## Facts

- Christopher J. Van Duyn, a 13-year-old student with severe autism, received special education services in an Oregon public school district.
- A comprehensive individualized education program (IEP) was finalized in February 2001 for the 2001–02 school year as Christopher transitioned from elementary to middle school.
- The IEP addressed core academic instruction, a behavior-management plan, and related services, including adaptive physical education for several hours per week.
- During the middle-school year, the parents alleged the district deviated from the IEP in multiple ways, including providing less math instruction than specified and altering behavioral and instructional strategies.
- An administrative law judge (ALJ) found the district did not provide sufficient math instruction, ordered increased math services, and otherwise found the IEP was adequately implemented; the district provided the ordered increase.
- The federal district court affirmed the ALJ’s decision and denied attorney’s fees.

## Issues

1. Under the IDEA, does any failure to implement an IEP exactly as written deny a student a free appropriate public education (FAPE), or is liability limited to a material failure to implement the IEP?
2. Did the district’s deviations from the IEP (including reduced math instruction and changes to behavioral and other supports) amount to a material failure denying FAPE?
3. Did the student qualify as a “prevailing party” entitled to attorney’s fees based on the ALJ-ordered increase in math services, and may fees include compensation for legal work performed by the parent who is an attorney?

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit adopted a “material failure” standard: a district violates the IDEA for implementation errors only if it materially fails to implement the IEP.
- The court held a material failure occurs when the services provided fall significantly short of those required by the IEP; minor discrepancies alone do not establish an IDEA violation.
- Applying that standard, the court concluded the challenged deviations (aside from the math shortfall already corrected through ordered services) did not materially fail to implement the IEP and did not deny FAPE.
- The court held the student partially prevailed because the ALJ ordered additional math instruction, entitling him to reasonable attorney’s fees for relevant administrative-level work.
- The court excluded fees for legal work performed by the student’s mother.
- The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for calculation of appropriate fees.

## Legal Principles

- A school district’s imperfect implementation of an IEP violates the IDEA only upon a showing of a material failure to implement the IEP.
- “Material failure” means the services actually delivered fall significantly short of what the IEP requires; minor or technical deviations do not, by themselves, deny FAPE.
- A student’s overall academic and behavioral progress may be considered as evidence when assessing whether alleged implementation failures were material.
- A party may be a “prevailing party” under the IDEA fee-shifting provision based on success on a discrete issue that produces enforceable relief, such as an order for additional services.
- Attorney’s fees are not recoverable for a parent’s own legal work performed while representing the child.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that IDEA liability for IEP implementation errors requires a material shortfall in required services, not mere noncompliance with every IEP detail; although the district avoided liability for most alleged deviations, the student’s success in obtaining ordered additional math services supported limited attorney’s fees on remand.


Van Duyn ex rel. Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist. 5J, 502 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2007)