## Facts

- E.M.D.H., a Minnesota public-school student, had serious mental-health diagnoses including anxiety disorder, autism spectrum disorder, agoraphobia, and ADHD.
- During middle school and early high school, she experienced chronic absenteeism, periods of psychiatric treatment and institutionalization, and episodes of virtual/homebound instruction.
- Despite these indicators, the school district did not timely initiate and complete an IDEA- and state-law-compliant special-education evaluation.
- In her junior year, the district conducted an evaluation and determined she was not eligible for special-education services.
- The district’s evaluation omitted required components, including systematic observations and an adequate functional behavioral assessment addressing severe school avoidance and related behaviors.
- The parents obtained an independent educational evaluation recommending special-education eligibility; the district rejected the independent evaluator’s conclusions.
- The student sought an IDEA due-process hearing alleging violations of “child find” and evaluation obligations under IDEA and Minnesota law.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the district’s request to supplement the administrative record with evidence of the student’s post-hearing performance.
2. Whether the district provided a full and sufficiently comprehensive evaluation required by IDEA and Minnesota special-education law.
3. Whether the district violated IDEA’s child-find duty by failing to identify and evaluate the student as needing special education by the spring of eighth grade.
4. Whether the parents were entitled to reimbursement for independent evaluations and certain private educational services.
5. Whether compensatory education ordered by the ALJ should be reduced or reinstated in full.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the district’s motion to supplement the record.
- The court affirmed the findings that the district violated IDEA and Minnesota law by failing to timely and properly evaluate the student and by failing to identify her as eligible for special education by the spring of eighth grade.
- The court affirmed reimbursement awards for independent evaluations and related private educational services.
- The court reversed the district court’s reduction of compensatory education and reinstated the ALJ’s compensatory education award.

## Legal Principles

- IDEA permits a reviewing court to hear “additional evidence,” but supplementation is discretionary and is generally inappropriate when it concerns post-administrative events that do not bear on whether earlier identification and evaluation decisions complied with IDEA.
- IDEA evaluations must be sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of a child’s special-education and related-service needs, using appropriate tools and strategies and not relying primarily on intelligence or prior academic performance when functional or behavioral impairments affect educational access.
- A district’s child-find duty is triggered when it has reason to suspect a disability and a need for special education; chronic absenteeism, repeated hospitalizations, treatment-facility schooling, and significant mental-health conditions can provide adequate notice even for high-achieving students.
- Reimbursement for independent evaluations and related services may be awarded when a district fails to meet IDEA evaluation obligations.
- Compensatory education is an equitable remedy designed to place the student in the position she would have occupied absent the denial of a FAPE; substantial services may be warranted where child-find and evaluation failures persist over multiple years.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit held that the district’s prolonged failure to identify and comprehensively evaluate a student with severe mental-health-related school avoidance violated IDEA and Minnesota law, upheld reimbursement remedies, and reinstated the ALJ’s full compensatory education award while rejecting record supplementation based on post-hearing developments.


Independent Sch. Dist. No. 283 v. E.M.D.H., 960 F.3d 1073 (8th Cir. 2020)