Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start 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.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Doug C. v. Hawaii (9th Cir. 2013)

No description
by

elvira moran

on 14 June 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Doug C. v. Hawaii (9th Cir. 2013)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-15079
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
Decision
Parental participation in the IEP and educational placement process is
critical
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.
Elvira Moran
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
Implications
Full transcript