F. v. Ripon Unified School District

Filing 29

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/18/2012. The parties 12 15 Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment are pending. Court hereby directs counsel to be prepared to address following questions during oral argument on the Cross-Motions to be held on 10/19/2012 at 1:30 p.m. (A) For Plaintiffs: 1. The administrative record shows Plaintiffs filed Request for Due Process and Mediation on 8/11/2010. What was the outcome? 2. The record suggests that Learning Solutions is qualified equally as G enesis. If so, why is Z.F. now being homeschooled, assuming Z.F. is? 3. What kind of transition from Genesis to Learning Solutions do Plaintiffs believe was required? Not every IDEA procedural violation denies a student a FAPE. What is it about Dis trict's actions in this case that are so egregious as to have denied Z.F. a FAPE? 5. How is it that denying parental input on this NPA transition is a per se violation of IDEA procedures? Need school districts solicit parental inputon every deta il of a student's IEP, including who takes notes during IEP meetings? Is there not some higher threshold for the importance of an IEP element for which parents are entitled to provide input? 6. Plaintiffs learned by letter on 1/19/2011 that Dist rict was replacing Genesis. See AR Vol. 5 at 1355. The record contains several emails between Z.F.'s mother and others regarding this change and the transition between NPAs. Why does this correspondence not reflect sufficient opportunity for par ental input? (B) For Defendant: 1. When a district changes NPAs, how much time is allowed for a child to transition to the new NPA? Is there a general practice in this regard? 2. Why did Defendant not involve Z.F.'s IEP committee in fashioning a transition plan before finalizing the termination of the Genesis contract? 3. Is it Defendant's position that replacing one NPA with another to provide behavior intervention services is not part of a student's IEP? Is a district's c hoice of NPA not an educational placement under the IDEA? 4. How many children within the District did Genesis work with? 5. Could the District have worked with Genesis after the contract termination negotiations had been completed to accommodate a longer transition period for Z.F.? 6. Why precisely are the District's actions not so egregious as to rise to thelevel of denying Z.F. a FAPE? (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

Z.F. ET AL.,
Plaintiff,

11

No. 2:11-CV-02741-KJM-GGH

vs.

12
13

RIPON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

14

Defendant.

ORDER
/

15

The parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment are pending before this court.

16
17

(ECF 12, 15.) The court hereby directs counsel to be prepared to address the following questions

18

during oral argument on the cross-motions to be held on October 19, 2012 at 1:30 p.m.

19
20

A.

For Plaintiffs
1.

Process and Mediation on August 11, 2010. What was the outcome?

21
22

2.

25

The record suggests that Learning Solutions is qualified equally as
Genesis. If so, why is Z.F. now being homeschooled, assuming Z.F. is?

23
24

The administrative record shows that Plaintiffs filed a Request for Due

3.

What kind of transition from Genesis to Learning Solutions do Plaintiffs
believe was required?

26 /////
1

1

4.

Not every IDEA procedural violation denies a student a FAPE. What is it

2

about the District’s actions in this case that are so egregious as to have

3

denied Z.F. a FAPE?

4

5.

How is it that denying parental input on this NPA transition is a per se

5

violation of IDEA procedures? Need school districts solicit parental input

6

on every detail of a student’s IEP, including who takes notes during IEP

7

meetings? Is there not some higher threshold for the importance of an IEP

8

element for which parents are entitled to provide input?

9

6.

Plaintiffs learned by letter on January 19, 2011 that the District was

10

replacing Genesis. See AR Vol. 5 at 1355. The record contains several

11

emails between Z.F.’s mother and others regarding this change and the

12

transition between NPAs. Why does this correspondence not reflect

13

sufficient opportunity for parental input?

14
15

B.

For Defendant
1.

16
17

transition to the new NPA? Is there a general practice in this regard?
2.

18
19

When a district changes NPAs, how much time is allowed for a child to

Why did Defendant not involve Z.F.’s IEP committee in fashioning a
transition plan before finalizing the termination of the Genesis contract?

3.

Is it Defendant’s position that replacing one NPA with another to provide

20

behavior intervention services is not part of a student’s IEP? Is a district’s

21

choice of NPA not an “educational placement” under the IDEA?

22

4.

How many children within the District did Genesis work with?

23

5.

Could the District have worked with Genesis after the contract termination

24

negotiations had been completed to accommodate a longer transition

25

period for Z.F.?

26 /////
2

1

6.

2

Why precisely are the District’s actions not so egregious as to rise to the
level of denying Z.F. a FAPE?

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

DATED: October 18, 2012.

5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3