## Facts

- A.S., a minor student, had severe emotional and behavioral disabilities, including aggression and significant dysregulation, with a history of abuse.
- After expulsion and brief hospitalization, Seattle School District No. 1 identified A.S. as eligible for special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
- The District proposed a specialized day-school program and did not meaningfully consider residential placement.
- A.S.’s parent, B.S., disagreed with the District’s evaluation and requested (1) an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense and (2) a residential placement.
- The District denied the request for a publicly funded IEE and initiated an administrative hearing to establish that its evaluation was appropriate; B.S. separately pursued due process challenging the denial of residential placement.
- The matters were consolidated and heard over five days before an administrative law judge (ALJ).
- B.S. obtained a private independent evaluation concluding A.S. required a 24-hour structured residential program to receive educational benefit.
- The ALJ found the District’s evaluation procedurally deficient (including the absence of evaluators with knowledge of A.S.’s known or suspected disorders), found the proposed day program insufficient to provide FAPE, and ordered reimbursement for the IEE, funding for residential placement, and attorney’s fees.
- The district court affirmed, and the District appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the District had to reimburse B.S. for the cost of an IEE where the parent disagreed with the District’s evaluation and the District failed to prove its evaluation appropriate.
2. Whether IDEA required publicly funded residential placement because A.S. could not receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the District’s proposed day program.
3. Whether B.S., as the prevailing parent, was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs under IDEA.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment for B.S.
- The court upheld reimbursement for the IEE because the District’s evaluation violated IDEA procedural requirements, including team composition and assessment in areas of suspected disability.
- The court upheld the order requiring the District to fund residential placement because substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that A.S. could not receive educational benefit outside a residential setting.
- The court affirmed attorney’s fees and costs to B.S. as the prevailing party.
- The court gave due weight to the ALJ’s detailed factual findings and credibility determinations from the developed administrative record.

## Legal Principles

- Under IDEA, evaluations must assess the child in all areas related to suspected disability and be conducted by a multidisciplinary team that includes individuals knowledgeable about the child’s disability.
- When a parent requests an IEE at public expense after disagreeing with the school’s evaluation, the district must either fund the IEE or prove in a due-process hearing that its evaluation was appropriate; failure to meet this burden requires reimbursement.
- The least restrictive environment (LRE) requirement applies only to the maximum extent appropriate and does not displace the FAPE obligation.
- A school district must fund residential placement when it is necessary for the child to receive educational benefit, even if the placement also addresses non-educational needs.
- Courts reviewing IDEA disputes must give due weight to well-supported administrative findings, particularly where the hearing officer conducted a thorough evidentiary hearing.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the District’s procedurally deficient evaluation triggered reimbursement for the parent’s independent evaluation and that IDEA required the District to fund residential placement because A.S. could not receive FAPE in a day program; as the prevailing party, the parent was also entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.


Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. B.S., 82 F.3d 1493 (9th Cir. 1996)