The process of developing an Individualized Education Plan can be complicated, and the school district has more people and resources than you. The school district certainly has access to legal counsel to protect its best interests. Level the playing field. We have decades of experience with special education law, and have successfully negotiated and litigated for years in administrative hearings, district courts, and appellate courts.
We can identify your special needs child’s legal rights, and work together with you protect them.
R.B. v. Department of Education, Civ. No. CV13-00016 DKW BMK, App. Docket No. 14-15895 (9th Cir. 2014). Mr. Badger challenged a federal court’s conclusion that the Department provided a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) to his autistic son, despite the Department’s failure to identify within the individualized education program (IEP) when the student would be mainstreamed, the teaching methodology that would be used, the elements of the summer program, and the potential impacts of a change in program on the student. Oral argument held on February 23, 2017. The written decision of the appellate panel is pending.
Doug C. v. Department of Education, 720 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2013). Represented a parent and his autistic child who challenged a federal court’s finding that the Department did not deny the child a FAPE and thus did not violate the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by holding an annual IEP meeting without the parent. The court reversed the lower court's judgment because the Department violated the IDEA's explicit parental participation requirements and denied the student a FAPE by holding a student's annual IEP meeting without the parent even though the parent actively sought to reschedule the meeting in order to participate. Over one dozen federal courts have cited and relied upon this decision as support for their decisions in later cases.
C.B. v. Department of Education, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43961, Civ. No. 11-00576 SOM/RLP (2012). Represented parents of an autistic child who sought to require the Department to fund a private placement for the child under the “stay put” provision of the IDEA, which requires that placements not change during the pendency of a hearing or appeal.
Lofisa S. v. Department of Education, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21232 (2013). Secured a reversal and remand of a hearing officer’s conclusion that a parent’s request for reimbursement of private placement tuition was time-barred, and for the hearing officer’s failure to address the issue the parent presented, relating to the Department’s offer of a FAPE on the condition that the student receive services in a public school.