Avjian v. Weast, No. 05-2236 (4th Cir. July 12, 2007)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has ruled that the terms written into a student’s individualized education program (IEP) supersede any oral representations that may have been made to the parents before the IEP was finalized. As a result, the court determined that parents were not entitled to reimbursement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for the costs of a residential program where the terms of the IEP clearly indicated that IEP team was recommending a private day school. Although the parents of D.A. sought residential placement for their child, an IEP team convened by Maryland’s Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) recommended a private day school, both at the team meeting and in the written IEP. However, in the process the other members of the team did inform the parents that the John L. Gildner Regional Institute for Children and Adolescents (RICA) had a residential program and that it would be up to RICA to decide whether D.A. was eligible. From this information the parents got the impression that the rest of IEP team supported their request for a residential placement, and the parents signed their approval of the IEP. D.A. subsequently was accepted to the RICA program. When the parents received a bill for the residential component of D.A.’s placement, they sought a due process hearing, asserting MCPS had failed to provide D.A. with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under IDEA by failing to provide residential services. An administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the IEP accurately reflected the IEP team proceedings and that the failure of MCPS specifically to explain that the parents would be responsible for residential placement costs was not a violation of due process. The parents contested the ALJ’s ruling in U.S. district court, which concluded that MCPS complied with all procedures in the IDEA and did not deny D.A. a FAPE. The court further found that MCPS was not liable for the residential treatment costs, since the IEP referred only to day school.
In an unpublished, per curiam decision, the Fourth Court affirmed. The appeals court began its discussion of whether MCPS had denied D.A. a FAPE by citing A.K. v. Alexandria City Sch. Bd., 484 F.3d 672 (4th Cir. 2007), for the point that, "when evaluating whether a school district offered a FAPE, a court generally must limit its consideration to the terms of the IEP itself." The court rejected the parents’ suggestion that it look beyond the plain terms of the IEP to consider comments made during the IEP process, determining that to do so would "undermine the important policies served by requiring a formal written IEP."
Avjian v. Weast, No. 05-2236 (4th Cir. July 12, 2007)