## Facts

- O.W., a fifth-grade student with a documented mental-health history and serious behavioral problems, enrolled in Spring Branch Independent School District (SBISD) for the 2014–2015 school year after years of private schooling.
- From the first day, O.W. engaged in frequent, severe misconduct (e.g., aggression, profanity, throwing objects) that disrupted instruction and raised concerns about disability-related needs.
- O.W.’s parents repeatedly met with school staff, provided psychiatric records, and requested supports; SBISD initially used general interventions, including a Section 504 plan and behavioral strategies, rather than initiating an IDEA special-education evaluation.
- SBISD did not refer O.W. for a special-education evaluation until January 2015, months after the school had ongoing notice of the severity and frequency of his behavior and mental-health history.
- After continued problems and changes in placement, O.W. was withdrawn from SBISD shortly before the end of the school year and placed in private schooling (later including residential placement).
- An IDEA hearing officer found SBISD violated IDEA, including Child Find and failures to implement O.W.’s IEP, denied O.W. a FAPE, and awarded two years of private-school tuition; the district court largely affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether IDEA’s Child Find duty was violated, and whether failure to conduct an expedited evaluation automatically establishes a Child Find violation.
2. Whether SBISD materially failed to implement O.W.’s IEP through changes to his school day and related measures, thereby denying FAPE.
3. Whether awarding two years of private-school tuition was an appropriate remedy on the record after clarifying the governing legal standards.

## Decision

- Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- Held that IDEA’s Child Find duty and IDEA’s expedited-evaluation requirements are separate obligations; noncompliance with expedited evaluation does not, by itself, prove a Child Find violation.
- Found SBISD nevertheless violated Child Find because it unreasonably delayed initiating an IDEA evaluation after it was on notice of behavior likely indicating a disability.
- Reversed the finding that the May 6, 2015 change to O.W.’s day was an actionable IEP-implementation violation.
- Affirmed that the May 18, 2015 change materially deviated from the IEP and constituted an actionable failure to implement.
- Remanded for the district court to reconsider the remedy, including any private-tuition reimbursement, in light of the clarified Child Find analysis and narrowed set of sustained violations.

## Legal Principles

- Child Find imposes an affirmative duty to identify, locate, and evaluate students suspected of having disabilities, and the evaluation must be initiated within a reasonable time after the district has notice of behavior likely indicating a disability.
- IDEA’s Child Find obligation is distinct from IDEA’s expedited-evaluation rules; violation of one does not create a per se violation of the other.
- Continued use of general behavioral interventions or Section 504 measures does not satisfy Child Find if the district is on notice of disability indicators and does not timely initiate an IDEA evaluation.
- A failure to implement an IEP is actionable when the district does not implement the IEP in all material respects; minor or non-material deviations do not necessarily deny FAPE.
- When the scope of proven IDEA violations changes on appeal, the appropriate equitable relief (including tuition reimbursement) must be reassessed on remand.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit clarified that Child Find and expedited-evaluation duties are independent, held SBISD unreasonably delayed evaluating a student with obvious disability indicators and materially failed to implement the IEP on one occasion, and remanded for recalculation of any tuition-reimbursement remedy.


Spring Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. v. O.W. ex rel. Hannah W., 961 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 2020)