## Facts

- Zachary Deal, a child with autism, received special-education services under multiple individualized education programs (IEPs) beginning in 1997.
- Outside school, Zachary’s parents provided a home-based applied behavioral analysis (ABA) program associated with the Lovaas/CARD methodology and observed substantial progress.
- The parents repeatedly asked the school district to provide or fund intensive ABA services (including extended-school-year services); the district declined.
- A later proposed IEP for the 1999–2000 year placed Zachary primarily in a developmental class with related services and limited time in a regular class; the parents rejected it.
- The parents continued private ABA and placed Zachary in private preschool, then sought reimbursement through IDEA due process procedures.
- An administrative law judge (ALJ) found multiple IDEA violations, including predetermination and failure to include a regular education teacher in IEP meetings, and ordered partial reimbursement (including for ABA) while denying reimbursement for private preschool based on inadequate notice.
- The federal district court reversed, finding no procedural or substantive IDEA violations and vacating reimbursement.
- The parents appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly handled additional evidence beyond the administrative record and requests for judicial notice bearing on witness credibility.
2. Whether the school district violated IDEA procedurally by predetermining Zachary’s services/placement and thereby denying meaningful parental participation.
3. Whether the school district violated IDEA procedurally by failing to include a regular education teacher on the IEP team when regular-class participation was contemplated.
4. Whether the procedural defects and the resulting IEPs denied Zachary a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
5. Whether the parents were entitled to reimbursement for privately obtained ABA and/or private preschool.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment.
- The court held the district predetermined Zachary’s placement and services in a manner that deprived the parents of meaningful participation in the IEP process, constituting an IDEA procedural violation.
- The court held the district violated IDEA by not including a regular education teacher in IEP meetings despite contemplated regular-class placement.
- The court concluded the procedural violations denied Zachary a FAPE because the IEP process did not reflect individualized consideration required by IDEA.
- The court reinstated partial reimbursement for the parents’ unilateral ABA expenditures consistent with the ALJ’s approach, while recognizing reimbursement may be limited on equitable grounds (including notice deficiencies for private preschool).
- The court generally upheld the district court’s discretion regarding additional evidence/judicial notice, while emphasizing deference to administrative proceedings and the need to give them due weight.

## Legal Principles

- IDEA requires parental participation that is meaningful; an IEP cannot be the product of a “take-it-or-leave-it” decision reached before the meeting.
- Predetermination that seriously infringes parental participation is a procedural violation that can itself deny FAPE.
- When a child’s IEP contemplates participation in regular education, IDEA requires that the IEP team include at least one regular education teacher; omission is not a harmless technical error where it affects team expertise and decision-making.
- Although IDEA does not require a school to adopt a parent-preferred methodology (including ABA), the district must make an individualized determination and consider relevant evidence of the child’s needs and progress rather than categorically foreclosing options.
- Parents may obtain reimbursement for unilateral private services if the public program violated IDEA and the private services were appropriate, subject to equitable limits such as notice requirements.
- In IDEA judicial review, courts may admit limited additional evidence but must give due weight to administrative findings and avoid retrying the matter as a de novo case.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that the school district’s predetermined approach to Zachary’s IEP and its failure to include a required regular education teacher violated IDEA and denied Zachary a FAPE, requiring reinstatement of partial reimbursement for appropriate private ABA services while allowing equitable limitations on other claimed expenses.


Deal v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2004)