Opinion ID: 76390
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Loren's IEP Rejection

Text: 24 Loren attended an APS school through the sixth grade, then private school for the seventh and eighth grades. In 1/00, midway through the eighth grade, his parents took him to Dr. Pamela Frey, a psychologist who diagnosed him with a nonverbal learning disability (NLD). 25 On 3/4/00, Loren's mother submitted his application to a private school for the ninth grade. The second page of the application includes the following text: If you are seeking funding from your school district, please check here. Next to the box, which is checked, Loren's mother wrote: But can pay without funding from school. The printed text of the application further reads: Please note your advocate's name and phone number (if applicable) and where you are in the process at this time. Beneath this text, Loren's mother wrote: Jon Zimring — attorney 404-607-1600. Have met [with] Mr. Zimring [] and plan to meet with school reps in 2-3 weeks. Mr. Zimring expects to be able to complete process by end of this academic year. Despite the fact that Loren was currently enrolled in private school and had a pending application at a private high school, Loren's mother contacted APS on 4/17/00, via telephone, and expressed an interest in re-enrolling her son in public school. In a letter on 4/20/00, Loren's mother informed APS that she wanted to enroll her son in public school and that he would need Special Education services. Also in the letter, Loren's mother requested a meeting with Ms. Battle, an administrator for APS's special education needs, to register Loren and begin to discuss the accommodations and services that he will need. With the end of the school year being so near, I feel it is very important that we meet as soon as possible. The letter then went on to describe her scheduling constraints for such a meeting. Specifically, the letter states that, I will be out of town from April 26 — May 1, but could meet with you Tuesday, April 25, after 10:30 AM, or after I return to Atlanta. I do not work on Tuesday afternoons but with enough notice could meet you on another day. 26 On 5/9/00, Loren's parents met informally with APS. Due to the scheduling constraints of Loren's parents and Darlene Brooks, Loren's special education advocate, the parties did not meet again until 5/24/00. At the meeting, the participants reviewed Loren's case and discussed the concerns of Loren's parents. A timetable was set for Loren's evaluation concerning his eligibility for special education programs. Loren's mother also gave her written consent to the evaluations and 6/16/00 was set for a meeting to determine her son's eligibility for special education and to develop an IEP. 27 The next day, an APS speech/language pathologist began assessing Loren but was not able to complete the assessment because Loren's father told the APS speech/language pathologist that he and Loren had to leave. However, APS completed an OT evaluation, and a learning disability teacher conducted math and reading assessments, while an APS psychologist was to contact Dr. Frey to discuss her evaluation and diagnosis of Loren. 28 On 6/16/00, the parents and APS personnel reconvened to discuss Loren's special education services availability and, if appropriate, to write an IEP. By then, however, certain evaluations had not been completed and the school system had not had the opportunity to observe Loren in the classroom. Therefore, the group formulated an interim IEP. During the next 30-60 days, then, classroom observations and evaluations would be completed, after which the group would reconvene. 29 Loren's parents did not sign the interim IEP. Neither, however, did they reject it. The school added an addendum to the IEP minutes, however, acknowledging the parents' contention that APS lacked a program and training for handling NLD students. Loren's mother (Ms. Fisher) attests that no personnel qualified to implement what Loren needed ever contacted her through Loren's first week of school. 30 Loren started school at Southside on 8/14/00 but left after five days (8/18/00), never to return. On 8/21/00, Ms. Fisher sent APS a letter rejecting the IEP and informing APS that Loren would be attending private school. She, in essence, stated her belief that the school could not meet her son's needs. This was the parents' first formal IEP rejection notice to the APS. 31 The APS points to evidence reflecting its attempts, starting on 8/31/00, to contact Ms. Fisher to arrange a meeting to review Loren's IEP. This and subsequent attempts to contact her, it claims, proved fruitless. Ms. Fisher admits she received an 8/31/00 APS letter announcing that it would contact her to arrange an IEP meeting, but denies receiving a follow-up communication from the APS until it communicated with her attorney in April, 2001. 32 Ms. Fisher does not contend that she ever attempted to contact APS after withdrawing Loren from school on 8/18/00. Rather, she explains that she did not do so because APS's letter stated that it would contact her. She claims she never received any communications from the APS after 8/31/00. Thus, factual issues exist as to precisely what communications, or attempted communications, occurred after 8/31/00 but before 3/21/01. 33 We do know that after Loren's parents removed him from the APS, they formally challenged his IEP and sought tuition reimbursement through an administrative hearing request on 3/21/01. On 5/23/01, the ALJ ruled in the APS's favor, finding that the parents had failed to provide the APS with sufficient notice of their rejection of Loren's IEP (and their intention to private place him), as required by 20 U.S.C. § 1412(10)(C)(iii)(I), and also failed to provide the APS with a reasonable chance to accommodate Loren. 34 Specifically, the ALJ concluded that the fact that Loren's parents removed Loren from APS after only five days meant that Loren's parents cannot, as a matter of law, establish that [APS] failed to provide [Loren] with FAPE.... That is, the fact that Loren's parents gave the interim IEP only five days meant that Loren's parents failed to give the IEP a chance to succeed, and thus cannot establish that [APS] failed to provide [Loren] with a FAPE. According to the ALJ, 35 [t]his is particularly true where [Loren] had not been enrolled in [APS] for two years, and had never demonstrated previously any need for special education and related services. Indeed, because of an utter lack of information regarding [Loren's] needs and abilities, the IEP in question was an interim diagnostic designed to provide [APS] with the opportunity to observe [Loren] in the classroom and gather baseline data, and to conduct evaluations, in order to assess the exact nature of [Loren's] disability and create appropriate programming to meet his individual needs.... Where [APS] had promptly responded to [Loren's] requests and was taking the appropriate steps to educate [Loren], it cannot be said to have denied him FAPE. 36 The ALJ also concluded that it is beyond dispute that [Loren's] parents never gave [APS] the requisite notice of their rejection of the IEP until after [Loren] had been withdrawn from school and enrolled in the private school in Vermont. That is, Loren's mother did not provide [APS] with 10-days' notice of her rejection of the IEP and her intent to enroll [Loren] in private school. According to the ALJ, 37 the parents refused to respond to [APS's] entreaties to discuss and, if appropriate, modify [Loren's] programming, nor did [Loren's mother] contemporaneously request a due process hearing to challenge [APS's] offered IEP. Instead, the parents waited idle until almost an entire school year had passed, and only then sought a due process hearing to claim the costs of the private placement. 38 On review before the district court, the APS again prevailed. While finding fault with the ALJ's determination, 6 the district judge nevertheless found for the APS on a different ground — that Loren's parents had acted unreasonably as a matter of law. This obviated the need to rule on whether the APS provided him with a FAPE. 39 In a later order, the district court rejected the parents' proffered supplemental affidavits as, inter alia, untimely, cumulative, prejudicial to the APS, and contrary to precedent cautioning against allowing losing parties to undercut the statutory role of administrative expertise. 7 Finally, the district court found that Loren failed to establish a Section 504 claim, then denied his IDEA-reconsideration motion. 40