J.S. v. Scarsdale Union Free School District

How courts have described this case

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

• finding school district had no reason to suspect disability given student’s “level of academic achievement”
• finding no Child Find violation where a high school junior’s absences and difficulty keeping up with assignments were “not unusual among first-semester juniors ... [and] five or six other kids were having similar problems at the time”
• “The IDEA’s child find provisions do not require district courts to evaluate as potentially ‘disabled’ any child who is having academic difficulties.”
• “Among the most important of [equitable factors] is whether the parents have cooperated with the District throughout the process to ensure their child received a FAPE.” (cleaned up)
• “[T]he purpose of the notice requirement is to give the district a meaningful opportunity to minimize its expenses by developing its own IEP that would provide the child with a FAPE within the School District.”
• “[C]ourts have held that a state’s child find duty is triggered when it has a reason to suspect a disability, and reason to suspect that special education services may be needed to .address that disability.” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).