ILNews

7th Circuit rules school provided appropriate public education

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Hamilton Southeastern Schools has prevailed on appeal that it does not have to reimburse two parents for their son’s special education at another institution because they claimed the school system wasn’t providing a free appropriate education to their son, who had a traumatic brain injury.

In M.B., by his parents and next friends, Damian Berns and Amy Berns v. Hamilton Southeastern Schools and Hamilton-Boone-Madison Special Services, No. 10-3096, parents Damian and Amy Berns appealed summary judgment in favor of Hamilton Southeastern Schools and Hamilton-Boone-Madison Special Services on their lawsuit that the school system violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the provisions relating to special education in the Indiana Administrative Code by not providing their son M.B. with a free appropriate public education. M.B. suffered a traumatic brain injury prior to starting kindergarten, and his parents – based on the advice of a neuropsychologist – believed that M.B. needed to be in both sessions of kindergarten offered each day by the school.

The Berns worked with the school to develop an individualized education program, and the school provided some early education, at which M.B. showed progress in a number of areas. But when the Berns learned that the school would not place M.B. in both the morning and afternoon sessions of kindergarten, they placed him in an outside learning center and filed suit seeking reimbursement for M.B. to attend the center.

A hearing officer, the Board of Special Education Appeals, and the District Court all ruled in favor of the school, finding M.B. wasn’t denied a free appropriate public education. On appeal, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.  

The Berns didn’t meet their burden on appeal of establishing any type of procedural defect that rose to the level of a substantive denial of a free appropriate public education. The appellate court also found that M.B.’s individualized education program substantively provided him with a free appropriate public education. The evidence in the record showed that M.B. was making progress toward his IEP goals not only upon receiving early childhood services, but also while receiving extended school year services.

“Given that M.B. was making progress toward his IEP goals while receiving half-day, early-childhood services, it was reasonable for the committee to conclude that M.B. did not require double-session kindergarten to meet his needs,” wrote District Judge Joan B. Gottschall, of the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

The Berns aren’t entitled to any reimbursement for placing M.B. in the learning center because the evidence they presented to establish the propriety of the placement was “deficient in detail” and “general.” They also aren’t entitled to attorney fees because they didn’t prevail on any of their claims.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT