Hjortness v. Neehah Joint Sch. Dist., No. 06-3044 (7th Cir. Nov. 14, 2007)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (IL, IN, WI) has ruled that a Wisconsin school district did not deny a student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when it “predetermined” that he should attend public school and failed to hold a second individualized education program (IEP) meeting in the face of the parents’ uncooperativeness. In May 2003, the parents of Joel Hjortness withdrew him from Shattuck Middle School in Neenah Joint School District (NJSD) out of fear that the district was failing to address his behavioral needs. They enrolled him in an out-of-state residential school. The following school year, as required by law, NJSD began developing a new IEP for Joel, which it completed after an IEP team meeting. Joel’s parents requested a due process hearing to seek reimbursement for the residential school costs. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that NJSD had complied substantively with IDEA by providing an IEP reasonably calculated to provide Joel some meaningful educational benefit but had committed a procedural violation—and denied FAPE—because the IEP was not substantially developed and NJSD already had decided before the IEP meeting to place Joel in public school. The ALJ ordered the district to reimburse the parents almost $27,000. Both sides appealed to a federal district court, which granted NJSD’s motion for summary judgment.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit first rejected the parents’ contention that the IEP was substantively inadequate, finding that the school district properly considered the various medical diagnoses and educational assessments in determining that Joel met the criteria for autism and other health impairments and that the parents failed to present any evidence that Joel would not benefit educationally from the goals in his IEP. Turning to the procedural claims, the court observed that procedural flaws alone do not require a finding of a denial of FAPE unless they result in the loss of educational opportunity. While the court conceded that NJSD arguably should have held a second IEP meeting to review the goals and objectives that were not discussed at the first meeting, it concluded this violation did not deprive Joel of a FAPE. The parents were not denied an opportunity to participate “actively and meaningfully” in developing Joel’s IEP but, on the contrary, chose not to avail themselves of the opportunity. Instead, the court noted, they refused to talk about anything other than whether the school district would pay for the private placement. “[T]he parents’ intransigence to block an IEP that yields a result contrary to the one they seek does not amount to a violation of the procedural requirements of the IDEA,” the court ruled. “To hold otherwise would allow parents to hold school districts hostage during the IEP meetings until the IEP yields the placement determination they desire.” The court also rejected the parents’ argument that IDEA required a representative of the private school to be present at the IEP meeting. This is only required if the school district placed the child in the private school, the court found. Lastly, the court rejected the argument that Joel was denied a FAPE when NJSD predetermined his placement. IDEA requires the district to educate Joel with his nondisabled peers to the “greatest extent appropriate,” the court noted. “IDEA actually required that the school district assume public placement for Joel,” and “the school district did not need to consider private placement once it determined that public placement was appropriate.”
Hjortness v. Neehah Joint Sch. Dist., No. 06-3044 (7th Cir. Nov. 14, 2007)