Appellate Law

CA1: School District wins IEP fight

By S. COTUS

Lessard v. Wilton-Lyndeborough, No. 07-1860.  Selya does an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1491 (2000) case, and the parents lose.  This essentially comes down to an (Individualized Eduation Plan) IEP fight.  Selya seems to envision the standard of review as ?somewhere between the highly deferential clear-error standard and the non-deferential de novo standard.?  He holds that 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(vii) doesn?t require that statements of ?transition services? be articulated in a separate component of the IEP, and he says that in the absence of behavior problems 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(k)(1)(A) & (B)(I) do not requie a ?behavioral plan.?  The result is that there was no procedural problem.

This case might be relevant for looking at the way to review a District Court review of an administrative proceeding (not subject to the APA), where the District Court takes additional evidence. 

Selya describes how the School District tried to provide a plan and the mother didn?t actually lodge specific objections.  I don?t know if this is what really happened. 

The rest of the decision is a lot of IDEA nerdery dealing with the school?s obligations under the IDEA, and I don?t have the patience to deal with it today.

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on February 25, 2008 (boomark / email).