D. A. v. Meridian Joint School District , 618 F. App'x 891 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 06 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
D. A. and J. A., on behalf of themselves No. 14-35081
and as legal guardians and parents of
M.A., an individual with a disability, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00426-CWD
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
MERIDIAN JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT
NO. 2,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Candy W. Dale, Chief Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 8, 2015
Seattle, Washington
Before: FERNANDEZ, HAWKINS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
All parties agree that Matthew has Asperger’s Syndrome, a high functioning
form of autism.1 This appeal is by Matthew’s parents (the Parents) from the
district court’s affirmance of the hearing officer’s determination that Matthew,
despite having Asperger’s Syndrome, was not in need of special education services
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400.
We conclude that the Parents have not carried their burden of showing that the
hearing officer erred in excluding certain proffered evidence or that the district
court and the hearing officer failed to consider both non-academic and academic
factors in reviewing the conflicting evidence. Accordingly, we affirm.2
1. The Parents have not shown that the district court erred in affirming the
hearing officer’s exclusion of certain evidence. The first proceeding before a
hearing officer was brought by Meridian School District (MSD) seeking
confirmation of its refusal in February 2011 to prepare an Independent Educational
Evaluation (IEE) for Matthew. The second proceeding, from which this appeal
arises, was initiated by the Parents after the IEE had been prepared, and after MSD,
1
Matthew is now an adult, but during most of the underlying legal
proceedings he was a minor and was referred to as M.A.
2
The related appeals by Meridian School District are decided in an
opinion filed concurrently with this memorandum disposition.
2
having reviewed the IEE, determined that Matthew did not need special education
services.
The Parents sought to admit documents and testimony from the first
proceeding as evidence in the second proceeding, but the hearing officer declined
to admit the evidence. The Parents argued that the first hearing officer had found
that Matthew needed special education services and sought the admission of the
testimony of their experts in the first hearing, Dr. Webb and Dr. Beaver, claiming
that Dr. Webb was unavailable during the course of the second hearing. The
hearing officer declined to admit the evidence because: (1) he was reviewing
evidence as to Matthew’s needs in the fall of 2011, not his needs at a prior time; (2)
much of the evidence presented in the prior hearing had been incorporated into the
IEE; and (3) the Parents had failed to show the particular relevance of the proffered
evidence.
The Parents have the burden of proof in their challenge to the hearing
officer’s decision. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 62 (2005). We review the
district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, E.M. v. Pajaro Valley
Unified Sch. Dist. Office of Admin. Hearings, 652 F.3d 999, 1003 (9th Cir. 2011),
and a hearing officer’s findings are entitled to some deference. See Ashland Sch.
Dist. v. Parents of Student E.H., 587 F.3d 1175, 1182 (9th Cir. 2009).
3
The Parents have not met their burden of showing that either the hearing
officer or the district court erred in excluding their proffered evidence. Contrary to
the Parents’ contention, the first hearing officer specifically declined to determine
whether Matthew needed special education services. In addition, much of the
evidence the Parents sought to introduce had been incorporated into the IEE.
Moreover, they did not make a persuasive showing to either the hearing officer or
the district court that further testimony concerning Matthew’s ability and actions,
beyond that which had been incorporated into the IEE, was necessary to evaluate
Matthew’s needs in the fall of 2011. On this record, the Parents have failed to
show that the excluded evidence was “relevant, non-cumulative and otherwise
admissible.” E.M., 652 F.3d at 1006.
2. The Parents have not met their burden of proof, see Schaffer, 546 U.S. at
62, of establishing that Matthew needed special education services.
Under the IDEA, a “child with a disability” — that is a child for whom the
IDEA mandates the provision of special education services — is a child with an
impairment or disability “who, by reason thereof, needs special education and
related services.” 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A)(ii). Here, all agree that Matthew has a
recognized impairment or disability, Asperger’s Syndrome. The issue is whether
because of his Asperger’s Syndrome, Matthew needed special education services.
4
The hearing officer was presented with irreconcilable evidence. The
Parents’ experts asserted that Matthew needed special services to benefit from his
education, and MSD’s experts claimed, based on their observations of Matthew in
school, that he was benefitting from the general education curriculum, despite his
autism. Indeed, the evidence indicated that in some instances Matthew was
performing well above the Parents’ experts’ expectations. Although the Parents
allege that MSD focused too much on Matthew’s academic performance, the
hearing officer and the district court noted that Matthew had done well in classes
that emphasized pre-vocational and life skills. We have previously held, as the
hearing officer noted, that hearing officers may give weight to the testimony of
school personnel based on their experience with the child. See N.B. v. Hellgate
Elem. Sch. Dist., 541 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2008). Our independent review of
the record shows that MSD, the hearing officer, and the district court considered
both academic and non-academic factors in concluding that Matthew, despite his
autism, did not need special education services. The Parents have not met their
burden of showing that this conclusion was erroneous or improper.
5
The district court’s memorandum decision affirming the hearing officer’s
finding that MSD appropriately determined that Matthew was not eligible for
special education services is AFFIRMED.3
3
MSD’s request for attorneys’ fees is denied.
6