In K.P. v. Department of Education, State of Hawai‘i, No. 22-cv-00267-DKW-WRP, 2023 WL 2930568, 123 LRP 13042 (D. Hawai‘i Apr. 13, 2023), appeal dismissed, No. 23-15705 (9th Cir. July 11, 2023), the district court affirmed a hearing officer’s decision to reduce a tuition reimbursement award by twenty-five percent based on the parent’s conduct during the IEP development process.
The case involved a seven-year-old student with disabilities who was unilaterally placed by the parent in a private school for the 2019–20 school year. On July 15, 2020, the parent filed a due process complaint concerning the student’s program for the 2020–21 school year and reenrolled the student in the private school for that year.
In a decision dated December 11, 2020, the hearing officer determined that the Department of Education denied the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2020–21 school year by failing to produce a current IEP. The hearing officer also found the private placement appropriate and concluded that equitable considerations supported tuition reimbursement. The hearing officer awarded reimbursement of private school tuition up to $224,309.80, but ordered the parent to cooperate with the Department in developing an IEP for the 2021–22 school year.
The December 2020 order directed the Department to convene an IEP meeting within sixty days and required the parent to cooperate by signing consent forms and enrolling the student in the home public elementary school. The order further specified that any delays attributable to the parent or her representatives would extend the sixty-day timeline and were to be carefully documented by the school.
In a subsequent decision issued on May 13, 2022, the hearing officer found that the parent failed to comply with the December 2020 order. The parent did not provide required consent forms until February 12, 2021, failed to enroll the student in the home school despite repeated reminders, and repeatedly requested postponements of the IEP meeting on short notice. Ultimately, the parent did not attend the scheduled IEP meeting or a follow-up meeting two days later. On the same day the IEP meeting was scheduled, the parent executed a contract enrolling the student in the private school for the 2021–22 school year, indicating an intent to continue the private placement regardless of the IEP process.
The parent subsequently filed a due process complaint challenging the proposed IEP for the 2021–22 school year. In the May 13, 2022 decision, the hearing officer again found a denial of FAPE, concluding that certain services identified in the IEP were impermissibly contingent on availability. The hearing officer found the private placement appropriate but reduced the tuition reimbursement award by twenty-five percent based on equitable considerations, including the parent’s lack of diligent and genuine participation in the IEP process.
The district court affirmed. Relying on Florence County School District Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993), the court held that the hearing officer properly considered equitable factors in determining the amount of reimbursement. The court noted that the hearing officer found both that the tuition charges were excessive and that the parent failed to meaningfully cooperate in the development of the IEP. Under those circumstances, a reduction in reimbursement was within the hearing officer’s discretion.
The court distinguished Doug C. v. Hawai‘i Department of Education, 720 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2013), explaining that Doug C. prohibits districts from blaming parents for a failure to ensure procedural compliance with the IDEA. Here, however, the denial of FAPE was not in dispute; only the appropriate amount of reimbursement was at issue. Accordingly, Doug C. did not control.
The decision provides a clear example of a hearing officer exercising remedial discretion based on detailed factual findings regarding parental conduct, and of a court deferring to that reasoned exercise of discretion.