In A.P. v. Pearland Independent School District, 158 F.4th 672, 125 LRP 30747 (5th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025), the Fifth Circuit rejected parents’ claims that a school district violated its child find obligations and improperly denied eligibility for special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) where a student’s academic difficulties coincided with a longstanding pattern of absenteeism rather than indicators of a disability.
The student’s attendance issues dated back to seventh grade, when she missed more than ten percent of her classes and failed state-mandated exams. In eighth grade, despite twenty-five absences, the district provided targeted interventions that enabled her to pass all of her classes. During ninth grade, which began remotely during the COVID‑19 pandemic, the student enrolled in advanced coursework against the district’s recommendation for grade‑level classes and subsequently failed five of seven courses while missing between twenty‑four and twenty‑nine days of instruction. Teachers attributed her academic struggles to frequent absences rather than to a suspected learning disability, and she ultimately passed several courses through summer instruction.
In tenth grade, the pattern continued. The student again enrolled in advanced classes over the district’s objections and missed approximately twenty‑five days of school. Teachers reported that she performed well when present and attributed her academic difficulties to absenteeism. The district recommended additional academic support, which the parents declined. The parents later withdrew the student from school in February of her tenth‑grade year and began homeschooling. They filed a due process complaint the following September.
The district offered to evaluate the student in October 2022, but the parents refused consent. The parents later obtained an independent neuropsychological evaluation, which did not diagnose attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or dyslexia but identified learning disabilities in reading comprehension and mathematics. The district scheduled a meeting to review the evaluation, but the parents did not attend. The district concluded it lacked sufficient information to determine eligibility because the report did not address classroom performance or account for the student’s extensive absences.
After hearing, the impartial hearing officer ruled for the district, and the district court affirmed. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit agreed that the district satisfied its child find duty by October 2022 when it initiated the evaluation process. Although the court acknowledged prior cases in which absenteeism contributed to triggering child find, it distinguished those decisions as involving additional indicators such as mental health concerns or behavioral or medical issues. Here, the parents routinely excused absences for family travel and minor medical reasons, and the record showed that teachers viewed absenteeism—not a suspected disability—as the source of the student’s academic problems.
The court also rejected the argument that the student’s poor academic performance alone triggered child find, emphasizing that the parents insisted on advanced coursework contrary to district advice and that the student performed adequately when attending school consistently. Because the student was ultimately found ineligible, the court further concluded that any alleged child find delay did not result in a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
With respect to eligibility, the court noted that the independent evaluator failed to consider vision testing, classroom observations, teacher input, or whether the student’s difficulties reflected a lack of appropriate instruction caused by chronic absenteeism, as required by regulation. The court emphasized that the parents’ refusal to consent to district testing and their failure to attend eligibility meetings left the district with insufficient evidence. Based on the information available, the district’s determination that the student was not eligible for special education was reasonable.
The decision reflects that absenteeism, without accompanying indicators of disability, does not necessarily trigger child find obligations, and that eligibility determinations must account for whether academic difficulties stem from a disability or from a lack of instruction caused by repeated absences.