## Facts

- S.P., a child with autism living in the district, was eligible for special-education services under the IDEA through an individualized education program (IEP).
- During the 2003–2004 year, S.P. attended a regular-education preschool part-time with a full-time aide and also received intensive home-based services (including substantial ABA hours) funded by the district under a settlement arrangement.
- In January 2004, the district’s Committee on Special Education (CSE), including S.P.’s parents, began planning S.P.’s transition to public kindergarten and arranged reevaluations and observations.
- The district consulted its own experts; the parents relied on their experts. The parents’ experts urged continuation of extensive ABA and a one-to-one aide, while the district’s experts recommended a public special-education class with supports and less intensive services.
- The CSE met multiple times, considered information from both sides, and made some changes in response to parental input, but the final IEP largely reflected the district experts’ recommendations.
- The parents rejected the IEP, obtained additional home-based services privately, and sought reimbursement, alleging both (i) procedural violations—especially “predetermination” that limited parental participation—and (ii) substantive inadequacy (denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE)).

## Issues

1. Whether the district committed a procedural IDEA violation by unlawfully predetermining the IEP and significantly impeding meaningful parental participation.
2. Whether the proposed IEP was substantively inadequate and failed to provide a FAPE, entitling the parents to reimbursement for private services.
3. What deference a federal court must give to state administrative findings (IHO/SRO) when reviewing IDEA disputes.

## Decision

- The court reversed the district court and ordered judgment for the school district.
- The court held there was no unlawful predetermination because the district permitted discussion, considered parental input and evaluations, and made some modifications, even though it ultimately disagreed with the parents’ preferred approach.
- The court held the IEP was reasonably calculated to enable S.P. to receive educational benefits and thus offered a FAPE, notwithstanding that it was less intensive than the parents’ preferred program.
- The court held the district court erred by failing to give due weight to the IHO and SRO decisions and by substituting its own educational policy judgments for the administrative determinations.

## Legal Principles

- A public agency provides a FAPE when the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits; the IDEA does not require the best or parent-preferred program.
- Reimbursement for unilateral private services is available only if the public IEP violated the IDEA and the parents’ private services were appropriate.
- A procedural violation warrants relief only if it impeded the child’s right to a FAPE, significantly impeded parental participation, or caused a deprivation of educational benefits.
- “Predetermination” requires more than a district entering meetings with a proposal or relying on its experts; it requires a closed decisionmaking process that effectively prevents meaningful parental participation.
- Federal courts reviewing IDEA disputes must give due weight to state administrative proceedings and avoid replacing administrative educational judgments with their own.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit concluded the district’s IEP process allowed meaningful parental participation, the proposed kindergarten IEP offered S.P. a FAPE, and the district court should have deferred to the careful administrative findings; reimbursement and fee awards to the parents were therefore unavailable.


T.P. ex rel. S.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2009)