C.B. et al. v. Henry County School District

Atlanta, Georgia, civil rights lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on an ndividuals with Disabilities Education Act violation theory.

C.B. is a student with Down syndrome who attends school
in the Henry County School District in Georgia. Because C.B. has
Down syndrome, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
required Henry County to develop an individualized education
program for C.B. and to discuss the program with C.B.’s parents.
After assessing C.B.’s progress in school, Henry County decided to
move C.B. from one special education class to another. C.B.’s par-
ents were dissatisfied with the new placement, so they sought a
hearing before an administrative law judge. Over the course of five
days, the judge heard testimony from several witnesses, including
C.B.’s parents, teachers, and multiple experts. The judge found that
Henry County had complied with the law in making C.B.’s place-
ment decision. The district court declined to disturb that decision.

On appeal, so do we.

C.B. also challenged Henry County’s decision to place him
on an alternative assessment track for his educational goals. The
district court found that C.B.’s challenge to his alternative assess-
ment placement was moot. We disagree with that conclusion and
remand the case to the district court to consider the alternative as-
sessment claim.

* * *

Whether a child with disabilities has been placed in the least
restrictive environment under the IDEA is a mixed question of law
and fact. See Greer v. Rome City Sch. Dist., 950 F.2d 688, 696–98 (11th
Cir. 1991), op. withdrawn, 956 F.2d 1025 (11th Cir.), and reinstated in
part, 967 F.2d 470 (11th Cir. 1992) (reinstating the opinion in full
except for the analysis that addressed jurisdiction). We have not
explicitly addressed which standard governs this mixed question.
We have, however, stated that whether an individualized educa-
tional program provides a free and appropriate public education
under the IDEA is “a mixed question of law and fact subject to de
novo review.” Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275, 1284
(11th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Because consideration of
whether a child received a free and appropriate public education
and whether a child was placed in the least restrictive environment
both arise under the same IDEA provision, 20 U.S.C. § 1412, we
will likewise review the least-restrictive-environment question de
novo.
Whether a child with disabilities has been placed in the least
restrictive environment under the IDEA is a mixed question of law
and fact. See Greer v. Rome City Sch. Dist., 950 F.2d 688, 696–98 (11th
Cir. 1991), op. withdrawn, 956 F.2d 1025 (11th Cir.), and reinstated in
part, 967 F.2d 470 (11th Cir. 1992) (reinstating the opinion in full
except for the analysis that addressed jurisdiction). We have not
explicitly addressed which standard governs this mixed question.
We have, however, stated that whether an individualized educa-
tional program provides a free and appropriate public education
under the IDEA is “a mixed question of law and fact subject to de
novo review.” Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275, 1284
(11th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Because consideration of
whether a child received a free and appropriate public education
and whether a child was placed in the least restrictive environment
both arise under the same IDEA provision, 20 U.S.C. § 1412, we
will likewise review the least-restrictive-environment question de
novo.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED IN PART AND
VACATED IN PART. The district court’s ruling in favor of Henry
County on C.B.’s placement decision is AFFIRMED. The district
court’s dismissal of the GAA claim is REVERSED AND
REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.