(a) Decision of hearing officer on the provision of FAPE. (1) Subject to paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a hearing officer's determination of whether a child received FAPE must be based on substantive grounds.
(2) In matters alleging a procedural violation, a hearing officer may find that a child did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies—
(i) Impeded the child's right to a FAPE;
(ii) Significantly impeded the parent's opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the parent's child; or
(iii) Caused a deprivation of educational benefit.
(3) Nothing in paragraph (a) of this section shall be construed to preclude a hearing officer from ordering an LEA to comply with procedural requirements under §§ 300.500 through 300.536.
(b) Construction clause. Nothing in §§ 300.507 through 300.513 shall be construed to affect the right of a parent to file an appeal of the due process hearing decision with the SEA under § 300.514(b), if a State level appeal is available.
(c) Separate request for a due process hearing. Nothing in §§ 300.500 through 300.536 shall be construed to preclude a parent from filing a separate due process complaint on an issue separate from a due process complaint already filed.
(d) Findings and decision to advisory panel and general public. The public agency, after deleting any personally identifiable information, must—
(1) Transmit the findings and decisions referred to in § 300.512(a)(5) to the State advisory panel established under § 300.167; and
(2) Make those findings and decisions available to the public.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(3)(E) and (F), 1415(h)(4), 1415(o))
Notes of Decisions
Middleton v. Dist. of Columbia (2018)
cadc · cites it 3×
“" 34 C.F.R. § 300.513 (a)(2). With respect to a purported substantive violation of the IDEA, a court must determine whether the school district offered "an IEP reasonably calculated to enable [the] child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances.”
Honig v. Doe (1988)
scotus · cites it 2×
“" Comment following 34 CFR § 300.513 (1987). Such procedures may include the use of study carrels, time-outs, detention, or the restriction of privileges.”
C.H. v. Cape Henlopen School District (2010)
ca3 · cites it 2×
“34 C.F.R. § 300.513 (a)(2). Where a parent unilaterally places a child into private school, a court or hearing officer may require reimbursement of private school expenses where it finds there has been a substantive harm — namely, that “the agency had not made a [FAPE] available…”
G W v. Ringwood Board of Education (2022)
ca3 · cites it 2×
“§ 1415 (f)(3)(E)(i); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.513 (a)(1). Alternatively, the hearing officer may issue a decision based on findings of “procedural inadequacies” that “impeded the child’s right to a free appropriate public education,” “significantly impeded the parents’…”
Stanek v. St. Charles Community Unit School District 303 (2015)
ca7
“Matthew alleges that his school denied him the study guides and extra time to complete tests and homework that his IEP required, and that as a result he began failing classes in subjects in which he had received As and Bs in previous years.”
W.B. v. Matula (1995)
ca3 · cites it 2×
“See also 34 C.F.R. § 300.513 (a). This is known as the “stay put” rule.”
McLean v. District of Columbia (2017)
dcd · cites it 2×
“was not denied a FAPE because the record evidence did not establish that D.M. met the definition of a “child with a disability” during the 2013-2014 school year, and, therefore, he was not entitled to a FAPE.”
M.O. v. District of Columbia (2013)
dcd
“§ 1415 (f)(3)(E)(i); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.513 (a)(1) (“[A] hearing officer’s determination of whether a child received a FAPE must be based on substantive grounds.”
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(1) — 1 case
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(2) — 1 case
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(2)(ii) — 2 cases
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(b) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.