In a case of first impression under the IDEA, the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania rendered a verdict against a parent on behalf of a school district be- cause, the Court found, the parent used an administrative due process hearing for an improper purpose, to needlessly increase the costs of litigation in order to induce the district to pay for tuition for her two sons to attend an elite private prep school.
In this case, the parent asked for a pre-hearing conference before her older son began kindergarten. Thereafter, she filed between 11 to 14 due process hearings and lost them all. In between hearings, she requested multiple pre-hearing conferences, mediations and IEP team meetings. As found by the Court, if she did not get exactly what she wanted, the parent requested another pre-hearing conference, mediation or hearing, despite the similarity of the issues she contested with those already decided and despite the fact that the district’s position had been previously affirmed in a hearing. The parent requested hearings when other hearings were still pending. The parent requested a new IEP when one had just been approved by a hearing officer months before. According to the Court’s decision, no matter what the district provided, the parent wanted more.
Because the parent repeatedly refused, the pendent IEP that the district could implement by law was woefully outdated.
In an e-mail quoted by the Court, the parent stated, “Many great people are from children with some problem (sic). Einstein is one of them…. I do not want to give up ‘my hope to produce the world’s 2nd Einstein to be.” The Court pointedly noted: “At that time [he] was 11 years old.”
The Court wrote: “The law requires that a school district provide a free appropriate public education. The law does not require a district to … cause him … to become a second Einstein.”
At no time did the parent contend that any provision of the IDEA had been violated or that the student had not made progress. The student at issue was eligible under the IDEA and gifted. He excelled academically. In the middle school, he was on the debate and the track and field teams. As a high school freshman, he was ranked 7th out of 600 students. His younger brother was also gifted and also engendered parent requests for hearings.
The Court found that the parent was aware of the costs to the district for her many requests for meetings and hearings, in teacher time, in administrator time and in legal fees incurred for the due process hearings, in which, with one exception, she appeared pro se.
Finally, the Court said, the parent expressed her desire that both of her sons should go to a specific college preparatory school and that the district should pay $23,000 each for their tuitions. The district explained that the prep school did not provide the special education services that the older boy needed. Thereupon, the Court found, the parent “embarked on a deliberate campaign to drive up the district’s costs in order to convince the district it would be cheaper for the district to meet her tuition demands than to refuse to do so.”
The Court noted that the parent, whose native language was Mandarin, began to demand interpreters and translations for the first time, despite her graduate degree from an American University, thus driving up costs further.
Famously, the parent advised the special education supervisor that the parent was not going to agree to anything, but, if the district would agree to pay for a private school, “this would all go away.”
When a hearing officer reduced the parent’s 23 witnesses to 12 and limited their testimony, the parent refused to participate, whereupon the hearing officer dismissed the parent’s complaint with prejudice. The parent appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which upheld the hearing officer.
The Court specifically found that:
- the parent could understand and be understood in English, in the Court’s own experience of her.
- the parent’s request for a new IEP when one had just been approved by a hearing officer was for an improper purpose.
- the parent’s failure and refusal to participate in the due process hearing around which parameters had been placed by the hearing officer was for an improper purpose, as was her appeal of his dismissal to Commonwealth Court.
- where there was a conflict between the testimony of the district’s witnesses and the parent, the Court accepted their testimony as the more accurate.
- the parent’s intent was to drive up the district’s costs.
- the district brought its lawsuit against the parent “in an attempt to end the extraordinary expenses that were being incurred by the district as a result of the parent’s continuing conduct.”
The Bottom Line
Schools do have a remedy against parents who abuse the due process system, but they face the possibility of a long, tenacious and costly fight. One important yet unresolved question in this case of first impression is whether a district’s remedy must be limited to a specific due process proceeding, as occurred in this case.
The case underscores the difficulty school districts have in dealing with parents who misuse the due process provisions of the IDEA. Few claims have been brought by districts against parents, and courts have been reluctant to find against them. Underpinning the judgment against the parent in the Zhou case was a pattern of unusually obstructionist behavior with an objective that she clearly articulated having nothing to do with the Statute.
If a district finds itself in the unfortunate case of a Mrs. Zhou, it is best to consider filing the claim quickly and relate it to a specific due process request.
If you have any questions, contact your legal counsel or one of the education law attorneys at KingSpry.
School Law Bullets are a publication of the KingSpry Education Law Practice Group. John E. Freund, III, is our editor. The article is meant to be informational and does not constitute legal advice.
