Opinion ID: 780674
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Parent Participation

Text: 22 As noted, the district court held that the PVUSD's failure to include Dorie's parents at the June 8 IEP meeting was a violation of the IDEA. We agree. 23 The importance of parental participation in the IEP process is evident. See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(20) (inclusion of parents in IEP team); 34 C.F.R. § 300.344(a)(3) (same); Amanda J., 267 F.3d at 892 (Procedural violations that interfere with parental participation in the IEP formulation process undermine the very essence of the IDEA.). As the Supreme Court made clear in Board of Education v. Rowley: 24 It seems to us no exaggeration to say that Congress placed every bit as much emphasis upon compliance with procedures giving parents and guardians a large measure of participation at every stage of the administrative process ... as it did upon the measurement of the resulting IEP against a substantive standard. 25 458 U.S. 176, 205-06, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982) (internal citations omitted). 26 The PVUSD argues that despite the IDEA's emphasis on parental participation in the IEP formulation process, the IDEA does not require parents to attend every IEP meeting. It relies on 34 C.F.R. § 300.345(d) for this proposition. This regulation states that [a] meeting may be conducted without a parent in attendance if the public agency is unable to convince the parents that they should attend. According to the PVUSD, because Dorie's mother chose not to attend the June 8 IEP meeting but had a sufficient opportunity to do so, it was acceptable to hold the meeting without her. The PVUSD misinterprets § 300.345. 27 Under the regulation, before it can hold an IEP meeting without a child's parents, the school district must document phone calls, correspondence, and visits to the parents demonstrating attempts to reach a mutually agreed upon place and time for the meeting. 34 C.F.R. § 300.345(d)(1)(3). Here, the Shapiros asked to reschedule the June 8 IEP meeting; they did not refuse to attend. The PVUSD's reliance on § 300.345 therefore misses the mark. The school district simply prioritized its representatives' schedules over that of Dorie's parents. 28 The PVUSD also contends that Dorie's parents contributed adequately to the June 8 IEP because the PVUSD mailed the IEP to them for their approval and they participated in prior IEP meetings. We disagree. The IDEA imposes upon the school district the duty to conduct a meaningful meeting with the appropriate parties. W.G., 960 F.2d at 1485 (emphasis added). We have made clear that those individuals, like Dorie's parents, who have first-hand knowledge of the child's needs and who are most concerned about the child must be involved in the IEP creation process. Amanda J., 267 F.3d at 891 (emphasis added). After-the-fact parental involvement is not enough. Nor does the PVUSD's inclusion of the Shapiros in certain parts of the process excuse the district's failure to include the Shapiros in the June 8 IEP meeting; involvement in the creation process requires the PVUSD to include the Shapiros unless they affirmatively refused to attend. By proceeding with the June 8 IEP meeting without Dorie's parents, the PVUSD violated the IDEA. 6