Wartenberg V. Capistrano Unified School Case Study

One of the legal implications in the case of Wartenberg v. Capistrano Unified School District (1995) was that the Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) federal law was being violated (west Law, 1995). Since the court found the district in violation of FAPE, it also meant that the services being provided in the IEP were not appropriate. Jeremy continued to struggle in school, and despite initial modifications being made, the last addendum to the IEP stated fewer services and no supplemental hours, in a structured educational setting. Furthermore, according to educational code §56341.1 (b) (1) a Behavioral Intervention plan (BIP) must be in place if the student’s behaviors are impeding his IEP goals, his learning or the learning of others (Kemerer and

Capistrano Unified School District (1995) are similar to legal implications mentioned above. Kemerer and Sansom (2005) state, “A parent seeking to obtain reimbursement for educational expenses must satisfy two criteria. First, during the time period in which the educational expenses were incurred, the school district did not make available a FAPE” (p. 329). The second reasons is “…educational services obtained by the parent must be designed to meet the student’s unique needs and provide students with educational benefit” (Kemerer and Sansom, 2005, p. 239). Again, by not providing FAPE, Capistrano Unified was in violation of the federal law, and in return, the Wartanberg’s were entitled to financial compensation for tuition and service fees at Jeremy’s new placement. Moreover, according to the Ninth Circuit Court, parents have the right to obtain legal fees if they have triumphed in one or more issues in a due process (Kemerer and Sansom, 2005). Jeremy’s parents prevailed, and refused to accept a completely different school setting that was offered in the district’s written offer, causing for attorney/legal fees to be paid by Capistrano Unified (West Law,