Alvin Independent School District v. AD ex rel. Patricia F.

AD (plaintiff) was a student in the Alvin Independent School District (district) (defendant) who was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). AD received special education due to his ADHD and an early speech impediment. In third grade, AD’s family and the district agreed that AD no longer qualified for special education. AD performed well in the remainder of elementary school. In middle school, AD exhibited behavior problems and was frequently disciplined, but AD continued to pass his classes academically and meet state standardized test requirements. After the sudden death of AD’s brother, AD’s behavior problems increased. AD began abusing alcohol and continued to misbehave at school. AD eventually engaged in theft of school property and robbery. However, AD’s academic performance remained consistent. AD’s mother requested special-education services from the district and a due-process hearing. AD’s mother claimed that the district violated AD’s right to a free, appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by failing to identify AD as disabled and provide him with special-education services. The district’s Admissions, Review, and Dismissal Committee (committee) conducted a full and independent evaluation of AD, including extensive testing, a review of school files, and hearing testimony from teachers, psychologists, family, physicians, and diagnosticians. AD’s teachers testified that AD was well-liked socially and performed sufficiently in academics, recommending that AD not receive special services. AD’s physicians recommended special education. The committee found that AD was not eligible for special-education services, and AD requested an independent educational review. The district denied the request and initiated a due-process hearing. The hearing officer found that AD was a child with a disability and was eligible for services. The district appealed the decision in federal district court, and the court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the district, finding that AD did not need special services because of his ADHD and was not a child with a disability under IDEA. AD appealed to the Fifth Circuit.