Inappropriateness of Residential Treatment Decision is the Real Issue in Forest Grove Case

On June 22, 2009, the Supreme Court Court ruled in favor of the parents of a child with a disability in the case of Forest Grove v. T.A. The court held that even though their son had never received special education services from the school district, they were entitled under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to pursue tuition reimbursement for the private educational program they secured for their son, T.A. The parents in this case sought reimbursement for tuition at a private “therapeutic boarding school,” a type of residential treatment center. 

While the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law believed that the Supreme Court should rule in favor of the parents on the legal issue, we are opposed to the use of public funds for restrictive, expensive residential placements that do not meet children's mental health or education needs. Substantial numbers of children have been abused at therapeutic boarding schools, resulting in their serious injury and even death. We believe that public money should instead be invested in community-based services that are more effective and less costly; ones that ensure that students are served in the “least restrictive environment.”

A detailed fact sheet explains why residential treatment centers are inappropriate placements for students with mental health and special education needs. View the fact sheet here.

Also, see the Time.com article (4/17/09) on the case and on the scrutiny of Mount Bachelor Academy.

See the Supreme Court's decision (PDF) and, below, links to briefs of the parties and the amicus curiae (friends of the court) filed with the Supreme Court:

T.A.’s Brief:  The brief filed by T.A. argues for an interpretation of the IDEA that allows for tuition reimbursement in his circumstances based on the text, legislative history, and prior caselaw. The brief also discusses the negative impact a ruling in favor of the school district court could have on students with disabilities, particularly when, like in T.A.’s case, the school incorrectly identified the student as ineligible under the IDEA.

United States’ Amicus Brief in Support of T.A.:  The amicus brief filed by the United States argues that an interpretation of the text of the IDEA in favor of T.A. is supported under principles of statutory construction, the IDEA’s legislative history, and prior Supreme Court caselaw. The brief also contends that the interpretation of the U.S. Department of Education, the agency that is charged with implementing IDEA, in favor of reimbursement in these circumstances is entitled to deference. Finally, the United States argues that constitutional principles support its position.

Other Amicus Briefs in Support of T.A.:  Several disability advocacy groups filed amicus briefs in support of T.A. These briefs support an interpretation of the IDEA in favor of the parents in light of the IDEA’s broad grant of remedial authority and of school districts’ obligations to identify students with disabilities. They also advocate that a construction of the IDEA in favor of T.A. is supported under constitutional principles. Further, these briefs argue that the IDEA benefits predominately lower-income children with disabilities. They argue further that a very small percentage of children with special education needs are served in private schools, and they address the school district and their amicus’ arguments regarding the potential costs to districts.

• Brief of the National Disability Rights Network
• Brief of the Disability Rights Legal Center
• Brief of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates

Forest Grove School District’s Brief: The brief of Forest Grove School District argues that an interpretation of the IDEA in favor of T.A. would violate constitutional principles, namely the Spending Clause. It also contends that T.A.’s interpretation is not supported by recent revisions to the text of the IDEA and that the U.S. Department of Education’s interpretation of that text is not entitled to deference. Finally, the school district argues that an interpretation in favor of T.A. would lead to unfair results for school districts.

Amicus Briefs in Support of Forest Grove School District: Numerous groups filed amicus briefs in support of the school district, including several local and state government organizations and school-related trade associations. These briefs support an interpretation of the IDEA in favor of Forest Grove based on the text, prior caselaw, and constitutional principles. In addition, these briefs argue that a ruling in favor of T.A. would be costly to school districts and would divert money away from public schools.  

• Brief of the Council of the Great City Schools
• Brief of the National Education Association
• Brief of the U.S. Conference of Mayors
• Brief of the National School Boards Association
• Brief of the New York State School Boards Association

Brief of the City of New York

For media inquiries, please contact Emily McKee, Director of Communications, at 202.467.5730 ext.120, or emilym @ bazelon.org