DS EX REL. DS v. Bayonne Bd. of Educ.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that a procedural violation will constitute the denial of a FAPE only “if it results in a loss of educational opportunity for the student, seriously deprives parents of their participation rights, or causes a deprivation of educational benefits”
• holding that a school district did not violate the IDEA when it ignored parents' letters for months but included the parents in their child's IEP meeting because \they ultimately had an opportunity to participate meaningfully in the creation of an IEP\ for their child
• implying that, even when an ALJ does not hear live testimony, a district court exercises modified de novo review
• holding after-acquired evidence may only be considered in determining appropriateness of IEP when it was written
• explaining that if a district court does not adhere to the hearing officer’s factual findings, “it is obliged to explain why”
• finding no actionable procedural violation because parents “had an opportunity to participate meaningfully in the creation of an IEP”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).