Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Doug C. v. Hawaii (9th Cir. 2013)
Transcript of Doug C. v. Hawaii (9th Cir. 2013)
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00441- KSC
This case stresses the importance of parent participation.
This ruling emphasizes:
the importance of parent participation
the sheduling needs of the parent outweigh the scheduling needs of participating school officials
changes in placement need parental approval
As diagnositicians, we need to keep in mind:
to convey the importance of their role to each parent
to make the parent aware of important changes that may be proposed; these changes will need to be discussed and agreed upon
to find out if the parent has any concerns that may be causing them to take actions to avoid the ARD meetings
Parental participation in the IEP and educational placement process is
to the organization of the IDEA. See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B)(i) (requiring the inclusion of parents on the IEP team); 34 C.F.R. § 300.321(a)(1) (same); 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1) (requiring opportunities for parents “to participate in meetings with respect to identification, evaluation and educational placement of the child”).
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court’s judgment and remand. On remand, the district court must determine whether Doug C. is entitled to reimbursement for the costs of maintaining Spencer at Horizons Academy during the administrative and judicial review proceedings. Parents who place their children in private schools pending review proceedings under the IDEA are entitled to reimbursement if (1) the public placement violated the IDEA and (2) “the private school placement was proper under the Act.”
Reversing the district court’s judgment, the panel held that the Hawaii Department of Education violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by holding a student’s annual individualized education program meeting without the participation of a parent.
The IEP meeting in question changed Spencer’s placement from Horizons Academy, a private special education facility, to the Workplace Readiness Program at Maui High School.
Spencer's right to FAPE was denied because the need of the presence of his parent outweights the need of 11 people to change their schedules.
Doug C. v. Hawaii (9th Cir. 2013)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Kevin S. Chang, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 16, 2012—Honolulu, Hawaii
Filed June 13, 2013
The panel determined that the Department of Education of Hawaii denied the student FAPE by holding the IEP meeting without the parent present.
Kaleo Waiau, a special education 3 coordinator at Maui High School, testified that many attempts were made to accommodate Doug C. (parent of Spencer). Waiau also stated hat the schedules of 13 IEP committee members needed to changed on several occasions to accommodate Doug C.
This IEP meeting changed Spencer's placement