## Facts

- M.P., a student in the West Hartford, Connecticut public schools, developed serious mental-health symptoms during high school, including suicidal and homicidal ideations.
- M.P. was diagnosed with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder/Asperger’s syndrome, a processing disorder, and psychotic disorder (NOS).
- The school district initially provided accommodations under § 504 (including counseling) but did not immediately find M.P. eligible for special education under the IDEA.
- In March 2012, M.P.’s parents formally requested IDEA special education services; the district obtained psychological and psychiatric evaluations.
- In June 2012, the district found M.P. IDEA-eligible and placed him in a special education program during his junior and senior years designed to track graduation requirements and lead to a regular diploma.
- The district developed IEPs for M.P.’s junior and senior years and proposed an IEP for a later year; the parents claimed delays and deficiencies, including Child Find failures, inadequate instruction and homebound tutoring, and substantively inadequate goals, services, and placements.
- The parents sought compensatory education and related relief, alleging denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
- An impartial hearing officer found procedural violations but concluded they did not amount to a denial of FAPE; the federal district court entered summary judgment for the district.
- The parents appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district’s procedural violations, including alleged Child Find and evaluation delays and IEP-process defects, impeded M.P.’s right to FAPE, significantly impeded parental participation, or caused a deprivation of educational benefits.
2. Whether M.P.’s IEPs (and proposed IEP) were substantively adequate under the standard that an IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.
3. Whether any established IDEA violations warranted compensatory education or other relief.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the school district.
- The court held the district provided and offered M.P. a FAPE at the relevant times.
- Procedural violations occurred but did not impede FAPE, significantly impair parental participation, or deprive M.P. of educational benefits.
- Any Child Find delay was not so substantial or unreasonable as to deny FAPE, given the district’s accommodations, evaluations, and June 2012 eligibility determination.
- The IEPs were reasonably calculated to enable progress appropriate in light of M.P.’s circumstances, supported by evidence of academic and functional progress.
- Because there was no denial of FAPE, the parents were not entitled to compensatory education, reimbursement, or other relief.

## Legal Principles

- IDEA review applies a two-part inquiry: (1) compliance with IDEA procedures and (2) substantive adequacy of the IEP.
- A procedural IDEA violation warrants relief only if it (a) impeded the child’s right to FAPE, (b) significantly impeded parental participation in decisionmaking, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits.
- Substantively, an IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances; IDEA does not require the best possible program or maximal potential.
- Courts give substantial deference to administrative findings and educational judgments when supported by the record and will not replace school authorities’ policy choices with judicial preferences.
- Child Find and evaluation timing claims require showing that any delay resulted in a denial of FAPE under the statutory harm standards for procedural violations.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that, despite identified procedural missteps and allegations of delayed identification, the school district did not deny M.P. a FAPE because the parents’ participation was not significantly impaired, educational benefits were not deprived, and the IEPs were reasonably calculated to provide progress appropriate to M.P.’s circumstances; therefore, no IDEA remedies were available.


Mr. P. v. West Hartford Bd. of Educ., 885 F.3d 735 (2d Cir. 2018)