A Colorado judge has ruled in favor of a family that sued Academy District 20, alleging that the district denied their child their right to a Free Appropriate Public Education required by federal law.

Ronnie and Leah Broyles filed a complaint against the district in February, alleging that they specifically violated the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by denying their child’s Individualized Education Plan that had been used in previous states and school districts.

The student has multiple disabilities including spina bifida resulting in life-limiting conditions, multiple hospitalizations and surgeries and a heightened susceptibility to infections. These conditions include paralysis, the need for a tracheostomy tube and feeding tube and 24/7 assistance with daily functions.

The student, referred to as V.B. in the court documents, had previously received homebound education and one-on-one tutoring approved by their local school district when they lived in California and, more recently, Colorado Springs School District 11 based on recommendations by doctors detailed in their Individualized Education Plan.

When the family relocated to a home within D-20 in fall 2023, they went through a similar process of presenting and approving V.B.’s plan for the school she would be attending. D-20 refused to provide similar services until a reevaluation was taken.

Specifically, the condition of homebound placement for V.B. was unique to the district and the main point of contention. According to district representatives, no other student in the district with an Individualized Education Plan required homebound placement at the time and they believed that the needs outlined could be met within their schools.

They also referred to the district’s goal of inclusion and to increase time in the general education classroom for children with special needs along with general the goal of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to have these students “interact with their nondisabled peers.”

The Broyles argued that the district never seriously considered homebound placement as an option and never attempted to collaborate with them because a lack of understanding of home placement for students.

Ronnie Broyles said that they had provided letters from doctors to the district detailing V.B.’s greater risk for respiratory compromise and infection in a traditional classroom setting. He added that the district’s IEP team informed them that that they wouldn’t provide them with homebound education “regardless of the evaluation.”

“They told me, ‘She is either in school all day long or she will receive no education from us, take it or leave it.’ And I left it.” Broyles said.

“They weren’t listening then. I’ll bet they’re listening now.”

Cole ruled that D-20 failed to provide V.B with FAPE by:

• Failing to justify its dramatic departure from prior placements.

• The creation of goals wholly inconsiderate of her individual circumstances.

• Denied a homebound placement on the basis of district policy that too narrowly interprets regulations and is inconsistent with case law.

• Obdurately predetermined her placement in general education 40%-79% of the time.

“The district is not bound to accept parents’ opinion about placement,” the ruling stated. “They are also not bound to adopt or continue prior placement decisions. They are, however, required to actually consider them.”

The judge ruled that the Broyles are entitled to equitable relief in the form of compensatory special-education services, prospective education services in a homebound placement, and reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incurred because of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act violations.

In a statement, a D-20 spokesperson confirmed that the district had received the ruling Monday evening and that they are “reviewing the decision and considering our options.”

This year, the district was found by the state Department of Education to have failed to meet multiple students’ Free Appropriate Public Education at one of their elementary schools due to challenges stemming from inconsistent or inadequate staffing and was ordered to addresses each violation identified.

Royles’ attorney Igor Raykin said that he has multiple lawsuits pending against D-20 and that he was “shocked” by the ruling, considering how uncommon it is for judges to rule in favor of families over districts in similar cases.

“This is only the second case since 2018 where the judge ruled in favor of the parents over the district in Colorado,” he said.

Broyles said he is “extremely happy” with the recent ruling and is confident that an appropriate plan will be approved by the start of the new school year.

“I’m just upset that we’ve had to get to this point,” Broyles said. “Fighting for an education shouldn’t be that hard.”