In another victory for students in Arizona, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at Due Process that the parent's choice of school location (Gateway Academy) was
appropriate for the student, and the school's choice of school location (ACES) was
not. Attorney Lori Kirsch-Goodwin of
Kirsch-Goodwin & Kirsch represented the family at Due Process and through
the appeals. Although the law allows school administrators
to decide on the LOCATION of the placement (after IEP Teams decide PLACEMENT),
the location must nevertheless be appropriate for the student. The outcome means that KGK's client, a little
boy, will continue to remain in an appropriate private school to meet his
needs.
Lori had won at due process, but the school (Pointe Educational Services, a charter school) appealed and the District Court reversed. KGK then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A panel of three judges reversed the District Court. The outcome means that KGK's client, the little boy, will continue to remain in an appropriate private school to meet his needs.
Here is an excerpt from the Decision:
The administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the Austin Center for Exceptional Students (ACES) would not afford A.T. a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The ALJ reached that conclusion after finding that ACES would involve excessive transitions between classes, inclusion of significantly older students in academic classes, and exposure to a student population with more severe behavioral issues than A.T. exhibited. The district court found this to be a “close case,” but ultimately concluded that the ALJ’s findings were not entitled to
deference. We agree with the district court that this is indeed a close case, but on balance we believe the ALJ’s findings are adequately supported by the record and should not have been disturbed. ... We find no basis in the record for disturbing the ALJ’s thorough and careful findings on these points. In short, the ALJ’s findings are supported by the record and entitled to
deference on appeal. We therefore reverse the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
deference. We agree with the district court that this is indeed a close case, but on balance we believe the ALJ’s findings are adequately supported by the record and should not have been disturbed. ... We find no basis in the record for disturbing the ALJ’s thorough and careful findings on these points. In short, the ALJ’s findings are supported by the record and entitled to
deference on appeal. We therefore reverse the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.