Seattle S.D. vs. B.S.

1. Seattle S.D. vs. B.S. Brandy Chance Marcella Helgeson Joe King Michael A MacKinnon Jennifer Andrea Trujillo

2. SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. B.S., 82 F. 3d 1493 (9th Cir. 1996). Administrative Law Judge Made Initial Ruling Federal District Court for Western Washington Affirmed ALJ Decision Appealed to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

3. Relevant Facts • A.S. qualified for special education due to an emotional and behavioral disorder • Throughout her childhood, A.S. experienced physical and sexual abuse • in school she exhibited physical/verbal aggression, oppositionality, inappropriate affection toward adults, and attention difficulties • B.S. (A.S.'s caregiver) requested her daughter receive an evaluation to determine the best possible placement for A.S. • Seattle School District refused and proceeded with A.S. in the special education classroom

4. Relevant Facts • B.S. paid for a private evaluation which determined the best possible placement for A.S. was a residential facility in Montana • Seattle School District denied this request • Therein, B.S. requested a hearing with the Administrative Law Judge claiming A.S. was not honored a free and public education under IDEA • ALJ confirmed such and determined Seattle Public School pay for A.S.'s placement at the residential facility and reimburse B.S. for evaluation costs • Seattle School District appealed the decision in district court......

5. Issues • The three primary procedural issues are: • Whether the Seattle School District was required to pay for the independent evaluation of A.S. under IDEA, after the parent B.S. was dissatisfied with the District’s assessment of A.S. as behaviorally disabled and not in need of residential schooling; • Whether the School District was required to pay for residential schooling at Intermountain or whether an alternate proposal provided A.S. a free appropriate public education under IDEA; and  • Whether A.S.’s parent B.S. was entitled to attorneys’ fees paid by the court under IDEA.

6. Holdings • The district court affirmed the ALJ’s decision in its entirety. • Questions: • Whether the School District was required to pay for Dr. Schoettle’s independent evaluation of A.S. • The court decided that the ALJ properly concluded that the School District failed to include on the assessment team anyone with knowledge in the disorders known to be the cause of A.S.’s problems and that the district court properly affirmed the ALJ’s order that the School District reimburse B.S. for the costs of Dr. Schoettle’s evaluation.

7. Holdings • Whether the School District was required to pay for A.S.’s placement at Intermountain or whether an alternative proposal provided A.S. a free appropriate public education • The court decided that the ALJ properly found that the School District’s day-schooling proposal was inadequate, that A.S. could not receive an appropriate education outside a residential placement, and that intermountain was an appropriate placement. So, the School District was responsible under the IDEA for the nonmedical costs of A.S.’s placement at Intermountain. • Whether A.S.’s parent was entitled to attorney’s fees. • They granted B.S.’s request for attorney’s fees and referred the setting of the amount to the appellate commissioner.

8. Reasoning • A. The Adequacy of the School District's Evaluation and A.S.'s Right to an Independent Evaluation • School District did not fulfill duty to "ensure . . . [that the] evaluation [of the student] is made by a multidisciplinary team . . . including at least one teacher or other specialist with knowledge in the area of suspected disability." Smith, 15 F.3d at 1523 (quoting 34 C.F.R. S 300.532(e))

9. Reasoning • B. The Appropriate Educational Placement for A.S. • the School District asserts that it should not be responsible for the costs of Intermountain because Intermountain is essentially a "medical" rather than an "educational" program. To the contrary, Intermountain is an accredited educational institution under state law. 6 See Taylor v. Honig, 910

10. Reasoning • Appropriate Educational Placement (Cntd) • Witnesses testified that it is not a psychiatric hospital and is not based on a "medical model." That A.S.'s disability, like most disabilities under the IDEA, stems from medical or psychiatric disorders, 34 C.F.R. S 300.7(b)(1)-(13), and that Intermountain's program addresses these disorders in an attempt to ensure that A.S. is able to benefit from her education, does not render the program invalid or remove the District's financial responsibility. See, e.g., Tilton v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., 705 F.2d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1983)

11. Reasoning • The School District failed to reconcile the parent's experts' recommendation that A.S. be placed in a residential facility • The School District did not satisfy its burden of proposing a specific alternative placement and establishing that it was appropriate for A.S.5 Thus, it was appropriate for the district court to order that A.S. be placed at Intermountain. • C. Attorneys' Fees • The School District purports to challenge the award of fees but presents no explanation in support of its contention of error. Accordingly, the issue is waived. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 923-24 (9th Cir. 1988).

12. Significance • School must provide independent assessment with a professional who is knowledgeable in the disability the child has • School must provide a residential placement when it is appropriate and cannot “try” or “test” other methods. • Schools do not have to pay the cost of medical treatment but “If placement in a public or private residential program is necessary to provide special education and related services to a child with a disability, the program, including non-medical care and room and board, must be at no cost to the parents of the child.” • Sometimes a residential placement is the “least restrictive environment” for some students.