Opinion ID: 8414553
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Eligibility for IDEA Benefits

Text: The initial issue in this case is whether L.J. was substantively eligible for IDEA benefits, since the ALJ held he was not. A child is substantively eligible for special education and related services if he is a “child with a disability,” which is statutorily defined, in relevant part, as a child with a serious emotional disturbance, other health impairment, or specific learning disability and who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A). California Education Code similarly provides that a “student with exceptional needs” who is eligible under § 1401(3)(A) must have an impairment that “requires instruction and services which cannot be provided with modification of the regular school program.” Cal. Educ. Code §§ 56026(a), (b). Even if a child has such a disability, he or she does not qualify for special education services if support provided through the regular school program is sufficient. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A); Cal. Educ. Code § 56026. “[S]peeial classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.” 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A). The parties on appeal no longer dispute that L.J. should have been categorized as a child with a disability under three categories set forth in the statute. First, L.J. has a “specific learning disability” because he has exhibited a severe discrepancy between his intellectual ability and his achievement. 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(10). Second, L.J. has an “other health impairment” because his ADHD and mood disorders interfere with his ability to progress academically and socially. 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(9). Lastly, L.J.’s mood disorders constitute a “serious emotional disturbance.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(4). The critical issue in this appeal therefore is whether L.J. demonstrated a need for special education services. This case differs from most IDEA eases in that L.J. never received an IEP because the School District continually maintained he had no qualifying disabilities. The ALJ agreed that he had no qualifying disabilities. The district court held that the ALJ was incorrect in this regard and that L.J. had qualifying disabilities. The district court went on to conclude, however, that L.J. was performing satisfactorily without the need for special education services. We must therefore determine whether general education was appropriate or whether L.J. exhibited a need for special education services. The appropriateness of a student’s eligibility should be assessed in terms of its appropriateness at the time of the child’s evaluation and not from the perspective of a later time with the benefit of hindsight. Adams v. Oregon, 195 F.3d 1141, 1149 (9th Cir. 1999). When making this assessment of whether an eligibility determination is “appropriate” under the IDEA, this court looks to the time of the child’s evaluation by the School District. We employ what is termed the “snapshot” rule that instructs the court to judge the appropriateness of the determination on the basis of the information reasonably available to the parties at the time of the IEP meeting. Id. “An IEP must take into account what was and was not, objectively reasonable when the snapshot was taken.” Id. (citation omitted). We judge the eligibility decision on the basis of 'whether it took the relevant information into account, not on whether or not it worked. Id. . In this case, it is undisputed that the snapshot period was the period surrounding the two IEP meetings: on May 30, 2012, in the third grade, and October 9, 2012, in the fourth grade. That was the critical period on which the School District based its eligibility decisions, and the district court correctly focused on L.J.’s eligibility for special education by looking to his behavior, academic progress, and social needs at that time. The district court was correct when it found that L.J. should have been categorized as a child with a disability within the meaning of the IDEA. L.J. had multiple disabilities, which manifested serious behavioral problems. The district court nonetheless concluded that L.J. was not eligible for special education because he was academically performing satisfactorily without receiving special education services and on the basis of the general education curriculum. This was clear error because L.J. was receiving special services, including mental health counseling and assistance from a one-on-one paraeducator. These are not services offered to general education students. This distinction is important. General education is what is provided to non-disabled children in the classroom. Special education, on the other hand, is “specially designed instruction” to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability. 34 C.F.R. § 300.39(a)(1). “Specially designed instruction” is defined under the IDEA regulations: Specially designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction— (i) To address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability; and (ii) To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children. 34 C.F.R. § 300.39(b)(3) (emphasis added). The district court decided that L.J. did not need an IEP because, despite his multiple disabilities, L. J! was performing satisfactorily in general education. The problem with the district court’s analysis is that many of the services the district court viewed as general education services were in fact special education services tailored to L.J.’s situation. The district court thus classified many of the services L.J. received as general education, when they were not. Discussion of a few examples will make the point. First, general education instruction does not provide for one-on-one direction. L.J. received special assistance in the third grade from a one-on-one paraeducator, pursuant to the parties agreement that year. The School District claims that the paraeducator “faded back considerably” by May 30, the date of the initial IEP meeting, but this is not accurate. The paraedu-cator continued to assist L.J. throughout the third grade. Second, general education instruction does not provide for specially designed mental health services. The School District’s position is that L.J. received only general education mental health services from Lincoln that the School District makes available to all students. The School District distinguishes such services from services received by special education students, which are specially designed mental health services. The flaw in the School District’s argument is that the mental health services that L.J. received from second grade through fourth grade were specially-designed for him. Such services included services that the School District described as follows: Assessments, Plan Development, Group and Individual Rehabilitation, Group and Individual Therapy, Family Therapy, and Collateral Family Group and Intensive Home-Based Services. The School District acknowledges that only students requiring special education receive an educationally-related mental health assessment. L.J. received two such mental health assessments. L.J. was referred to Lincoln by the School District’s Director of Special Education and Psychological Services, and the School District acknowledged this means of referral is for special education students only. Third, general education instruction does not typically include extensive clinical interventions by a School District behavior specialist. While it is not unusual for a behavior specialist to offer support to a general education teacher, here the School District’s behavior specialist did much more. Throughout the third grade year, he designed specific BSPs in an attempt to meet L.J.’s needs. The plans included adapting the method and delivery of L.J.’s instruction, and strategies to promote a structured environment and reinforce positive behavior. The behavior specialist also designed a nine-hour training session for L.J.’s paraeducator. After training L.J.’s aide, the behavior specialist closely supervised him to ensure the interventions followed the new BSP. The district court clearly erred by mischaracterizing all of these individualized services as general education available to all students, rather than as special education provided to students with disabilities. The court went on to conclude, erroneously, that L.J. did not require specialized assistance in the future on the ground that he was no longer exhibiting behaviors that interfered with his school performance. Granted, his condition had improved during the snapshot period, for by the time of the IEP meetings, L.J.’s impairments had been eased with the accommodations and services provided by the School District. With the assistance of medication and specially designed instruction, L.J. had periods of temporary behavioral and academic gain. L.J.’s teachers, service providers, and mother all reported that L.J. had made good progress in academics and improved his social skills with his classmates during the snapshot period. Dr. Burke opined that his average or above-average academic testing scores showed academic achievement had not been impacted by any of his issues. Standardized tests ranked L.J.’s academic performance in an overall average range. Although there was progress, it was no doubt in a setting where multiple services were being provided and the progress must at least, in substantial part, be attributed to those services. Moreover, L.J. has shown himself to be an intelligent child, so his academic performance could have been even more improved with the appropriate specially designed instruction. Yet, L.J. continued to have troubling behavioral'and academic issues during the snapshot period. The district court did not adequately take these into account when it decided there was no need for future specialized services. The information available to the IEP team during the snapshot period was dramatic. L.J. threatened and attempted to kill himself on numerous occasions. On May 29, 2012, the day before his initial IEP meeting, L.J. attempted to kill himself by sticking his finger in a light socket and putting items down his throat. On May 30, 2012, the day of his first eligibility determination, L.J. could not have been doing well socially, behaviorally, or academically at school because he was in extended care at a psychiatric hospital. He was confined to the hospital for over a week and missed at least six school days. L.J. was again admitted for psychiatric hospitalization on July 17 and July 26, 2012. L.J. was detained as a danger to himself or others because he was banging his head against walls and making threats of harm. The district court concluded that L.J.’s psychiatric hospitalizations and suicide attempts were not relevant to his eligibility for specialized instruction because they occurred outside the school environment. Yet, the issue is whether his disabilities interfered with his education and necessitated special services. It is hard to imagine how an emotional disturbance so severe that it resulted in repeated suicide attempts would not interfere with school performance. That he attempted suicide outside the school environment is immaterial. His emotional disturbance adversely affected his attendance and his teachers all reported that L.J.’s classroom absences, due to psychiatric hospitalizations, hurt his academic performance. To distinguish between where a student attempted suicide — between home and school — misses the point. The point being that whether having a suicidal ideation and attempting suicide interfered with L.J.’s education. In fourth grade, in September, L.J. was suspended for two days after throwing rocks at and threatening to kill the school principal. The district court did not think his suspension was of great import, noting that it was only for two days. But this was not L.J.’s only incident. Shortly before the October 9, 2012, IEP meeting, L.J. was unable to ride the school bus because he refused .to follow the bus driver’s directions. L.J. also continually had needs associated with his medication and treatment for his mood disorders and ADHD. By fourth grade, L.J. relied on psychotropic medications in order to attend school. His fourth grade teacher reported that L.J.’s functioning declined in the absence of medication or when it had no mitigating effects. School counselors repeatedly expressed their concern regarding LJ.’s medication management. The district court neglected to discuss L.J.’s ongoing needs associated with his -medication. L.J. clearly exhibited behavioral and academic difficulty during the snapshot period. He threatened and attempted to kill himself on three occasions in 2012. In the fall, he frequently acted out at school, and continued to have needs associated with his medication regimen. The district court should not have discounted these facts. They demonstrate that L.J. required special education services. Because L.J. is eligible for special education, the School District must formulate an IEP. We reverse the district court’s decision and remand for it to order that the School District provide that remedy.