Opinion ID: 2647113
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the time period in which to make a complaint;

Text: (ii) the opportunity for the agency to resolve the complaint; and (iii) the availability of mediation; (F) the child's placement during pendency of due process proceedings; (G) procedures for students who are subject to placement in an interim alternative educational setting; (H) requirements for unilateral placement by parents of children in private schools at public expense; (I) due process hearings, including requirements for disclosure of evaluation results and recommendations; (J) State-level appeals (if applicable in that State); (K) civil actions, including the time period in which to file such actions; and (L) attorneys’ fees.”). 28 Loren F. ex rel Fisher v. Atlanta Indep. Sch., 349 F.3d 1309, 1313 (11th Cir. 2003). 16 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 17 of 33 school district argues that it satisfied the notice requirement after the team meeting by providing K.A.’s parents with copies of the team meeting minutes, the old IEP and the amendment, and K.A.’s educational records. These documents, however, were provided not all at once, and only after K.A.’s father requested them multiple times. Nevertheless, we are unable to identify any prejudice to K.A. or her parents from any defects in notice or the delay in furnishing K.A.’s records. “Violation of any of the procedures of the IDEA is not a per se violation of the Act.”29 In Doe v. Alabama, we held that the notice deficiencies in that case had no impact on the parents’ “full and effective participation” in the IEP process,” so the “purpose of the procedural requirement was fully realized,” and any technical violation was not sufficient to warrant relief.30 We reaffirmed this holding in Weiss v. School Board of Hillsborough County where we held that parents were not entitled to relief on their claims that their child’s school board violated the IDEA’s procedures, including notice requirements, because the facts did not “show that 29 Weiss v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty., 141 F.3d 990, 996 (11th Cir. 1998). 30 915 F.2d 651, 662 (11th Cir. 1990). 17 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 18 of 33 [the] procedural defects resulted in harm to [the child], or restricted the [parents’] ability to participate fully.”31 The parents have not identified anything they would have done differently, any evidence they would have introduced, or any contribution they might have made, had all the required records and notice been provided to them a reasonable time before any of the team meetings. K.A.’s parents were informed about a month before the proposed amendment was scheduled to take place that the school district wanted to move K.A. to another school and put her in a less mainstream classroom. The parents participated in two team meetings discussing the amendment and observed the new school. The school district provided K.A.’s parents with a Parents’ Rights document that described the procedural safeguards available to parents under the IDEA. The school district extended K.A.’s time at her old school by a week so that it could seek to resolve the parents’ concerns. The parents eventually obtained all of K.A.’s records, IEPs, and the team meeting minutes. The parents’ participation was full and effective, and they do not claim that any procedural violations harmed K.A.. We need not decide whether the 31 Weiss, 141 F.3d at 997. 18 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 19 of 33 various notice requirements were satisfied, because whatever notice deficiencies there may have been in this case, they do not warrant relief.