## Facts

- L.M., a minor with autism and other disabilities, was eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
- Capistrano Unified School District developed an individualized education program (IEP) proposing services and a public-school placement.
- L.M.’s parents rejected the proposed IEP and unilaterally placed him in a private program, seeking reimbursement.
- IDEA administrative due process proceedings were held regarding the adequacy of the IEP and related relief.
- In federal court, the parents sought a “stay-put” order requiring the district to maintain and/or fund the private placement during the dispute.
- The district court denied stay-put relief on the ground that the private placement was not L.M.’s “current educational placement.”
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit addressed the proper meaning of “current educational placement” under IDEA’s stay-put provision and remanded separate questions concerning the IEP’s substantive validity.

## Issues

1. Under IDEA’s stay-put provision, what constitutes a child’s “current educational placement” during the pendency of proceedings: the last implemented IEP/public program or a parent-selected unilateral private placement?
2. When a child is applying for initial admission to public school, and the parents consent to a public-school program during pending proceedings, does that public program become the “current educational placement” for stay-put purposes?
3. Separately from stay-put, whether the district’s proposed IEP was substantively valid under IDEA’s FAPE and least restrictive environment requirements.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the parents’ motion for a stay-put order requiring the district to maintain or fund the unilateral private placement.
- The court held that “current educational placement” generally refers to the placement in the child’s last implemented IEP, not a unilateral private placement chosen by parents.
- For a child applying for initial admission to public school, if parents consent to placement in a public-school program during pending proceedings, that public program is the current educational placement for stay-put purposes.
- The court remanded for further proceedings on whether the district’s proposed IEP was substantively appropriate under IDEA (a question distinct from stay-put).

## Legal Principles

- IDEA stay-put (20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)) generally preserves the child’s placement as set forth in the last implemented IEP during the dispute, absent agreement otherwise.
- A parent’s unilateral private placement does not become the “current educational placement” for stay-put purposes merely because the parent disagrees with the proposed IEP.
- In an initial admission context, parental consent to a public-school program during pending proceedings makes that public program the stay-put placement until proceedings conclude.
- The stay-put inquiry is separate from the merits of whether an IEP provides a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment; the latter may require additional factual and legal findings.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that IDEA’s stay-put rule maintains the child’s last implemented IEP placement (or, for initial admission cases, the consented public-school program) and does not require a school district to fund a parent’s unilateral private placement during litigation, while remanding for determination of the proposed IEP’s substantive validity.


L.M. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 556 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009)