Opinion ID: 592934
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The IDEA Claims

Text: 12 The Taylors' primary argument is that the defendants denied Todd's rights to a residential placement under the IDEA. The dispute arose because the Taylors and the defendants could not agree on Todd's residential placement. The Taylors eventually prevailed in forcing the school district and the Department of Mental Health to place Todd in the residential placement of the Taylors' choice, and they now argue that the defendants should be liable for damages for not making the placement sooner. 13 At the time this action arose, it was clear that Todd had a right to an appropriate education at public expense. See, e.g., Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 1010 (1984) ([T]he Act establishes an enforceable substantive right to a free appropriate public education.). It also was clear that Todd had a right to a residential placement under the IDEA if such a placement was necessary under his IEP. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(a)(9)-(10), (16)-(17), 1413(a)(4)(B); Clevenger v. Oak Ridge School Bd., 744 F.2d 514, 515 (6th Cir.1984); Kruelle v. New Castle School Dist., 642 F.2d 687, 692 (3d Cir.1981); Christopher T. v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 553 F.Supp. 1107, 1119 (N.D.Cal.1982); Gladys J. v. Pearland Independent School Dist., 520 F.Supp. 869, 875 (S.D.Tex.1981) (The guarantee of a 'free and appropriate public education' requires state and local educational agencies to provide residential placement when necessary to the goals of an [IEP].). 14 The Taylors wanted Todd to be placed in an appropriate residential facility as soon as possible after Todd became a ward of the state. For this purpose, the Taylors convened IEP meetings, compelled an administrative due process hearing, and eventually obtained a preliminary injunction in the district court. In this process, the Taylors identified San Marcos as an appropriate residential facility for Todd. 15 The Mental Health defendants also recognized that a residential placement was necessary for Todd early in this process. However, the Mental Health defendants had difficulty finding a residential placement that would accept Todd and disagreed with other members of the IEP team concerning San Marcos. 16 The Taylors allege that the Mental Health defendants engaged in a scheme to avoid their obligations under the IDEA by manipulating the IEP meeting process to prevent the selection of a private (and expensive) residential facility and to warehouse Todd at Juvenile Hall and CSH. The Taylors also allege that the Mental Health defendants intentionally sabotaged Todd's IEP meetings by consistently failing to provide a representative with the authority to make residential placement decisions at the IEP meetings. If the Mental Health defendants intentionally sabotaged IEP meetings and warehoused Todd, Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 309 (1988), they violated Todd's clearly established statutory right to a free appropriate public education of which a reasonable person would have known. Thus, the Taylors have alleged conduct that violated the clearly established right to a free public education, 1 and the Mental Health defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity under Harlow. The Taylors may pursue this IDEA claim. 17 The Taylors also allege that the transfer of Todd from Juvenile Hall to CSH was a change in placement that violated both the procedural requirements of § 1415(b) and the stay-put provision of § 1415(e)(3). Under § 1415(b)(1)(C), a state educational agency that receives assistance under the IDEA must give written prior notice to the parents or guardian of the child whenever such agency ... proposes to initiate or change ... the ... educational placement of the child.... § 1415(e)(3) requires that the child shall remain in the then current educational placement during the pendency of any IDEA proceedings. 18 The Taylors argue that Todd's admission to CSH was a change in placement under the reasoning of Honig. Honig, however, does not govern this issue. In Honig, the Supreme Court found that removal from a school for more than ten days is a change in the current educational placement of a child. 484 U.S. at 323-29 (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(3)). Honig does not hold that a juvenile hall is a current educational placement for purposes of the IDEA. Moreover, the IEP team never recognized Juvenile Hall as an educational placement; Juvenile Hall was an interim arrangement until Todd could be placed in an appropriate residential facility. Finally, the court order specifically states that Todd was detained at Juvenile Hall pending placement. 2 19 Although the education Todd received while detained at Juvenile Hall was the only education available to him at the time, and thus in some sense was Todd's current educational placement, Juvenile Hall was never Todd's educational placement for IDEA purposes; it simply was a place for detainment pending an educational placement. Todd's IEP was never changed to include Juvenile Hall as an educational placement. Moreover, the stay-put provision of § 1415(e)(3) was enacted to keep disabled children in school. Honig, 484 U.S. at 324. It was not enacted to keep disabled children in a juvenile hall. Therefore, the transfer from Juvenile Hall was not a change in placement for purposes of subsections 1415(b)(1)(C) and (e)(3). Accordingly, the Taylors' complaint does not allege conduct that violated clearly established rights under subsections 1415(b)(1)(C) and (e)(3), and the Taylors may not pursue this claim. 20 Even had we concluded that the transfer from Juvenile Hall to CSH was a change in educational placement for the purposes of the notice requirements of § 1415(b)(1)(C) and the stay-put provision of § 1415(e)(3), the Taylors nevertheless had no rights under these provisions because Todd's probation officer was his legal guardian. Indeed, the Taylors admit that after Todd became a ward of the state Todd's parents had no legal authority to pursue his rights under the IDEA. 21 In their citations to this court, the Taylors delete the term guardian from § 1415(b)(1)(C). However, the statute requires written prior notice to the parents or guardian of the child.... § 1415(b)(1)(C) (emphasis added). Similarly, the stay-put provision requires the child to remain in an educational placement unless the State or local agency and the parents or guardian otherwise agree.... § 1415(e)(3) (emphasis added). 22 The Juvenile Court order that detained Todd at Juvenile Hall found that the welfare of the minor require[d] custody to be taken from [Todd's] parents. The Juvenile Court therefore vested custody in Todd's juvenile probation officer pending a suitable placement. Todd's probation officer, not the Taylors, was the proper person to receive notice for purposes of § 1415(b)(1)(C) and to make agreements pursuant to § 1415(e)(3). 3 23 Section 1415(b)(1)(B) requires procedures to protect the rights of the child whenever ... the child is a ward of the State, including the assignment of an individual (who shall not be an employee of the State educational agency, local educational agency, or intermediate educational unit involved in the education or care of the child) to act as a surrogate for the parents or guardian. The Taylors allege that the probation officer was not a surrogate parent as required by § 1415(b)(1)(B). 24 It is well settled that Todd's probation officer was his legal guardian while Todd was a ward of the state: 25 For all practical purposes, when a dependent child is ordered removed from parental custody under [California Welfare and Institutions Code] section 361, both legal and physical custody appear under section 361.2, subdivision (b) to be ordered to reside in the probation officer. This conclusion is supported by section 362, subdivision (a), which provides a broad grant of authority to the juvenile court to make any and all reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the minor, where the minor has been adjudged a dependent child of the court. 26 In re Robert A., 4 Cal.App. 4th 143, ---, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 438, 444 (Ct.App.1992). This conclusion is well supported by California law. When a minor is a ward of the state, the minor's probation officer is deemed to be the minor's parent or guardian. See Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code § 202(a) (West 1984 & Supp.1992) (When the minor is removed from his or her own family, it is the purpose of this chapter to secure for the minor custody, care, and discipline as nearly as possible equivalent to that which should have been given by his or her parents.); In re Michael C., 579 P.2d 7, 10 (Cal.1978) (we recognize the role of the probation officer as a trusted guardian figure who exercises the authority of the state as parens patrie and whose duty it is to implement the protective and rehabilitative powers of the juvenile court), rev'd on other grounds, Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979); In re Florance, 300 P.2d 825, 827 (Cal.1956) (The state, represented by the juvenile court and the probation officer, stands in loco parentis to the minor.); In re Judson W, 185 Cal.App.3d 838, ---, 230 Cal.Rptr. 92, 92 (Ct.App.1986) (minor removed from the custody of both parents ... and committed to care and custody of the probation officer). 27 It also appears that the appointment of guardians for wards of the state satisfies the surrogate parent requirement of § 1415(b)(1)(B). See Garrity v. Gallen, 522 F.Supp. 171, 226 (D.N.H.1981). To comply with this section, the guardian must not be an employee of the educational agency involved in the education or care of the child. The probation officer is an employee of the Orange County Probation Department. The Taylors allege that the Orange County Department of Education and the Orange County Department of Mental Health, and not the Probation Department, are responsible for the education and care of Todd. Moreover, it appears that Todd's probation officer did indeed assert Todd's rights and attempt to protect Todd's interests. Thus, Todd's juvenile probation officer appears to qualify as a surrogate parent under the IDEA. In any event, it was not clearly established that the appointment of a probation officer as Todd's legal guardian violates the requirements of § 1415(b)(1)(B).