D. R. V. RBUSD, No. 21-56053 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
The parents believe their son, D.R., should spend most of the school day being educated in a regular classroom with his non-disabled peers. School officials believed D.R. would be better served spending more of his school day in a special education classroom receiving instruction with other disabled students. As permitted under the IDEA, D.R.’s parents requested a due process hearing before the California Office of Administrative Hearings. The district agreed with the ALJ’s analysis and affirmed the decision denying relief.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment affirming an administrative law judge’s decision denying relief. Reversing in part, the panel held that, given the IDEA’s strong preference for educating children with disabilities alongside their non-disabled peers, the law supported the parents’ position. The panel held that D.R.’s parents met their burden of proving that the school district’s proposed individualized education program (IEP) failed to comply with the IDEA’s requirement that children with disabilities be educated in the “least restrictive environment,” alongside their non-disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate.
Affirming in part, the panel held that D.R.’s parents were not entitled to reimbursement for the expenses they incurred after unilaterally removing their son from school and hiring a private instructor to educate him in a one-on-one setting. The panel concluded that D.R.’s parents showed that the IEP offered by the school district violated the IDEA, but they did not show that the alternative private placement they chose was proper under the Act.
Court Description: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment affirming an administrative law judge’s decision denying relief under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to D.R., a student in Redondo Beach Unified School District. D.R.’s parents believed that D.R., a child with autism, should continue to spend most of the school day being educated in a regular classroom with his non-disabled peers. School officials, however, believed that D.R. would be better served spending more of his school day in a special education classroom receiving instruction with other disabled students. Reversing in part, the panel held that, given the IDEA’s strong preference for educating children with disabilities alongside their non-disabled peers, the law supported the parents’ position. The panel held that D.R.’s parents met their burden of proving that the school district’s proposed individualized education program (IEP) failed to comply with the IDEA’s required that children with disabilities be educated in the “least restrictive environment,” alongside their non-disabled peers to the maximum extent D. R. V. RBUSD 3 appropriate. The parties agreed that, under the four-factor Rachel H. test, maintaining D.R.’s placement in the regular classroom for 75% of the school day was supported by factors two, three, and four: the non-academic benefits he derived from being educated in a regular classroom, the lack negative effects D.R.’s presence had on the education of other children in the classroom, and the school district’s failure to contend that the cost of providing D.R. with supplementary aids and services was prohibitively expensive. The panel held that the first Rachel H. factor, the academic benefits D.R. received from placement in the regular classroom, also supported that placement. The panel held that the proper benchmark for assessing whether D.R. received academic benefits from his placement in the regular classroom was not grade-level performance, but rather was whether he was making substantial progress toward meeting the academic goals established in his IEP. The panel further held that the fact that D.R. received academic benefits in the regular classroom as a result of supplementary aids and services was irrelevant to the analysis required under the first Rachel H. factor. Affirming in part, the panel held that D.R.’s parents were not entitled to reimbursement for the expenses they incurred after unilaterally removing their son from school and hiring a private instructor to educate him in a one-on-one setting. The panel concluded that D.R.’s parents showed that the IEP offered by the school district violated the IDEA, but they did not show that the alternative private placement they chose was proper under the Act. 4 D. R. V. RBUSD
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.