## Facts

- D.K. attended an elementary school in the Abington School District and showed academic and behavioral difficulties beginning in kindergarten, including problems following directions, self-control, and completing work.
- Teachers documented frequent behavioral incidents (including numerous temper tantrums) but also reported growth and grade-level progress in several academic areas.
- The District used general-education interventions, including classroom behavior plans and supports, and recommended that D.K. repeat kindergarten.
- In January 2006, at the parents’ request, the District evaluated D.K. for IDEA eligibility and concluded he was not a child with a disability requiring special education.
- In 2007, a private evaluator diagnosed D.K. with ADHD and recommended special education; the District reevaluated him, found him eligible, and began developing an IEP by November 2007.
- The parents sought compensatory education, alleging the District failed to timely identify D.K. under IDEA’s Child Find duty and denied him a FAPE, also asserting a § 504 claim.

## Issues

1. Whether IDEA claims for alleged violations before January 8, 2006 were barred by the IDEA’s two-year statute of limitations, and whether the “misrepresentation” or “withholding information” exceptions applied.
2. Whether, for the non-time-barred period, the District violated IDEA’s Child Find obligation or denied D.K. a FAPE by not identifying him earlier and not providing special-education services sooner.
3. Whether the District violated § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act based on the same conduct.

## Decision

- The court affirmed judgment for the School District.
- Claims predating January 8, 2006 were time-barred under IDEA’s two-year limitations period, and neither statutory exception applied.
- For the remaining period, the District did not violate Child Find and did not deny D.K. a FAPE; the 2006 evaluation was legally adequate based on information available at the time.
- The § 504 claim failed because the record did not show discrimination or deliberate indifference to D.K.’s educational needs.

## Legal Principles

- IDEA due process complaints are subject to a two-year “knew or should have known” limitations period.
- The IDEA “misrepresentation” exception is narrow and requires a specific, intentional misrepresentation that the problem was resolved; disagreement with educational judgments is insufficient.
- The IDEA “withholding information” exception applies only where the district failed to provide information the IDEA requires it to provide and that failure prevented timely pursuit of due process.
- Child Find liability turns on whether the district acted reasonably based on the information available at the time; a later diagnosis does not, by itself, prove earlier noncompliance.
- A school district does not deny FAPE merely by using general-education interventions before special-education classification when the student shows progress and the district responds to observed needs.
- A § 504 violation in this setting requires more than an IDEA dispute; it generally requires proof of discrimination or deliberate indifference.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit enforced IDEA’s limitations bar for older claims, construed both statutory exceptions narrowly, and held that the District’s evaluation and interventions during the actionable period were reasonable, resulting in no Child Find, FAPE, or § 504 violation.


D.K. v. Abington Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2012)