Stephanie Smith-Weatherton

Case Legal Brief #2

March 21, 2018

Doug C. v. State of Hawaii Department of Education

(Docket No. 12-15079)

Citation: no citation

Date Decided: June 13, 2013

Background of facts: Spencer is an 18-year old student at the Maui District of the Hawaii
Department of Education. At the age of two he was diagnosed with autism. The Department
determined that Spencer is eligible to receive special education and other related services, and
his educational rights are protected under the IDEA. Since the fifth grade Spencer’s IEP placed
him in a private special education facility, Horizons Academy, at the expense of the Department
of Education. Spencer’s annual IEP meeting was held on November 9, 2010 although Doug C.,
Spencer’s dad was unable to attend the meeting. During the meeting, the Department changed
Spencer’s education placement, moving him to a local program located at Maui High School.
On December 6, 2009 Spencer C’s father Doug C. requested a special education hearing against
the State of Hawaii Department of Education because Spencer’s November 9, 2009, IEP meeting
was held without the presence of a parent. Initially, the father Doug C. lost at the hearing appeals
to the U.S. District court. So, Doug C. appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, which reversed.

Issues: The issue is whether the Department’s efforts to include Doug C. in the November IEP
meeting were sufficient to stay under the requirements of the IDEA. The key problem that the
special education coordinator at Maui High School, held and IEP meeting without child, parent
or any representative from Horizon Academy were present.

Decision: The courts recognized the failure of the Department of Education to include Doug C.
in the IEP meeting infringed on his ability to provide input in the IEP formulation process. That
reason alone is cause to conclude that Spencer was denied a FAPE and denied an educational
opportunity. The procedural requirement of IDEA and invalidated the IEP. It is the findings of
fact that as a matter of law, a school district is to include the parents in an IEP meeting unless
they affirmatively refuse to attend.

Majority Opinion: Stephen Reinhardt, Sidney R. Thomas and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judge
all agreed with Reverse and Remand.

Dissention: There were no dissenting opinions filed in this case.

Comments: I feel the Hawaii Department of Education was at fault. They did not meet the
requirements of the IDEA and that was to include parents or representatives in the decision and
input on Spencer’s IEP. In this case I agree with the courts that Doug C. should be reimbursed
for his son’s Spencer’s private school education. The Department of Education initially agreed
with Spencer’s placement.

Sources:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1634483.html