COPAA filed an amicus brief in the 4^th circuit earlier this month in CD v. Arlington School Board. Longtime COPAA member, Melissa Waugh, represents the family. COPAA’s brief focused on the statute of limitations and child find, or evaluations in all areas of suspected disability. The plain language of the statute makes clear that IDEA’s statute of limitations starts to run when the parents knew or should have known about the facts which give rise to their cause of action (discovery rule), not when the events occurred (occurrence rule). The Hearing Officer and the district court erred in faulting the parent for the delay in raising an objection to the District’s failure to conduct additional evaluation; parents do not have the same access to relevant information as school district personnel. In addition, the parent filed within two years of the date of the “knew or should have known” date, so therefore the filing was in fact timely, consistent with IDEA requirements. 

Application of the discovery rule fits within the larger context of IDEA’s goal of ensuring appropriate education for all children with disabilities. School district personnel, with their expertise, are appropriately charged with knowing what it means to assess a child in all suspected areas of disability. When schools fail to comprehensively assess a student, the disturbing result is a delay in necessary interventions.  Parents, by contrast, do not have the background to determine what evaluations should be administered.  When parents rely upon a school to comprehensively assess their child, and the school fails, the parents cannot know what to do, and the child suffers the loss of an appropriate education.

The text of the statute explicitly states that the timeline for requesting a hearing “is within 2 years of the date the parent or agency knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint.”  20 U.S.C. Section 1415(f)(3)(C).  This approach encourages school districts to vigorously pursue their obligation to assess all areas of disability and ensure children with disabilities have a full and meaningful remedy as Congress intended. The decision below fails to fulfill the Congressional mandate in IDEA to “enabl[e] each child with special needs to reach his or her full potential.”  G.L. v. Ligonier Valley Sch. Dist., 802 F. 3d 601, 626 (3d Cir. 2015).  The district court’s approach frustrates the Congressional mandate in IDEA to “enabl[e] each child with special needs to reach his or her full potential.”   Id. at 626.