N.B. v. Hellgate Elementary School District

C.B. was evaluated for developmental disabilities when he was almost three years old and was found to potentially be autistic. C.B.’s family lived in New Jersey at that time, and their local school district created an individualized education program (IEP) for C.B. based on that evaluation, to be used for the upcoming school year in preschool. C.B. moved with his family to Montana before the school year began, however. C.B.’s parents (plaintiffs) brought the evaluation and the IEP to their new district, Hellgate Elementary School District (the district) (defendant) in September. The district reviewed the evaluation and IEP but decided to evaluate C.B. for a new IEP and provided C.B. with significantly fewer hours of special education than what the New Jersey IEP recommended. In November, C.B.’s parents again informed the district that C.B. might be autistic. In response, the district informed C.B.’s parents that they could have him tested at a child-development center that provided free autism testing. C.B.’s parents eventually obtained that testing, which determined that C.B. was on the autism spectrum. The district reconvened the IEP team and gradually began increasing the special-education services C.B. received, so that by May he was receiving approximately what had been recommended in the New Jersey IEP. C.B.’s parents did not agree to the district’s proposed IEP for the following school year and enrolled C.B. in a different school. C.B.’s parents filed an administrative appeal alleging that the district had violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The administrative review held for the district, and C.B.’s parents appealed that decision in federal district court. The district court affirmed the administrative review’s findings, holding that the district did not violate the IDEA. C.B.’s parents appealed.