S. v. Pleasantville Union Free School District

Background

S.S. had received special-education services from Pleasantville Union Free School District through tenth grade. For the 2016–17 and 2017–18 school years, S.S.’s parents wanted her placed at Riverview School, a residential school in Massachusetts. The District instead recommended that she remain in its Individual Support Program (ISP), which included special-education classes and services in the public school.

The Parents relied in part on a report by Dr. David Gottesfeld, who diagnosed S.S. with several conditions, including Autism Spectrum Disorder, and recommended a residential school with continuous academic and therapeutic support. The District’s Committee on Special Education (CSE) considered the report and heard from Gottesfeld and the Parents, but concluded that the District’s ISP was appropriate and that a residential placement would be too restrictive. The CSE later added or changed some goals and services, but continued to recommend the ISP. The Parents placed S.S. at Riverview for both school years.

Administrative proceedings

The Parents filed a due-process complaint claiming that the District failed to provide S.S. with a free appropriate public education (FAPE), that Riverview was appropriate, and that they should receive tuition reimbursement. An impartial hearing officer (IHO) found that the District had effectively predetermined S.S.’s placement and had not meaningfully considered the Parents’ position. The IHO found Riverview appropriate, found that equitable considerations supported reimbursement, and ordered full reimbursement for the two school years. The IHO did not decide whether the District substantively provided a FAPE.

The District appealed. A state review officer (SRO) reversed the IHO’s decision. The SRO found that the Parents had meaningfully participated in the CSE meetings and that the District had not predetermined S.S.’s placement. The SRO also ruled that the Parents had waived their substantive FAPE claims by not cross-appealing the IHO’s failure to decide those claims.

Issues before the Court

The Court considered whether the District improperly predetermined S.S.’s placement or denied the Parents meaningful participation in developing her individualized education programs. It also considered whether the SRO was correct to treat the Parents’ substantive FAPE claims as waived because they had not cross-appealed from the IHO’s failure to address them.

Predetermination ruling

The Court affirmed the SRO’s finding that the District did not improperly predetermine S.S.’s placement. The Court explained that once the CSE determined that the ISP was an appropriate and least restrictive placement, the District was not required to seriously consider a more restrictive private residential placement. That did not permit the District to ignore the Parents’ views, but disagreement with the Parents’ preferred placement did not itself establish predetermination.

The Court found that the Parents had a meaningful opportunity to participate. The CSE reviewed Gottesfeld’s report, heard his explanations and recommendations, heard from the Parents at the relevant meetings, heard from Riverview staff during the 2017 process, changed S.S.’s classification to include Autism, and added or modified goals and services in response to concerns. The Court therefore granted summary judgment to the District on the predetermination issue.

Substantive FAPE claims

The Court rejected the SRO’s conclusion that the Parents waived their substantive FAPE claims. The Court reasoned that the Parents were not harmed by the IHO’s failure to decide those claims because the IHO had ruled in their favor and awarded the requested tuition reimbursement. Under the authorities discussed by the Court, a party that received the relief sought was not required to appeal or cross-appeal issues the IHO did not decide.

The Court did not decide whether the District actually provided S.S. with a substantive FAPE. Instead, because neither the IHO nor the SRO had decided those claims, the Court remanded them to the IHO for an initial decision. The Court vacated and reversed the portion of the SRO’s decision treating those claims as waived.

Disposition

The Court granted in part and denied in part the District’s motion for summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part the Parents’ cross-motion. It affirmed the SRO’s determination that the District did not engage in predetermination, vacated and reversed the SRO’s waiver ruling concerning the substantive FAPE claims, and remanded those claims to the IHO. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions and close the case.