Opinion ID: 147102
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Equitable Reduction of Reimbursement

Text: Although we hold that C.H. was not denied a FAPE and therefore cannot seek tuition reimbursement for his private education, we agree with the District that, alternatively, equitable considerations weigh against granting the relief sought by the Parents. Even where a District is found to be in violation of the IDEA and private school placement is deemed appropriate, courts retain discretion to reduce the amount of a reimbursement award if the equities so warrant. Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 2484, 2496, 174 L.Ed.2d 168 (2009). [9] The IDEA directs that an award of private school tuition may be reduced or denied under a variety of circumstances, including upon a judicial finding of unreasonableness with respect to actions taken by the parents, 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii)(III), or where parents fail to give the school district ten days notice prior to enrolling a child in private school, id. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii)(I)(bb). [10] There is no question here that the Parents unilaterally withdrew C.H. from the District without any prior notice to the District. Further, there is no question that the Parents' conduct in delaying the continuation of the IEP meeting and cancelling the speech and language evaluation substantially precluded any possibility that the District could timely develop an appropriate IEP for C.H. and provide the necessary services to him, or that the parties could resolve this dispute without resort to litigation. The District argues that this conduct warrants equitable denial of reimbursement, as allowed by statute. In response, the Parents contend that their refusal to continue with IEP development or permit evaluation of C.H. after they filed their due process request is a right conferred on them by the IDEA. For this proposition, they refer to § 1415(j), which provides: [D]uring the pendency of any proceedings conducted pursuant to this section, unless the State or local educational agency and the parents ... otherwise agree, the child shall remain in the then-current educational placement of such child.... 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a). [11] Commonly referred to as the stay-put provision, § 1415(j) protects the status quo of a child's educational placement while a parent challenges a proposed change to, or elimination of, services. The Parents grossly misread the effect of this provision. The stay-put provision merely ensures that a disabled child's educational services are not altered or reduced until the parent has an opportunity to avail herself of the appeal procedures. The stay-put provision was never intended to suspend or otherwise frustrate the ongoing cooperation of parents and the school district to reach an amenable resolution of a disagreement over educational services. In fact, the IDEA specifically obligates the parents to participate in a resolution session with the school district after a due process request is filed where the parents of the child discuss their complaint, and the facts that form the basis of the complaint, and the local educational agency is provided the opportunity to resolve the complaint. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B)(i)(IV). [12] The inclusion of a mandatory resolution session clearly reflects Congress' intention that parents and school districts continue to work toward the resolution of disputes and the provision of appropriate educational services even after a due process request is filed. See also Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 53, 126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387 (2005) (The core of the [IDEA] ... is the cooperative process that it establishes between parents and schools.). The stay-put provision does not, therefore, excuse the Parents, who based their complaint on the absence of an IEP, from continuing to meet with the District to rectify the perceived wrong. The Parents here have disregarded their obligation to cooperate and assist in the formulation of an IEP, and failed to timely notify the District of their intent to seek private school tuition reimbursement. We believe these are among the unreasonable[]... actions taken by the parents, 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii)(III), that Congress contemplated when it gave courts the authority to equitably reduce or eliminate tuition reimbursement. See Forest Grove, 129 S.Ct. at 2496 (noting instance of unreasonableness where the parents failed to give the school district adequate notice of their intent to enroll the child in private school). The IDEA was not intended to fund private school tuition for the children of parents who have not first given the public school a good faith opportunity to meet its obligations. See Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F.2d 983, 995 (1st Cir.1990) (The law ought not to abet parties who block assembly of the required team and then, dissatisfied with the ensuing IEP, attempt to jettison it because of problems created by their own obstructionism.). Accordingly, we will also affirm the denial of the Parents' request for tuition reimbursement on equitable grounds.