Running head: LANDMARK COURT CASE 1

Landmark Court Case: Doug C. v. Hawaii (2013)

Aurora Gallegos Zarate

College of Southern Nevada

LANDMARK COURT CASE 2

A landmark court special education case is Doug v. Hawaii. This case began in the year

2009 when Doug’s son Spencer needed his annually IEP meeting done, him and Spencer’s IEP

team scheduled a meeting for November 9th since Spencer’s annual review deadline was on

November 13th. However, Doug C. emailed them in the morning notifying Kaleo Waiau, special

education coordinator at Maui High School, that he was unable to attend because he was sick and

if they could reschedule for November 16th or the 17th yet since the deadline was November 13th

the staff suggested the 10th or 11th. Doug C. told them that because he was sick there was a

chance he could not make it, so they offered him that it could be done via phone or in the

internet, however, Doug C. said he wanted to be there in person. However, Waiau decided to

continue the IEP meeting on the 9th without Doug C. present and also the only horizons academy

staff member on Spencer’s IEP team. During this meeting Waiau decided to transfer Spencer to

Maui High School leaving Horizon Academy which was at the expense of the Department of

Education. Of course, Doug C. took it to the districts court saying that his son was denied FAPE

which stands for free appropriate public education and also making sure they have related

services to provide for their specific needs. The school defense was that Doug C. was hard to

work with since the original meeting was in October 28th and keep postponing the dates also that

the annual IEP deadline was coming up he added that he had asked 13 people three times to

change their schedule to get a meeting with Doug C. This is a landmark court case because it let

parents know how important it is to be present in an IEP meeting and what rights a parent has.

Also, it lets the schools know how to deal with a parent not being able to attend. In this case

many questions were answered such as “If there are logistical scheduling conflicts for an IEP

meeting, is priority given to the schedules of the school staff or the parent?”
LANDMARK COURT CASE 3

In the districts court Doug C. lost, so he appealed the case and was heard by the ninth

circuit. The supreme court established that school can have an IEP without a parent under two

circumstances. The first is if the parent refuses to attend the meeting, the second, is if the school

cannot convince the parent to attend. However, in this case Doug C. said specifically that he

wanted to be present in the IEP meeting.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Doug C. because they said that there are two

primary purposes of IDEA, the second part states “to ensure that the rights of children with

disabilities and parents of such children be protected.” So the answer the Supreme Court gave to

the question “If there are logistical scheduling conflicts for an IEP meeting, is priority given to

the schedules of the school staff or the parent?” was “Priority is given to the parent…an agency

cannot exclude a parent from an IEP meeting in order to prioritize its representatives’ schedule.”