mainevr

**Maine School Administrator District #35 v. Mr. and Mrs. R.**
321 F.3d 9 (2003)

Defendant __Maine School Administrative District #35__ was unable to deal with the student on an IEP’s behavioral problems, including verbal outbursts and assaultive conduct, and chose to make the alleged dangerousness, in and of itself, the reason for his change in his IEP and outside placement in a work-site all day program. Plaintiff __Mr. and Mrs. R. (on behalf of their son S.R. whom has Down Syndrome)__ rejected the proposal in his IEP to relegate him to a work-site training program for the entire school day because these circumstances violated their son’s right to receive educational services in the lease restrictive environment possible. They then asked for compensatory education because the IEP was ineffective for that year.
 * __Facts__:**


 * __Issues/Answers__:**
 * 1) Can you change the placement of a student’s who is on an IEP solely based on the dangerousness of the student? //No//
 * 2) Are Sped students are entitled to compensatory education when they do not enjoy the benefits of an appropriate IEP? //Yes//


 * __Basis/Rationale__:**
 * 1) The school district tried to move the student out of school based on his behavior because he would “pose a risk of danger to himself or others.”
 * 2) The School District could have appealed the stay-put order as part and parcel of judicial review of the IEP.
 * 3) The restraining order that the school district went for “requires the proponent to proffer substantial evidence that the affected child’s current placement poses a significant and unreasonable likelihood of injury either to himself of to others.”
 * 4) IDEA obliged the School District to furnish S.R. with a FAPE sufficient to confer some educational benefit.


 * __Notes__:**
 * 1) The IDEA (Individuals with Disability Education Act) obligates school districts to furnish FAPE (free and appropriate public education) until the age of 20.
 * 2) The School District took an unusual step: it initiated a civil action seeking to bar S.R. from returning to Marshwood High because his presence there would pose a substantial risk of danger to himself or others – they did not get this TRO (temporary restraining order).
 * 3) School district could have invoked temporary changes in a child’s placement if the current placement is likely to result in injury but instead chose to bring the parents to civil court to issue a temporary restraining order to keep S.R. out of Marshwood High.
 * 4) A child may be eligible for services under IDEA in compensation for past deprivation even after his/her eligibility has expired.