Click for printable version
Click to send to a friend

Tuesday, August 14, 2001
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Parents of autistic girl win appeal

The Clark County School District's failure to inform parents of a child's evaluation indicating signs of autism violated federal law, according to a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

The decision, released Monday, reverses a previous ruling by U.S. District Judge Howard McKibben. The three-judge panel sent the case back to district court and ordered McKibben to reinstate the 1997 findings of a state hearing officer. At that time, the hearing officer concluded that the child -- called Amanda J. in the lawsuit -- had been misidentified by the district as developmentally delayed and been denied a fair and appropriate education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

"I think this case points out that in quite a few cases, parents are not given full information when being asked to make decisions about programs and services for their children," said Geralyn Clancy, the Sacramento attorney who represented Amanda J. "If parents don't receive the diagnosis, or the suspicion of the diagnosis, they can't act on it quickly."

Amanda was first evaluated by a district psychologist and a speech pathologist in 1995, when she was four. While both written evaluations made reference to signs of autism, the girl's mother said that was never discussed with her.

The district was unable to document that the girl's family had been notified of the findings. Clark County School District Attorney Bill Hoffman was not available to comment on the appeals court ruling on Monday.

The youngster spent 48 days enrolled in the district before she and her family moved to California in 1995. Her schooling continued, based on the assessments done in the Clark County School District. It wasn't until 1996 that her mother first saw the Clark County School District's evaluations, which had been forwarded to the new school. An outside specialist confirmed that the girl was autistic and the family had to embark on a different course of education and treatment for their daughter.

Clancy said the family is seeking reimbursement from the district for medical costs of assessing Amanda J. for autism and the expense of an at-home autism intervention program they paid for privately. The appeals court ruling upheld that request. No dollar amount was stated in the ruling.

"The decision did a nice job of identifying the need for early detection," Clancy said.