Fitzgerald v. Camdenton R-III School District, No. 04-3102 (8th Cir. March 1, 2006)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled that a school district does not have the authority under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to require a child to undergo an initial evaluation where the child is privately educated and the parents have expressly waived all benefits under IDEA. S.F. attended public school in Camdenton R-III School District (MO). Although he was not receiving special education services, based on his behavior and academic performance school officials believed S.F. might have a disability. When they decided to evaluate him pursuant to IDEA, S.F.'s parents refused consent and withdrew him from public school in order to home school him. They had S.F. privately evaluated and provided special education services through private sources. The parents expressly waived all benefits under IDEA. The school district initiated a due process hearing under the "child find" provisions of IDEA. An administrative panel granted the school district's request, authorizing an evaluation of S.F. "as soon as is practical." The parents sued to overturn the panel's decision. When the U.S. district court upheld the panel's ruling, the parents appealed to the Eighth Circuit, arguing that the district court had misinterpreted IDEA and, alternatively, that the statute is unconstitutional.
The Eighth Circuit reversed the lower court and remanded the case. The appeals court concluded that the provision of IDEA that allows a school district to pursue an initial evaluation does not give the district unfettered discretion to pursue an initial evaluation when the parents refuse consent, privately educate the child, and expressly waive all IDEA benefits. The court rejected the school district's argument that the word "may" in IDEA's "child find" provision gives the district absolute discretion, citing its previous ruling that "the word 'may' does not give an agency absolute discretion if it is inconsistent with the overall purposes of the statute." After reviewing the language in the child find provision and its implementing regulation, the court found that the purpose of the child find evaluation is to provide access to special education, and the provision's purpose reflects IDEA's overall purpose to ensure that all children with disabilities have the opportunity to a free appropriate public education. The goal of gathering information for developing an individualized education program (IEP) is pointless where the child is being privately educated and the rights to services under IDEA have been waived, the court concluded, finding that Congress could not have intended that a school district could force an evaluation that would serve no purpose.
Fitzgerald v. Camdenton R-III School District, No. 04-3102 (8th Cir. March 1, 2006)
[Link to full opinion]