## Facts

- A high school student had severely poor grades, extremely low standardized-test scores, and conspicuous classroom behavior suggesting disability.
- School staff treated early performance as ordinary transition difficulty despite fourth-grade-level functioning and later recognized failing all subjects as a serious warning sign.
- Teachers reported the student was unresponsive in class, produced incomprehensible work, and engaged in age-inappropriate and disruptive behaviors.
- The district referred the student to a third-party mental-health counselor, who recommended assessment for learning disabilities, but the district did not promptly initiate an educational evaluation.
- The student was promoted to the next grade without special-education assessment.
- The student’s parent later submitted a written request for an educational assessment and an IEP meeting.
- The district conducted an assessment months after the parent request; an IEP team later found the student eligible for special-education services.
- The student sought compensatory educational services through an IDEA due process complaint based on an alleged failure to timely identify and evaluate her, resulting in denial of FAPE.
- An administrative law judge ruled for the student; the district court upheld the decision and awarded attorneys’ fees to the student.

## Issues

1. Whether an alleged violation of the IDEA “child find” duty (failure to timely identify, locate, and evaluate a student suspected of disability) is a cognizable claim within the scope of an IDEA due process hearing.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding attorneys’ fees to the student as a prevailing party.

## Decision

- Affirmed.
- The court held that “child find” allegations are cognizable in IDEA due process proceedings and fall within the hearing officer’s jurisdiction.
- The court rejected the argument that due process hearings are limited to disputes over IEP content or adequacy.
- The court held that a district cannot avoid due process review by characterizing prolonged inaction as something other than a “refusal” to evaluate.
- The court upheld the attorneys’ fee award, concluding the student was a prevailing party and the district court acted within its discretion.

## Legal Principles

- The IDEA’s due process complaint provision reaches “any matter relating to” identification and evaluation, including allegations that the district failed to identify and evaluate when required.
- The IDEA “child find” obligation requires timely identification and evaluation of children suspected of needing special education; failure to do so can substantively deny FAPE.
- A district’s extended failure to initiate evaluation in the face of clear indicators (including professional recommendations and parent requests) may be treated as a de facto refusal subject to IDEA procedures.
- Child find violations that result in educational deprivation may support remedies under the IDEA, including compensatory education.
- Prevailing-party status under the IDEA may support an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees when a parent/student succeeds in administrative and judicial proceedings.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that IDEA “child find” failures are actionable in IDEA due process hearings and that a school district’s prolonged failure to evaluate a student suspected of disability may function as a refusal to evaluate, supporting FAPE-based relief and attorneys’ fees.


Compton Unified Sch. Dist. v. Addison, 598 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2010)