In the case of Ja.B. v. Wilson Cnty. Bd. Of Educ., 6th No. 22-5417, (Mar. 6, 2023), a federal appellate court held that the school did not violate the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (“IDEA”) child-find mandate after failing to identify a student in need of an Individual Education Plain (“IEP”).
In this case, the parents argued that the school should have identified the student as needing an IEP under the IDEA because: (1) the school knew of the student’s history of poor behavior before attending the school; (2) the parents were seeking interventions and assistance from the school; (3) the student’s poor behavior at the school; (4) the student’s hospital admission for the student’s mental health; and (5) the student’s arrest at the school. In response, the school argued that (1) the school employed the section 504 evaluation to avoid over-identifying special needs students; (2) the section 504 process takes time to gather data points for students; the school did not have enough data to identify the student’s need for an IEP as the student had only been enrolled at the school for four months. The federal appellate court agreed with the school.
In support of its decision in support of the school, the federal appellate court explained that the school did not violate the school’s child-find responsibility as the student did not have a history of receiving special education services and had only attended the school for a very brief time.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.