculums. But, it is hard to disagree with the Third Circuit's statement that "the concept of education is necessarily broad with respect to" some severely or profoundly retarded children. Kruelle v. New Castle Country School District, 642 F.2d 687, 693 (3d Cir. 1981); see also North v. District of Columbia Board of Education, 471 F. Supp. 136 (D.D.C. 1979). Where what is being taught is how to pay attention, talk, respond to words of warning, and dress and feed oneself, it is reasonable to find that a suitably staffed and structured residential environment providing continual training and reinforcement in those skills serves an educational service for someone like Daniel. 642 F.2d at 694. Congress established a priority under the Act for the most severely retarded children, 20 U.S.C. § 1412(3), for many of whom, certainly, education will not consist of classroom training but rather training in very basic skills. Because the district court found that the CHARMSS program alone would not offer Daniel that type of reinforcement which the court found essential to his educational progress, and that Daniel would make educational progress if he were given round-the-clock training, the district court was entitled to find that the IEP proposed by Sharon failed to offer Daniel a free appropriate education.
Sharon rightly points out that the Act does not specifically provide for a child's placement in a group home. As already pointed out, however, the Act, the Secretary's regulations, and Massachusetts statutory law contemplate the possibility of residential education where the unique needs of the handicapped child necessitate it. The Act also clearly provides for home instruction, 20 U.S.C. § 1401(16), and as the court discovered in Association for Retarded Citizens of North Dakota v. Olson, Civ. No. A1-80-141 (D.N.D. Aug. 31, 1982), it is almost impossible to make a clear distinction between institutional and foster home care. Institutions and group homes share a variety of characteristics; group homes and home care share others. Id. To attempt a sharp distinction between institutions and home care and thereby exclude community homes which share characteristics of both would make little sense. Such a distinction would only make it impossible to select less costly placements in lieu of institutional ones.9 Where, as here, a group home must be selected to meet specific education criteria, we see no basis for excluding it from the choices open to education officials and courts.
This is not to say that group homes supplementing day programs are an alternative which states must provide. Congress largely left it to the states to determine educational policy. See Note, Enforcing the Right to an "Appropriate Education: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975," 92 Harv. L. Rev. 1103, 1109 (1979). The only substantive limitations Congress placed on the states were the requirements that the policy chosen provide the handicapped child with some educational benefit, Rowley, and conform to the Act's mainstreaming requirements. See infra. We hold only that the district court was acting within its authority in these circumstances in authorizing the CHARMSS-group home option.
Sharon asks us to rule that the CHARMSS-group home placement would be the "least restrictive environment" for Daniel among the alternatives listed in the court's order, and is therefore the mandated choice under the Act's mainstreaming provisions. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(5). The short answer to this contention is that the district court's order gives Sharon the option to place Daniel in a group home. Thus absent some dispute over the implementation of the court's order, the issue we are asked to rule upon is purely hypothetical.
To be sure, the district court did not reach the same result as did the BSEA. But, as the Supreme Court noted in Rowley, while courts must give "due weight" to state administrative agencies and "be careful to avoid imposing their view of preferable educational methods upon the States," --- U.S. at ----, 102 S. Ct. at 3051, courts ultimately must make "independent decision[s] based on a preponderance of the evidence." Id. at ----, 102 S. Ct. at 3050, quoting S.Conf. No. 94-455 reprinted in 1975 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1425.
The district court also disagreed with the BSEA over whether Daniel's undisputed need for residential care should be characterized as "educational" under the Act. Both the BSEA and the court were in agreement that Daniel required a residential placement. They disagreed, however, as to whether this service fell within the term "educational," thus imposing an obligation upon Sharon to fund the placement. As we have discussed above, see section II, supra, we think that the district court supportably construed Daniel's need for a residential placement as "educational" within the meaning of the Act. And in so doing we find no lack of due deference to the state, even though the BSEA held to a contrary opinion. The construction of a statutory term traditionally falls within the scope of judicial review. K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise Sec. 29.00-6 (1982 Supp.). Of course, courts normally grant administrative agencies substantial deference in this regard, id., and significant respect to state agency interpretation is warranted under the Act, which is envisioned as an example of "cooperative federation."12 Rowley, --- U.S. at ----, 102 S. Ct. at 3037-38; Battle v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 629 F.2d 269 (3d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 968, 101 S. Ct. 3123, 69 L. Ed. 2d 981 (1981). Thus, it might be inappropriate for a district court under the rubric of statutory construction to impose a particular educational methodology upon a state. Nevertheless, for judicial review to have any meaning, beyond a mere review of state procedures, the courts must be free to construe the term "educational" so as to insure, at least, that the state IEP provides the hope of educational benefit. See Rowley, --- U.S. at ----, 102 S. Ct. at 3048-49; Battle, 629 F.2d at 284 (Sloviter, J., concurring). The district court's decision is entirely consistent, moreover, with Massachusetts legislation authorizing residential placements for the handicappeD. Mass. Gen.Laws ch. 71B Sec. 2. We therefore find that the district court did not fail to give appropriate respect to state and local authorities.
Under 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(18) & (19) (1978) and Mass.Gen.Laws ch. 71B Sec. 3 (1982), school authorities must annually formulate an IEP outlining the educational goals and services that will be provided for the year for each handicapped child
A preliminary matter concerns the fact that the IEP at issue was for the 1979-80 school year, which has long since passed. Nevertheless, as we decided in Doe v. Anrig, 692 F.2d 800, 804 (1st Cir. 1982), this case is not moot. The 1979 IEP, to our knowledge, has not been superseded, and may be treated as being in effect until changed. Id.; 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e) (3)
Placing a child in a residential program when that is unnecessary for enabling the child to make educational progress may also violate the Act's mainstreaming provisions, 20 U.S.C. § 1412(5), see infra
Sharon also argues that group homes do not fall within the Act because Congress intended one agency to administer all services provided for by the Act, and in Massachusetts the DMH rather than the DOE licenses group homes. We do not find this argument persuasive. While Congress left state departments of education ultimately responsible for the carrying out of the provisions of the Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1412(6), Congress did not require state agencies to be the provider of all services. Indeed, the legislative history supports the opposite conclusion. The Senate Report on the Act stated the Act "is not to be construed to prohibit charges by the educational agency to insurers, public programs, and others for hospital care, health services, rehabilitation, and other non-educational services. States are encouraged to utilize all sources of support for comprehensive services for handicapped students." S.Rep. No. 168, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 1, reprinted in 1975 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1425, 1456
20 U.S.C. § 1415(5) requires states to establish
Programs located close to the child's home are apparently favored. 34 C.F.R. Sec. 300.552(a) (3)
The Act provides for federal assistance for the education of handicapped students in states opting to comply with the Act's requirements. 20 U.S.C. § 1421(a) (1). For a discussion of the federal-state relationship envisioned by the Act, see Rowley, --- U.S. at ----, 102 S. Ct. at 3037-38