Los Angeles Unified School District v. Michael Garcia

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-55879
D.C. No.
2:09-cv-09289-
VBF-CT
OPINION
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Argued December 9, 2011
Submitted January 28, 2014
Pasadena, California
Filed January 28, 2014
Before: Alex Kozinski,* Chief Judge, and Barry G.
Silverman and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam Opinion
* On January 9, 2014, Chief Judge Kozinski was drawn to replace the
late Judge B. Fletcher.

-- 1 of 33 --

LAUSD V. GARCIA 2
SUMMARY**
Education Law
Affirming the district court’s judgment, the panel held,
pursuant to the Supreme Court of California’s answer to a
certified question, that when a student between the ages of 18
and 22 who is eligible for special education services in
California is incarcerated in a county jail, the cost of the
student’s education is borne by the school district where the
student’s parent resides.
COUNSEL
Barrett K. Green (argued) and Daniel L. Gonzalez, Littler
Mendelson, P.C., Los Angeles, California, for Plaintiff-
Appellant.
Paula D. Pearlman, Shawna L. Parks (argued), and Andrea F.
Oxman, Disability Rights Legal Center, Los Angeles,
California; Linda Dakin–Grimm, Daniel M. Perry, and
Delilah Vinzon, Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy, LLP,
Los Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellee.
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

-- 2 of 33 --

LAUSD V. GARCIA 3
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
When a student between the ages of 18 and 22 who is
eligible for special education services in California is
incarcerated in a county jail, who pays the cost of those
services? The school district of the student’s parent’s
residence? The county in which the jail is located? The State
of California? To find out, we certified a question of
California law—specifically, the interpretation of California
Education Code section 56041—to the Supreme Court of
California. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 669 F.3d 956
(9th Cir. 2012).
On December 12, 2013, the California Supreme Court
gave its answer: The cost of the student’s education is borne
by the school district where the student’s parent resides. L.A.
Unified Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 58 Cal. 4th 175, — P.3d —,
2013 WL 6501267 (2013). The facts of the case are detailed
in our order certifying the question to the California Supreme
Court, 669 F.3d at 958–59, and in the California Supreme
Court’s opinion, which is attached as an appendix to this
opinion. The district court had affirmed a 2009 decision of
the California Office of Administrative Hearings that the Los
Angeles Unified School District was responsible for
providing special education services to Michael Garcia.
Because the district court’s ruling is consistent with
California Supreme Court’s answer to the certified question,
its judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 33 --

LAUSD V. GARCIA 4
APPENDIX

-- 4 of 33 --

C O P Y
FE2(l:' Eg cFFl;EO.
FiHEctER: I J.S.fN w0!.9,R'r0FAPPEALS
21132Ett1PK3:28
'NED IN THE SUPREM E COURT OPAA MEcom z
ozu al f Lro
DE21:2013
LOSANGELESUNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
PlaintiffandAppellant,
MICHAELGARCIA,
DefendantandRespondent.
FrankA.McGuiœ Clel
Depuk
5199639
9thCir.No.10-55879
InCalifornia,anindividualwithadisabilitywhoisbetween18and22
yearsofageandhasnotyetearnedaregularhighschooldiplomaisentitledto
continuetoreceivespecialeducationandrelatedservices,evenwhileincarcerated
inacountyjail,solongascertainprerequisiteshavebeensatisfied.(Ed.Code,
j56040,subd.(b);seej#.,jj56000,56026,subd.(c)(4);al1unlabeledstatutory
referencesaretotheEducationCode.)Liketheotherstatesthatreceive
substantialfederalfundsforspecialeducationandrelatedservices,Califomia's
policiesandproceduresgoverningspecialeducationprogramsmustconform to
therequirementsofthefederallndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationAct
(hereafterIDEA),andthefederalregulationsthatimplementandclarifyits
provisions.(20U.S.C.j1400etseq.;34C.F.R.jj300.100-300.176(2013).)But
Congresshasleftittoeachstatetodeterminewhichpublicentitywithinthestate
isresponsibleforprokidingspecialeducationandrelatedservicestoitseligible
pupils,includingthoseincarceratedincountyjail.
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 1 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 5

-- 5 of 33 --

g 7 .);..yEu'
7,'*-'17 i,a., .
Ojepft hjpr j r-tsjpu psinCali fornia'sspecialeducati onschemethat 6.%'; t:51.-.-.
designatestheentity.s:p.gœibleforprovidingaspecialeducationprogram is
... ,.)-,yn.y.;4..;r)f
sectioms -j#4 ,1q' ?W . ..,e'grantedtherequestoftheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfor
theNinthCircuittoanswerthefollowingquestionofCalifornialaw,as
reformulatedbythiscourt:DoesCaliforniaEducationCodesection56041,which
providesgenerallythatforqualifyingpupilsbetweentheagesof18and22years,
theschooldistrictwherethepupil'sparentresidesisresponsibleforproviding
specialeducationandrelatedservices,affixresponsibilityforprovidingspçcial
educationtoaqualifyingindividualwhoisincarceratedinacountyjail?(Cal.
RulesofCpurt,rule8.548(9(5).)
WeanswerthatquestiontçYes.''Asweshallexplain,althoughsection
56041doesnotbyitstermsspeciscallyaddresscountyjailinmates,thestatutory
languageisbroadenoughtoencompassspecialeducationprogramsforeligible
countyjailinmatesbetweentheagesof18and22years,andnootherstatute
explicitlyassignsresponsibilityfortheprovisionofspecialeducationtosuch
individuals.Applyingthetermsofsection56041toassignresponsibilityinthis
settingisconsistentwiththepumosesofthestamteandthespecialeducation
schemeasawhole,anddoesnotcreateabsurdorunworkableresults.
FACTUALANDPROCEDURALBACKGROUND
MichaelGarciawasborninJune1990.HismotherhasresidedintheCity
ofBell,inLosAngelesCounty,from beforeGarcia'sbirthuntilthepresenttime.
Garciafirstbecameeligibleforspecialedttcationservicesinthesecondgrade,
whenhewasidentifiedashavingspecificlearningdeficienciesaswellasspeech
andlanguageimpairment.HisSçdistrictofresidence,''theLosAngelesUnified
SchoolDistrict(L.A.Unised),providedthespecialeducationprogram inhisearly
years.(Seej. 48200;UnionSchoolDistrictv.Smith(9thCir.1994)15F.3d1519,
1525,fn.1Ethecompulsoryeducationresidencyruleforchildrenages6through
2
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 2 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 6

-- 6 of 33 --

18alsodeterminesthelocaleducationalagencyresponsibleforprovidingaspecial
educationprograml.)WhenGarciawas15yearsold,heleftL.A.Unifiedand
enrolledintheSoledadEnrichmentActionCharterSchool,charteredbytheLos
AngelesCountyOfficeofEducation,whichprovidedhim withaspecialeducation
program.(Seejj47640,47641.)
Thereafter,sometimebeforeGarcia's16thbirthday,hewasarrestedon
felotiychargesandheldattheBarryJ.NidorfJuvenileHallinLosAngeles
County.WhileGarciawasbeingdetainedinthejuvenilyfacility,hewasprovided
aspecialeducationprogram bytheLosAngelesCountyOffceofEducation,
which,bystatute,istheentityresponsibleforprovidinggeneralandspecial
educationinthecounty'sjuvenilecourtschools.(Seejj48645.2,56150.)Like
L.A.Unified,theLosM gelesCountyOftkeofEducationdeterminedthatGarcia
waseligibleforspecialedpcationandrelatedservicesduetohisspecifclearning
disabilityandspeechandlanguageimpairment. InJune2008,whenGarciaturned
18yearsold,hewastransferredfromthejuvenilefacilitytotheLosAngeles
CountyJailtoawaittrial.
InDecember2008,counselfrom theDisabilityRightsLegalCenterfiled
onbehalfofGarciaandothersimilarlysituatedindividualsarequestforadue
processhearingbeforetheCalifomiaDepartmentofGeneralServicej,Officeof
AdministrativeHearings,SpecialEducationDivision(OA1-I),allegingthatGarcia
andotherslikehim werebeingdeniedafreeappropriatepubliceducation
(hereaftersometimesFAPE),asrequiredbytheIDEA,becausetherewasno
system fordeliveringspecialeducationservicesforeligibleinmatesintheLos
AngelesCountyjail.(See20U.S.C.j1415(9;34C.F.R.j300.151-300.153;Cal.
CodeRegs.,tit.5,jj3080,3082,4610.)Therequestnamedasdefendantsthe
LosAngelesCountySheriffsDepartment,theCountyofLosAngeles,theLos
AngelesCountyOfficeofEducation,theCaliforniaDepartmentofEducation,and
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 3 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 7

-- 7 of 33 --

othereducationalandpublicentitiesandofficials.BecausetheOA1-Iisnot
authorizedtoconsiderclassactions,theOAHrefiledthecomplaintasoneby
Garciaindividually.TheOAH alsoremovedthreeofthenameddefendantsfrom
thecomplaintbecausetheywerenotproperpartiestoasfecialeducationdue
processhearing.Notably,theinitialcomplaintfledwiththeOAH didnotname
L.A.Unifiedasadefendant.
MostoftheclaimsinGarcia'scomplaintweredismissedinJanuary2009,
eitherbecausetheyallegedinjuriestoaclassorbecausethelegalbasisofthe
claim,forexample,thefederalAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(42U.S.C.
j12101etseq.),felloutsidetheOAH'Sjurisdiction.Oftheremainingclaims,
whichallegedthatthedefendantshadfailedtoprovideGarciawiththeFAPEto
whichhewasentitled,theadministrativelawjudge(ALJ)grantedeach
defendant'smotiontobedismissedasapartyanddismissedthecomplaintinits
entirety.TheALJnotedtherewasnostatutespecifcallyallocatingresponsibility
forprovidingaFAPEtoaneligibleindividualwhowasincarceratedinacounty
jail.Accordingly,theALJlookedtowhatitcharacterizedasthe'tmoregeneral''
rulesetforthinsection56041,whichtheALJunderstoodtoassignresponsibility
totheschooldistrictinwhichtheparentofaqualifiedpupilbetweentheagesof
18and22yearsresides.(Seepost,atpp.11-12.)Inconcludingthatsection
56041applied,theALJnotedthatççitisnotuncommonforaresponsibledistrictto
administeradistantplacements''andexpressedtheview thatany(ddifficultiesin
applyingsection56041inadultcorrectionalfacilitiesisapropersubjectforthe
Legislature.''(Garciav.LosAngelesCtazfrf/. ySherff'sDepartment(OAH,Feb.9,
2009,No.2009010064).)
OnemonthaftertheALJ'Sdecision,Garciaandothersfiledaclassaction
infederaldistrictcourt,allegingthesameclaimsagainstthesamepartiesnamedin
thedueprocesscomplaint.(Garciav.LosAngelesCozfnf yShert'sDepartment,
4
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 4 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 8

-- 8 of 33 --

case.No.09-1513VBF(CTx);see20U.S.C.j1415(i)(2)(A)ganypartyaggrieved
bythesndingsoroutcomeofthedueprocesshearingcanbringacivilactionin
stateorfederalcourtq.)Tllreemonthslater,inlateMay2009,thedistrictcourt
dismissedtheactionwithoutprejudice.Thedistrictcourtconcludedthatplaintiffs
hadfailedtoexhausttheiradministrativeremediesundertheIDEAbecausethey
didnotfileanamendedcomplaintattheadministrativeleveltçnamingproper
partiesagainstwhom reliefcouldbesought.''(See20U.S' .C.j1415(9,(g),(i);
ChristopherS.exrel.RitaS.v.StanislausCszfnf.pOfhceofEducation(9thCir. . '
2004)384F.3d1205,1209(aplaintiffgenerallymustexhausthisorher
administrativeremediesbeforeseekingreliefinfederalorstatecourtunderthe
IDEAI.)Dismissalalsowaswarranted,thedistrictcourtruled,becausepiaintiffs
failedtojoinL.A.Unifiedasapartytotheclassaction.
InJune2009,withindaysofthedismissaloftheclassactioninfederal
court,GarciafiledaseconddueprocesscomplaintwiththeOAH,thistime
namingonlyL.A.UnifiedasapartyandarguingthatL.A.Unitiedwas
responsibleforprovidinghimwithaspecialeducationprogramincountyjail.In
November2009,afterahearing,theOAH issuedadecisionreaffirmingtheALJ'S
conclusioninthepreviousdueprocessproceedingthatsection56041appliedto
designatetheentityresponsibleforprovidingaspecialeducationprogram to
Garcia.Itfurtherconcludedthat,becauseGarcia'smotherresideswithinL.A.
Unified'sboundaries,L.A.UnifiedwasresponsibleforGarcia'sspecialeduoation
whilehewasincarceratedincountyjail,Lstudentv.LosAngelesUn6edSchool
District(OAH,Nov.16,2009,No.2009060442).)
PursuanttotheNovember2009orderbytheOAH,L.A.Unifiedprovided
Garciawithaspecialeducationprogram intheLosAngelesCountyjail.
Meanwhile,itfiledinthefederaldistrictcourtamotionforrelieffrom theOA1l's
decision.InMay2010,thedistrictcourtafsnnedtheOM-Idecision,findingin
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 5 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 9

-- 9 of 33 --

relevantpartthattheOAH correctlydeterminedsection56041appliestoallocate
responsibilityforprovidingspecialeducationandrelatedservicestoGarciain
countyjailandthat,under, thatprovision,L.A.Unitsedwasresponsiblefor
providingsuchservices.
L.A.Unifiedappealedthedistrictcourt'sorder.Whiletheappealwas
pending,Garciawastransferredtostateprisonafterpleadingguiltytoseveral
chargesinexchangeforasentenceof12years.Acknowledgingthattheissue
presentedintheappealwasmootbecausebGarcia,althoughstillundertheageof
22years,wasnolongerincarceratedincountyjail,'theNinthCircuitpanelfound
nonethelessthatthecasepresentedanissuethatwasçtcapableofrepetitionyet
glikelytoevadejreview''andthatitthereforefellwithinanexceptiontothe
mootnessdoctrine.(LosAngelesLTn/#/JSchoolDistrictv.Garcia(9thCir.2012)
669F.3d956,958,fn.1EordercertifyingquestiontoCaliforniaSupremeCourtl.l
Asthefederalappellatecourtobserved,ldthefailuretoprovidespecialeducation
servicestoeligibleinmatesincountyjailsisongoing,andeligibleinmateswill
usuallynotbeincarceratedinthejaillongenoughtobringalegalchallenge.''
(Ibid.)However,theNinthCircuitthenorderedproceedingsstayedpendingthis
court'sdecisionwhethertoacceptorrejectitsrequestpursuanttorule8.548ofthe
CaliforniaRulesofCourtthatwedecideaquestionofstatelaw thatwould
determinetheoutcomeoftheappeal.Specifically,theNinthCircuitaskedthis
courttodecide:çdDoesCalifomiaEducationCodej56041- whichprovides
generallythatforqualifyingchildrenageseighteentotwenty-two,theschool
districtwherethechild'sparentresidesisresponsibleforspecialeducation
services- applytochildrenwhoareincarceratedincountyjails?''(LosAngeles
IAWéWSchoolDistrictv.Garcia,supra,atp.958.)
ByorderdatedMarch28,2012,thiscourtgrantedtheNinthCircuit's
requestandagreedtodecidetheprofferedstate1aw issue.Wehavereformulated
6
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 6 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 10

-- 10 of 33 --

thequestionasfollowstoconform toCalifomialaw:çroesCaliforniaEducation
Codesection56041,whichprovidesgenerallythatforqualifyingpupilsbetween
theagesof18and22years,theschooldistrictwherethepupil'sparentresidesis
responsibleforprovidingspecialeducationandrelatedservices,affix
responsibilityforprovidingspecialeducationtoaqualifyingindividualwhois
incarceratedinacountyjail?''(SeeCal.RulesofCourt,rule8.54849(5).)
DISCUSSION
.pursuanttoCalifornia's'constitutionalandstatutorycommands,thestateis
obligatedtoprovideafreepubliceducation(Ca1.Const.,al4.IX,j5)toall
childrenbetweentheagesof6and18yearswhoarenototherwiseexemptedfrom
compulsoryfull-timeorcontinuingeducation(j48200;seeCal.Const.,art.1X,
jj1,3;jj48220-48232;Buttv.Stateofcalfornia(1992)4Ca1.4th668,680-
681,683;JonathanL.v.SuperiorCourt(2008)165Ca1.App.4th1074,1089-
1091.)Whenachildoryoungadultundertheageof19yearshasbeenidentified
asanindividualwithaqualifyingdisabilityandhasnotreceivedahighschool
diplomaorotherwisemetprescribededucationalgoals,federalandstate1aw
additionallyrequirethatheorshehaveavailableafreeappropriatepublic
educationuntilreachingtheageof22years. Wediscusstherelevantstatutes
below.
A.Statutorybackground
CongressenactedtheIDEA inorderdstoensurethatal1childrenwith
disabilitieshaveavailabletothem afreeappropriatepubliceducationthat
emphasizesspecialeducationandrelatedservicesdesignedtomeettheirunique
needs....''(20U.S.C.j1400(d)(1)(A).)TheIDEAaccomplishesthatobjective
throughpartialfederalfunding.UndertheIDEA,astateiseligibletoreceive
federalfinancialassistanceforeducatingdisabledstudentsbyhavinginplace
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 7 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 11

-- 11 of 33 --

policiesandproceduresthatwillensurecompliancewithcertainenumeratedgoals
andprocedures.(20U.S.C.j1412(a);CountyofsanDiegov.CalfSpecial
Educ.HearingO'cc(9thCir.1996)93F.3d1458,1461-1462.)1
'In1980,California'slawmakersenactedacomprehensivestamtoryscheme
thatsubstantiallyrestructuredCalifomia'sthen-existingspecialeducationsystem.
(j56000etseq.,addedbyStats.1980,ch.797,j9,p.2411.)TheLegislamre's
intentwastoisimprovespecialeducationprogramsinCaliforniaundertheflexible
program designoftheMasterPlanforSpecialEducation''(j56000)andthereby
enhancecompliancewiththefederalfundingrequirementsoftheIDEA'S
predecessor,theEducationoftheHandicappedAct,whichwasthenthegoveming
federallegislation(seeHayesv.CommissiononStateMandates(1992)
11Ca1.App.4th1564,1591).Subsequenttostatewideimplementationofthe
MasterPlanforSpecialEducation(MasterPlan)in1980andenactmentofthe
IDEA in1990,California'sLegislamrehascontinuedtoamendthespecial
educationstatutes,refiningtheMasterPlanandconformingCalifornialawto
furtherchangesinthefederalrequirements.(SeeLegis.AnalystRep.,Overview
ofSpecialEducationinCalifornia,Jan.3,2013,p.7
<hûp://- .lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/education.aspx>(asofDec.12,
20131.)
Oneoftheconditionsforastate'sreceiptoffederalfundingundertheIDEA
isitsassurancethataCsfreeappropriatepubliceducation''isaviilabletoa11
1 AlthoughCongressintendedtof'und40percentoftheadditionalcosts
incurredbyastatetoeducatedisabledsmdents,theacmallevelofreimbursement
hasnevermetthatgoalandappearstobecloserto20percent.(CalforniaSchool
Bds.Assn.v.Brown(2011)192Ca1.App.4th1507,1514,fn.4;see,e.g.,IDEA
FullFundingActof2000,Sen.No.2341,106thCong.,(1999-2000)j2.)
8
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 8 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 12

-- 12 of 33 --

qualifiedstudentsresidinginthestate. (20U.S.C.j1412(a)(1)(A).)AFAPEis
Stspecialeducationandrelatedservices,''providedatpublicexpense,whichmeet
thestandardsofthestate'seducationalagencyandconform tothestudent's
individualizededucationprogram. (20U.S.C.j1401(9).)Tocomplywiththe
IDEA,theresponsibleentitymustevaluatethestudent,determinehisorher
eligibilityforspecialeducationandservicesand,ifthestudentiseligible,develop
andimplementanindividualizededucationalprogram. (20U.S.C.j1414.)
UndertheIDEA,$$al1childrenwithdisabilitiesresidingintheStatebe>een
theagesof3and21,inclusive''areentitledtoaFAPE. (20U.S.C.
j1412(a)(1)(A).)Thereare,however,certainlimitedexceptionstothat
entitlement.Forexample,astatereceivingfederalftlndsisnotobligatedto
provideaFAPEtoadisabledstudentoncethestudenthasbeenawardedaregular
highschooldiploma.(34C.F.R.j300.102(a)(3)(i)(2013).)Inaddition,the
IDEA doesnotrequirethestatestoprovideaFAPEtodisabledstudentsages18
through21yearsdswho,intheeducationalplacementpriortotheirincarcerationin
anadultcorrectionalfacility- (jj(1)werenotactuallyidentiûedasbeingachild
withadisability...;or(!)(11)didnothaveanindividualizededucationprogram
(20U.S.C.j1412(a)(1)(B)(ii).)
Inthepresentmatter,thereisnodisputethat,undertheIDEA andthe
Californiastatutesthatimplementitspolicies,theindividualonwhosebehalfthis
actionwasbrought,Garcia,wasentitledtocontinuetoreceiveaFAPEwhile
incarceratedincountyjail:Hewasundertheageof22years,hadnotreceiveda
highschooldiplomaorothenvisemetprescribedgoals,and,priortohis
incarceration,hehadbeenidentisedasadisabledstudentandhadan
indiyidualizededucationalprogram. (Seejj56026,subd.(c)(4),56040,subd.
(b).)
9
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 9 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 13

-- 13 of 33 --

AlthoughtheIDEA'Srequirementstoobtainfederalf'undingare
substantial,itçççleavestotheStatestheprimaryresponsibilityfordevelopingand
executingeducationalprograms'''fordisabledsmdents.(Schafferv.Weast
(2005)546U.S.49,52,quotingBoardofEd.ofHenrickHudsonCentralSchool
Dist,WestchesterCozfn?yv.Rowley(1982)458U.S.176,183,207.)TheIDEA
likewiseleavesittothestatestodecidehow theywillallocateamongthevarious
stateandlocalpublicagenciestheresponsibilityforproviding,andftmding,
specialeèucationprogramsinaccordancewithitsprovisions..(SeeManchoster
SchoolDist.v.Crisman(1stCir.2002)306F.3d1,10rç-f' heIDEAnowhere
purportstoallocatefinancialliabilityamongthemultitudeofschooldistricts
housedwithinthefiftystates''q;seealsoJS.v.ShorelineSch.Dist.(W.D.Wash.
2002)220F.supp.zd1175,1191-1192(theassignmentofresponsibilityfor
providingaFAPEtypicallyturnsontheissueofresidency,whichisamatterof
statelawl;LindaI' FZv.IndianaDept.ofEducation(N.D.lnd,1996)927F.supp.
303,307.)
Ofrelevancehere,federalrulemakersintentionallydeclinedtodesignate
theentityresponsibleforprovidingspecialeducationandrelatedservicesto
incarceratedindividuals.AccordingtothefederalDepartmentofEducation's
analysisofcommentstoproposedchangesintheregulationsimplementingthe
IDEA,Gçwhether(suchservicestoeligibleincarceratedindividualsqareprovided
directlybytheStateorthrough(alocaleducationalagencylisadecisionthatis
bestlefttoStatesand(localeducationalagenciesjtodetermine.''(U.S.Dept.of
Ed.,Off.ofSpecialEducationandRehabilitationServices,tsnalRegs.,Assistance
toStatesfortheEducationofChildrenwithDisabilitiesandPreschoolGrantsfor
ChildrenwithDisabilities,AnalysisofCommentsandChanges,com.to
j300.324(*,71Fed.Reg.46540,46686(Aug.14,2006).)
10
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 10 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 14

-- 14 of 33 --

Thenarrow questionpresentedforourdecisioniswhetheroneofthe
provisionsinCalifornia'sspecialeducationschemethatdesignatestheentity
responsibleforprovidingaspecialeducationprogram,section56041,affixes
responsibilityformakingaspecialeducationprogram availabletoaneligible
youngadultbetweentheagesof18and22yearswhoisincarceratedincounty
jail.Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,weconcludethat,underthecurrent
statmoryscheme,thedeterminationofwhichentityisresponsibleforproviding
specialeducationandrelatedservicestuaqualifiedcountyjailinmatebetweenthe
agesof18and22yearsisgovernedbythetermsofsection56041.
B.Section56041
Asmentionedabove,lawmakershaveattemptedtoassureCalifornia's
continuedreceiptoffederalfundingbyenactinglegislationtoconform ourstate's
specialeducationpoliciesandprocedurestochangesinthefederalrequirements.
In1992,theLegislatureundertookoneofseveralcomprehensiverevisionsofthe
specialeducationstatutoryscheme,amendingseveralexistingprovisionsand
addingnewones.(Stats.1992,ch.1360,j1etseq.,pp.6806-6838(enacting
Assem.BillNo.2773(1991-1992Reg.Sess.)j.)Themeasureaddressedanumber
ofmajorissues,includingproceduresforexpulsionandsuspensionofspecial
educationpupils,altemativedisputeresolutionatthelocallevel,andservicesto
pupilswithattentiondeficithyperactivitydiyorders. (Seejj48911-48912,
48915.5,56138,56339.)The1992legislationalsoaddedsection56041,the
statuteatissueinthepresentcase.(Stats.1992,ch.1360,j8,p.6818.)That
provision,which'readsthesametodayasatthetimeitwasenacted,statesas
follows:
çsExceptforthosepupilsmeetingresidencyrequirementsforschool
attendancespecifiedinsubdivision(a)ofSection48204,andnotwithstandingany
11
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 11 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 15

-- 15 of 33 --

otherprovisionoflaw,ifitisdeterminedbytheindividualizededucationprogram
team thatspecialeducationservicesarerequiredbeyondthepupil's18thbirthday,
thedistrictofresidenceresponsibleforprovidingspecialeducationandrelated
servicestopupilsbetweentheagesof18to22years,inclusive,shallbeassigned
asfollows:
t((a)Fornonconservedpupils,thelastdistzictofresidenceineffectpriorto
thepupil'sattainingtheageofmajorityshallbecomeandremainasthe
responsiblelocaleducationalagency,aslongasanduntilttheparentorparents
relocatetoanew districtofresidence.Atthattime,thenew districtofresidence
shallbecometheresponsiblelocaleducationalagency.
ç$(b)Forconservedpupils,thedistrictofresidenceoftheconservatorshall
attachandremaintheresponsiblelocaleducationalagency,aslongasanduntilthe
conservatorrelocatesoranew oneisappointed.Atthattime,thenew districtof
residenceshallattachandbecometheresponsiblelocaleducationalagency.''
(j56041.)
ThequestionpresentedtothiscourtbytheNinthCircuitCourtofAppeals,
whethersection56041appliestodesignatetheentityresponsibleforproviding
specialeducationtoaneligible18-to22-year-o1dcountyjailinmate,isone
involvingstatutoryconstruction.Toanswerthatquestion,weareguidedbythe
overarchingprinciplethatourtask$:çistodeterminetheintentoftheenacting
bodysothatthe1aw mayreceivetheinterpretationthatbesteffectuatesthatintent.
rcitation.j'''(CityofAlhambrav.CounpofLosAngeles(2012)55Cal.4th707,
718-719.)Webeginbyexaminingthewordsofthestatutebecausethe
$ççSçlanguageisgenerallythemostreliableindicatoroflegislativeintent.
(Citation.j'''''(Id.atp.719.)Thestatutorylanguageisnotreadinisolation,
however.Rather,weconsideritstermsçdinthecontextofthestatutoryframework
asawholeinordertodetermineitsscopeandpurposeandtoharmonizethe
12
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 12 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 16

-- 16 of 33 --

variouspartsoftheenactment.lfthelanguageisclear,courtsmustgenerally
follow itsplainmeaningunlessaliteralinterpretationwouldresultinabsurd
consequencestheLegislaturedidnotintend.''(Coalitionofconcerned
Communities,Inc.v.CityofLosAngeles(2004)34Ca1.4th733,737.)
Asageneralmatter,section56041,subdivision(a)(hereafter56041(a)),
assignsresponsibilityforprovidingspecialeducationandrelatedservicesto
tçnonconservedpupils''betweentheagesof18to22yearstotheschooldistrictin
whichthepupil'sparentorparentsreside. As.previouslymentioned,boththe
federaldistrictcourtandtheOAl-lreliedupontheplainlanguageofsection
56041(a)toconcludethat,basedonthelocationofGarcia'smother'sresidenceat
thetimeGarciareachedtheageof18yearsandthereafter,L.A.Unifiedwas
responsibleforprovidingaspecialeducationprogram toGarciawhilehewas
incarceratedincountyjail.
Garciaurgesthiscourttoreachasimilarconclusion. Ashepointsout,
undersections48200and48204,aschooldistrictisresponsibleforprovidinga
freefull-timepubliceducationorafreeappropriatepubliceducation,asthecase
maybe,toa11studentsbetweentheagesofsixand18whoseparentorlegal
guardianresideswithinthejurisdictionalboundariesoftheschooldistrict,unless
oneofthespecifiedexceptionstotheresidencyruleapplies. (SeeUnionSchool
Districtv.Smith,supra,15F.3datp.1525,fn.1(j48200alsodeterminesthe
localeducationalagencyresponsibleforprovidingaspecialeducationprogramq.)
AccordingtoGa/cia,section56041constitutesaparallelruleofgeneral
applicabilityfordisabledstudentsbetweentheagesof18and22years.
OfthevariousstatutesappearingintheEducationCodethatdesignatethe
entityresponsibleforprovidingspecialeducationservices,section56041isthe
onlyprovisionthatexpresslyreferstopupilsbetweentheagesof18and22years.
Byitsterms,however,section56041doesnotpurporttoassigntotheschool
13
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 13 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 17

-- 17 of 33 --

districtinwhichthepupil'sparentresidestheresponsibilityforprovidingaspecial
educationprogram forcvcryqualifedpupilinCaliforniabetweentheagesof18
and22years.Assetforthabove,theintroductoryclauseofsection56041
explicitlyexceptsfrom thereachofthestatutetdthosepupilsmeetingresidency
requirementsforschoolattendancespecifiedinsubdivision(a)ofSection48204.5'
Thatprovisionliststheexceptionstothegeneralrulethatchildrenbetweenthe
agesofsixand18mustattendschoolintheschooldistrictinwhichtheresidence
oftheirparentorguardianislocated.z(SeeKatzv.LosGatos-saratogaJoint
inrelevantpartthat
çGgnqotwithstandingSection48200,apupilcomplieswiththeresidency
requirementsforschoolattendanceinaschooldistrict,ifheorsheisanyofthe
following' .
çç(1)(A)Apupilplacedwithintheboundariesofthatschooldistrictina
regularlyestablishedlicensedchildren'sinstitution,oralicensedfosterhome,ora
familyhomepursuanttoacommitmentorplacementunderChapter2
(commencingwithSection200)ofPart1ofDivision2oftheWelfareand
lnstitutionsCode.
Section48204,subdivision(a),provides
çç(B)Anagencyplacingapupilinahomeor
subparagraph(A)shallprovideevidencetotheschool
commitmentispursuanttolaw.
institutiondescribedin
thattheplacementor
(642)Apupilwhoisafosterchildwhoremainsinhisorherschoolof
originpursuanttosubdivisions(d)and(e)ofSection48853.5.
tç(3)Apupilforwhominterdistrictattendancehasbeenapprovedpursuant
toChapter5(commencingwithSection46600)ofPart26.
:ç(4)Apupilwhoseresidenceislocatedwithintheboundariesofthat
schooldistrictandwhoseparentorlegalguardianisrelievedofresponsibility,
control,andauthoritythroughemancipation.
çç(5)Apupilwholivesinthehomeofacaregivingadultthatislocated
withintheboundariesofthatschooldistrict.Executionofanaffidavitunder
penaltyofperjurypursuanttoPart1.5(commencingwithSection6550)of
Division11oftheFamilyCodebythecaregivingadultisasufficientbasisfora
determinationthatthepupillivesinthehomeofthecarejiver,unlesstheschooldistrictdeterminesfrom actualfactsthatthepupilisnotllvinginthehomeofthe
caregiver.
Iootnotecontinuedonnextpage)
14
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 14 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 18

-- 18 of 33 --

UnionHighSchoolDist,supra,117Ca1.App.4thatpp.57-58.)Inaccordance
withthoseexceptions,section56041doesnotapplywhen,forexample,the
eligible18-to22-year-o1dpupil,priortoreachingtheageofmajority,hadbeen
placedinalicensedchildren'sinstitutionorfosterhomebythejuvenilecourt,or
wasresidinginastatehospital. (j48204,subds.(a)(1)(A),(6).)Inthose
instances,theresponsibilityforprovidingspecialeducationandrelatedservices
lieswiththeschooldistrictinwhichtheinstitutionorhomeislocated,
Other,morespecificprovisionsinthespecialeducationschemecal'veout
additionalexceptionstotheapplicationofsection56041. Forexample,the
Legislaturehasassignedtothecountyboardofeducationtheresponsibilityfor
providing,orcontractingwithalocalschooldistricttoprovide,bothgeneral
educationandspecialeducationservicestoyouthandyoungadultsincarceratedin
thejuveniledetentionfacilitieswithinitsjurisdiction.(jj48645.2,56150;see
Welf.& lnst.Codej1731.5,subd.(a)(1),(2)(acourtmaycommittotheDivision
ofJuvenileFacilitiesanypersonconvictedofoneormorespecifiedoffenseswho
wasyoungerthan21yearso1datthetimeofapprehensionl.)Similarly,the
Legislaturehasassignedresponsibilityforprovidingspecialeducationto
(footnotecontinuedh-ompreviouspage)
tç(6)Apupilresidinginastatehospitallocatedwithintheboundariesof
thatschooldistrict.''
Weobserve,andatoralargumentthepartiesagreed,thatwhenthe
Legislatureincorporatedsection48204'sexceptionstotheresidencynzleinto
section56041,lawmakersclearlyintendedthereferenceto(çemancipation''in
section48204,subdivision(a)(4),tomeanemancipationofaminor. (Seealso F
am.Code,j7050,subd.(e)(15)(providingthatanemancipatedminoris
consideredanadultforpurposesofdçestablishling)theminor'sownresidenceq.)
15
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 15 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 19

-- 19 of 33 --

hospitalizedsmdentstothelocaleducationalagencythatservesthegeographic
areawherethehospitalormedicalfacilityislocated.(j56167,subd.(a).)
TheLegislature'sdesignationofasingle,localeducationalagencyasthe
entityresponsibleforprovidingaFAPEtothequaliledindividualsplacedina
juveniledetentionfacilityorresidinginotherinstitutionalsettingsarguably
promotesthegoalsofconsistent,orderly,efscient,andeffectivedeliveryof
specialeducationprogramsinthosesettings.However,otlrreview ofthe
educationalschemerevealsthattheLegislaturehasnotaddedaprovisiontpthe
statutoryschemethatspecificallyassignsresponsibilityforprovidingaFAPEto
qualifiedindividualsinthecountyjailsettingandhasnotamendedsection56041
tocreateanexceptiontothateffect.Norhascounselforeithersidepointedtoa
statuteorcasethatassignsresponsibilityforprovidingspecialeducationinthese
circumstances.Further,thelanguageofotherstatutessuchassection48645.2,
whichassignstothecountyboardofeducationtheresponsibilityforoperating
juvenilecourtschools,isnotbroadenoughtofairlyencompassresponsibilityfor
eligibleindividualsbetweentheagesof18and22whoareincarceratedincounty
jail.Absentanyindicationsofacontrarylegislativeintentinthelanguageand
structureofthespecialeducationstatutoryschemeasawhole,weconcludethat
whennoneofthestatutoryexceptionstosection56041applies,theentity
responsibleforprovidingspecialeducationtoaneligibleyoungadultpupilwhile
heorsheisincarceratedincountyjailisproperlydeterminedbythetermsof
section56041.Aswehaveseen,undersection56041,theresponsibleentityis
generallythedistrictinwhichtheinmate'sparentresides.
L.A.Unifiedarguesthatthelanguageofsection56041doesnotevinceany
intenttoassignresponsibilityforprovidingspecialeducationtoeligiblecounty
jailinmatesbecausethestatutedoesnotexpresslyrefertocountyjails.That
section56041makesnospecificreferencetocountyjailinmatesdoesnotmeanit
16
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 16 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 20

-- 20 of 33 --

doesnotassignresponsibilityforprovidingspecialeducationservicesinthat
setting,however.Asdemonstratedbythiscourt'spastdecisions,wehavenot
hesitatedtoconstruestatutorylanguagetocoverasubjectthatwasnotexpressly
mentionedintheprovisioninquestion,whendoingsoisconsistentwiththe
stitute'spurpose.Forexample,inCit yofsanJosev.SuperiorCourt(1993)
5Ca1.4th47,weheldthattheproceduralsafeguardssetforthinEvidenceCode
section1045,whichgovemsthedisclosurdbfconfidentialpolicepersonnelfilesto
criminaldefendants,alsoappliedinjuvpniledelinquencyproceedings,
notwithstandingthatthestatutedidnotexpresslyrefertodelinquencymatters.
(CityofsanJose,supra,atpp.53-54;seealsoCel-TechCommunications,Inc.v.
LosAngelesCellularTelephoneCo.(1999)20Ca1.4th163,183(theLegislature's
failuretospecifkallyprohibitcertainactivityundertheunfaircompetition1aw
doesnotpreventacourtfrom determiningthattheactivityisunfairunderthe
actl.)Likewisehere,theabsenceofanexpressreferencetocountyjailsdoesnot
precludeusfrom interpretingsection56041toassignresponsibilityforproviding
specialeducationtoeligible18-to22-year-o1dindividualsincarceratedinsuch
facilitiesbecausesuchaconstructionisconsistentwiththeoverarchingstatutory
purposeofsatisfyingthestate'sobligationsundertheIDEA byensuringthata
clearlydesignatededucationalagencyisassignedresponsibilityforproviding
eligibleindividualsSçtherighttoanappropriateeducationalopportunitytomeet
theiruniqueneeds.''(j56000,subd.(a);see20U.S.C.jj1400(d)(1)(a),1412(a).)
L.A.Unisedarguesthatthelegislativehistoryofsection56041reflectsa
morelimitedpumose,namely,tomaintaininterdistrictfundingobligationswhena
studentwhohasbeenplacedbyoneschooldistrictintoaspecialeducation
program locatedinanotherschooldistrictreachestheageofmajorityandwould
otherwisebecomethefundingresponsibilityofadistrictthathadnoinvolvement
intheplacementdecision.Inlightofthebroadlywordedlanguageofsection
17
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 17 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 21

-- 21 of 33 --

56041,wecarmotagreewithL.A.Uniied'scontentionthatthestatuteshouldbe
interpretednarrowlyasapplyingtoonlytheforegoingcircumstances.
Section56041hasbeendescribedasaprovisionthatStensurelsjfunding
continuity.''(OrangeCozfnfyDept.ofEduc.v.CalforniaDept.ofEduc.(9thCir.
2011)668F.3d1052,1059;seealsoSierraSandsUnsedschoolDistrîctv.
Student(SpècialEd.HearingOff.,Oct.22,2002,No.2198-02)p.2Ej56041isa
provisionGGtomaintainftmdingresponsibilities'');Studentv.BerkeleyLJn#3c#
SchoolDist.(SpecialEd.HeringOff.,Nov.6,2003,No..1989-03)(samel.)As
previouslydiscussed,thestatutewasenactedaspartofanomnibusspecial
educationbillthatexpandedthescopeofeligibility,madeproceduralchanges,and
conformedCalifornia1awtofederalstatutesandregulations.(Stats.1992,
ch.1360,j1etseq.,p.6806etseq.)Accordingtolegislativematerialsassociated
withthemeasure,section56041wasrecommendedbyarepresentativeofthe
specialeducationlocalplanarea(SELPAI3ofSantaBarbaraCountyand
Ssaddresseldqaproblem forlocaleducationalagencieswhichareimpactedby
3 WiththeimplementationofCalifornia'sMasterPlanin1980,eachlocal
educationalagencywasrequiredtoorganizeorjoinalocalçsspecialeducation
servicesregion''ofdssufficientsizeandscope''toensurethedeliveryofspecial
educationandrelatedservicestoa1lqualifiedindividualswithinthatgeographic
area.(jj56000,56140;seealsoj56195.1,subd.(a);Stats.1980,ch.797,
pp.2411-2413,2418-2419,2420-2423. )TheSELPAcanbeasingledistrict,ora
groupcomprisedofinorethanonedistrict,oneormoredistrictsandacounty
officeofeducation,oroneormorecountyofficesofeducation.(j56140,
subd..(d).)Withinputfromacommunityadvisorycommitteethatincludes
parentsofstudentswithdisabilities,eachSELPA isrequiredtodevelopand
submittostateofscialsalocalplansettingouthow itsparticipatingagencyor
agencieswillimplementandadministerthespecialeducationprogramsto
qualifiedsmdentswithinthegeographicareaservedbytheplan.(jj56001(9,
56190,56195.1;56200. ,seegenerally,Legis.AnalystRep.,supra,Overview of
SpecialEdùcationinCal.)
18
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 18 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 22

-- 22 of 33 --

nonpublic,nonsectarianschools.''(Sen.Com.onEd.,Rep.onAssem.Bill
No.2773(1991-1992Reg.Sess.)p.2.)Ourreviewofthelegislativematerials
disclosesnofurtherdetailsregardingthenatureofthatproblem. Butaccordingto
a2003decisionbytheSpecialEducationHearingOffice,4relieduponbyL.A.
Unifiedtosufportitsargument,theTçproblem''referredtointheforegoing
legislativereportconcernedminorstudentswithdisabilitieswhoresidedin
nonpublic,nonsectarianschoolsoutsidethejurisdictionoftheirlocaleducational
agency.Inthehearingofficer'svieW,ttlrqatherthanautomaticallytransfeningthe
responsibilityforthestudent'seducationtothedistrictwherethestudentis
residingwhenheorsheisorbecomesanadultatageeighteen,Section56041
requirestheeducationalagencythatplacedthestudentinthenonpublicor
nonsectarianschooltocontinuetoberesponsibleforthesmdent'seducation.
''
(Studentv.BerkeleyUnt&#SchoolDist.(SpecialEd.HearingOfE,Nov.6,2003,
No.1989-03)p.7.)SThepuposeofthestatute,accordingtothehearingofscer,
4 TheSpecialEducationHearingOfficewasthegredecessoroftheOAH, whichconductsthestateadministrativespecialeducatlondueprocesshearingsthatresolvecomplaintsallegingfailuretoprovideaFAPEortoothem isecomply
withtheIDEA.(jj56500-56507;Cal.CodeRegs.,tit.5,jj3082,4600etseq.;
see20U.S.C.j1415(b)(6)(A),(9;34C.F.R.j300.151-300.153(2013).)
s
narrow circumstancesdescribedbytheSpecial
decisioninStudentv.BerkeleyUnfedschoolnumberofsubsequentadministrativehearing
toassignresponsibilitytoaschooldistrictthathadnotbeeninvolvedintheadult
pupil'sindividualizededucationalplanorplacementpriortothepupil'shaving
reachedtheageofmajority.(SeeStudentv.OrangeCbzf n/ yDept.ofEducation
(OAH,Nov.30,2009,Nos.2009090943,2009100565)gconsolldatedwithOrange
C/z/nf.yDept.ofEducationv.Studentj;Parentexrel.Studentv.CalforniaDept.ofMentalHealth(OAH,Oct.26,2009,No.2009050920);OrangeCoz/n/ .p DepartmentofEducationv.Student(OAH,May22,2009,Nos.2008120021,
section56041appliesonlyinthe
EducationHearingOffice's
Dist,Garciapointsoutthata
decisionshaveappliedsection56041
CounteringL.A.Unified'sassertionthat
Iootnotecontinuedonnextpage)
19
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 19 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 23

-- 23 of 33 --

wastttoprotectcertainschooldistrictsandSELPASthathavealargenumberof
residentialschoolsattendedbyadultspecialeducationstudentsfrom otherdistricts
from becomingoverwhelmedbythefinancialresponsibilityfortheeducationof
thoseadultstudents.''(Ibid.j
ThematerialsdescribedabovesupportL.A.Unified'spointthatthe
impettzsforthelawmakers'enactmentofsection56041wastosolveaproblem
resultingfrom theplacementofaminorpupilinaresidentialschoollocated
outsidethegeographicalboundariesofthe'pupil's'district.ofresidence- fhatis,
outsidethedistrictinwhichtheparentresided.Weobserve,however,that
althoughlawmakerswerepresentedwithaspecifcandnarrowproblem,theydid
notlimitthestatute'sapplicationtoonlythosesituationsinwhichaschooldistrict
hadplacedtheminorstudentinaresidentialschooloutsideofitsjurisdictional
boundaries.lnstead,thestatuteiswordedinbroaderterms.Itdistinguishesonly
betweenconservedandnonconservedpupilsand,aspreviouslydiscussed,itsonly
expresslimitationsaretheexceptionstotheresidencyrequirementsfor
compulsoryeducationgenerally.(j56041,subd.(a)(ççExceptforthosepupils
meetingresidencyrequirementsforschoolattendancespecitsedinsubdivision(a)
ofSection48204....'').)
(footnotecontinuedkompreviouspage)
2009020130)(consolidatedwithStudentv.OrangeC/zfnf.yDepartmentof
Educationj;Studentv.LosAngeles(/n4/1#SchoolDistrict(OAH,Apr.17,2007,
No.2007010772).)Theadministrativehearingdecisionscitedbythepartieshaveapplied,or
declinedtoapjly,section56041toassignresponsibilityforprovidingspecial
educationtoellgible18-to22-year-oldpupilsinsettingsotherthanacountyjail
orotheradultcorrectionalfacility.Becausethefactualscenariospresentedby
thosedecisionsarenotbeforeus,weexpressnoview regardingtheirreasoningor
result.
20
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 20 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 24

-- 24 of 33 --

Foritspart,amicuscuriaeCaliforniaSchoolBoardsAssociationassertsthat,
notwithstandingthestatute'saémittedlybroadterms,itisunlikelytheLegislature
intendedforsection56041tobeusedtoassignresponsibilityforspecialeducation
servicesforcountyjailinmates.AstheCalifomiaSchoolBoardsAssociation
pointsout,whentheLegislatureenactedsection56041in1992,Califomia1aw did
notexplicitlyrequirespecialeducationforcountyjailinmatesbetweentheagesof
18and22,anditwasnotuntil2004thattheLegislamreamendedsection56040,
subdivision(b),toconformtotheIDEA'Samendmentsinthisregard. (See
20U.S.C.j1412(a)(1)(B)(ii)(permittingstatestoforegoprovidingaFAPEtoan
individual18through21yearsoldwhodidnothaveanindividualizededucation
planinplacepriortohisorherincarcerationinanadultcorrectionalfacilityl.)
TheCaliforniaSchoolBoardsAssociationarguesthat,giventhestatutesin
existencein1992,whichincludedprovisionspermitting,butnotrequiring,county
officialstoestablishgeneraleducationclassesincountyjailfacilities(jj1900,
1906,1907),theLegislaturecouldnothaveintendedsection56041toinclude
withinitsscopetheresponsibilityforprovidingspecialeducationtoeligible
countyjailinmates.
WearepersuadedthatwhentheLegislatureenactedsection56041,itdidso
toaddressaspecificproblem,andthatlawmakersdidnotconsiderthestatute's
applicationtothesettingatissuehere. Atthesametime,however,weagreewith
Garciathattheapplicabilityofsection56041isnotnecessarilylimitedbythe
Legislature'slackofcontemplation,atthetimeofthestatme'senactment,whether
theprovisionappliedtoassignresponsibilityforprovidingspec'ialeducationina
countyjail.When,ashere,theLegislaturehaschosentoaddressaspecific
problem byenactingastatutewithgeneralterms,theparticularimpemsforthe
enactmentdoesnotlimititsscope. (Khajaviv.FeatherRiverAnesthesiaMedical
Group(2000)84Cal.App.4th32,51;seeBarrv.UnitedStates(1945)324U.S.
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 21 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 25

-- 25 of 33 --

83,90(whenlawmakerschoosebroadstatutorylanguageiçitisunimportantthat
theparticularapplicationmaynothavebeencontemplated'q.)
Notwithstandingthatadistinctandspecifcproblem mayhavemotivatedthe
Legislature'senactmentofsection56041,ourconstmctionofthatstatuteasthe
provisionthatdesignatestheentityresponsibleforprovidingspecialeducationto
aneligiblecountyjailinmatebetweentheagesof18and22yearsisconsistent
withseveraloftheapparentobjectivesofsection56041.First,ourinterpretation
ofthestatutefollowsthegeneralstateeducationalpolicyofassigningfunding
responsibilityforapupil'scompulsorypubliceducationtotheschooldistrictin
whichthepupil'sparentresides.Furthermore,andasthefederaldistrictcourt
observed,thisinterpretationprotectsalocaleducationalagencyservingthe
geographicareainwhichaheavilypopulatedcountyjailliketheLosAngeles
Countyjailislocatedfrom becomingoverwhelmedbytheGnancialresponsibility
foreducatingeligibleyoungadultinmateswhoseparentsresideinotherdistricts.
(SeefosAngelesUnWc#SchoolDistrictv.Garcia,supra,669F.3datp.961.)
Ourconstructionofsection56041likewisecomportswiththespecial
educationschemegenerally.Aspreviouslymentioned,acourtinterpretinga
statutetobesteffectuateitsintentdoesnotview theprovisioninisolation,but
ratherç$tinthecontextofthestatutoryframeworkasawholeinordertodetermine
itsscopeandpurposeandtoharmonizethevariouspartsoftheenactment.'
(Citation.q''(ProspectMedicalGroupInc.v.NorthridgeMedicalGroup(2009)
45Ca1.4th497,506.)Viewingthestatmethroughthatbroaderlens,weconclude
thatourconstructionfurtherstheoverarchingpurposeofthestatutoryschemeasa
whole,which,asalreadydiscussed,istoensurethatthereisaclearlydesignated
educationalagencyresponsibleforprovidingeligibleindividualsSçtherighttoan
appropriateeducationalopportunitytomeettheiruniqueneeds.''(j56000,
subd.(a);cf.ProspectMedicalGroupInc.v.NorthridgeMedicalGroup,supra,at
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 22 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 26

-- 26 of 33 --

pp.506-507(lookingtotheKnox-KeeneActasawholetoconcludethatoneofits
provisions,Hea1th& Saf.Code,j1379,appliedtoasituationthatdidnotexistat
thetimeofitsenactmentq.)
Wefurtherobservethatalthoughthespecialeducationframeworkincludes
speci/cprovisionsthatrendersection56041inapplicableininstitutionalsettings
thataresimilartocountyjails,thereisnoinconsistencybetweentheexistenceof
thosestatutesandapplyingthemoregeneraltermsofsection56041todesignate
respongibilityforprovidingspecialeducationtoaneligible18to22yearoldwho
isincarceratedincountyjail.Withregardtoinstitutionalsettingslikejuvenile
courtschools,theLegislaturehasspecificallyconsideredtheuniquecharacteristics
oftheparticulareducationalenvironmentanddesignatedtheentityresponsiblefor
providingspecialeducationinthosefacilitiesaccordingly. Thereisnoindication
thattheLegislaturehasspecificallyconsideredthedeliveryofspecialeducation
programstoeligibleyoungadultinmatesincountyjail.Unlessanduntilthe
Legislaturechoosestoadoptaspecialruletogovel.nresponsibilityinthatsetting,
thereisnothingimpermissibleorincongruousaboutdesignatingtheentity
responsibleforspecialeducationprogramsincountyjailinaccordancewiththe
moregeneraltermsofsection56041.
AsforthestatmescitedbyamicuscuriaeCaliforniaSchoolBoards
Associationthatgovernthedeliveryofgeneraleducationprogramsinadult
corredionalfacilities,weagreewithGarciathattherearenoinherent
contradictionsbetweentheprovisions. AsamatterofIDEA andstate1aw policy,
aFAPEtypicallyisprovidedinaneducationalenvironmentwithnondisabled
sttzdents.(20U.S.C.j1412(a)(5)(A);j56040.1,subd.(a);seej56000,subd.(c);
seealsoSanFranciscoUnfedSchoolDfzf.v.Stateofcalfornia(1982)131
Ca1.App.3d54,70(theSçmainstreamingpolicy''reflectsaççbasicgoaloftheActto
educatehandicappedchildreninthedleastrestrictiveenvironment'possible'l.)
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 23 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 27

-- 27 of 33 --

UndertheEducationCode,acountysuperintendentofschools,withtheassentof
thecounty'sboardofeducationandboardofsupervisors,mayestablishand
maintainclassesorschoolsforinmatesinitscounty'sjailsandothercorrectional
facilities.(jj1900,1905-1906.)Iùaddition,acounty'sboardofsupervisorsis
authorizedtoassigntoanyschooldistrictmaintainingsecondaryschoolsthe
responsibilityforoperatingsuchclassesorschoolsinacountyjail.(j1907.)
Thesestatutesarenotnecessarilyinconsistentwithallocatingresponsibilityfor
providingspecialeducationtoaneligiblecountyjailinmatetotheschooldistrict
inwhichtheeligibleinmate'sparentresides;ratherthesestatutesprovidea
structurewithinwhichtheschooldistrictresponsibleforprovidingaspecial
educationprogram canworktogetherwiththeentityoperatingageneraleducation
program inthesamefacility.
L.A.Uniûedassertsfinallythatapplyingsection56041toassign
responsibilityforprovidingspecialeducationprogramstoeligiblecotmtyjail
inmateswouldleadtoabsurd,unworkableresults.AccordingtoL.A.Unified,
requiringtheschooldistrictwhereaneligibleinmate'sparentresidestoprovide
specialeducationinthecountyjailwheretheinmateisincarceratedpresents
signitscantlogisticalconcerns,.esp.eciallyforschooldistrictsthatare
geographicallydistantfromthecountyjail.L.A.Unifiedmaintainsthatsuch
districtswouldfaceuncertainstaffandserviceobligations,andtherecouldbe
delaysinservicesandbarrierstothequickresolutionofdisputesbetweenthe
schooldistrictandtheinmate.L.A.Unifiedwarnsfurthermorethatjail
administratorswouldfacestafGngandsecurityissuesintheeventpersolmelfrom
numerousschooldistrictsweretosimultaneouslyconvergeonthejailfacilityto
providespecialeducationprogramstotheirrespectivepupils.
L.A.Unifiediscorrectthatundersettledprinciplesofstatutoryconstruction,
acourtisobligatedtoavoidaconstnzctionthatwouldleadtoimpracticalor
24
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 24 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 28

-- 28 of 33 --

unworkableresults.(CommissiononPeaceOlccrStandardsandTrainingv.
SuperiorCourt(2007)42Ca1.4th278,290.)Wearenptpersuaded,however,that
construingsection56041todesignatetheentityresponsibleforprovidingspecial
educationtoaneligible18-to22-year-oldcountyjailinmatewouldresultin
unworkableorabsurdconsequences. L.A.Unified'sargumentdescribingthe
variousdifficultiesthatcouldarisewhenmany,perhapsdistant,schooldistricts
areassignedresponsibilityforprovidingspecialeducationtoeligible18-to22-
year-oldpupilswhoareincarceratedin'asinglecountyjailraisesvalid,palpable
concems.Butponeoftheidentiiedproblemsisinsurmountableorrendersthe
constructionofsection56041unworkable. Inthisregard,we'agreewithGarcia
thatanypotentialdifficultiesarisingfrom designatingtheschooldistrictinwhich
thecountyjailinmate'sparentresidesastheentityresponsibleforproviding
specialeducationandrelatedservicesinacountyjailmaybeovercomebythe
schooldistrict'sabilitytocontractwithanotherschooldistrictoragencytodeliver
thenecessaryservices.Localeducationalentitieslikeschooldistrictsare
statutorilyauthorizedtoenterintoagreementswithotherpublicagenciesto
providespecialeducationtoaneligiblepupilandroutinelyenterintosuch
contracts.(Seej56369.)Ourreviewofthespecialeducationschemediscloses
furthermorethatinanumberofsettingstheLegislaturehasimposedonschool
districtstheresponsibilityforfundingspecialeducationprogramsforeligible
pupilswhoresidewithinthegeographicboundariesofanotherdistrictoreven
anotherstate.(Seejâ56365,subds.(d)-(i)gassigningtothelocaleducational
agencytheresponsibilityforftmdingthefullamountoftuitionforapupilproperly
placedinanonpublic,nonsectarianschool,includingschoolslocatedoutsideof
thestateq,56195.5,subd.(b)(authorizingalocaleducationalagencytoprovidefor
thespecialeducationofindividualpupilsthroughprogramsmaintainedbyother
districtsorcountiesq.)
25
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 25 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 29

-- 29 of 33 --

AmicuscuriaeCaliforniaSchoolBoardsAssociationcautionsthateven
wereanotherschooldistrictorentitywillingtocontractwiththeschooldistrictin
whichtheeligiblecountyjailinmate'sparentresides,therearenoguaranteessuch
anagreementwouldadequatelydischargetheresponsibleschooldistrict's
obligationsunderourstate1aw andtheIDEA.TheCaliforniaSchoolBoards
Associationarguesthatbecausecorrectionalinstimtionsarepenologicalrather
thaneducationalinnature,theypresentdistinctiveandsignifcantprogram-
implementationissuesthatcouldimpactth:deliveryofaninmate'sspecial
educationprogram,placingschooldistrictsatriskofbeingheldliableforthe
denialofaFAPEtoaqualiGedindividual.Theassociation'sconcernsdonot
renderourinterpretationofsection56041unworkable,however.Whenaschool
districtcontractswithcertainentities,forexample,withanonpublic,nonsectarian
school,toprovidespecialeducationandrelatedservicesthattheschooldistrict
cannotitselfprovide,theLegislaturehasensuredthatsucharrangementswill
complywithrequiredpoliciesandproceduresbyclarifyingthenecessaryterms
andrespectivedutiestobesetforthinmastercontractsbetweentheschooldistrict
andtheotherentity.(See,e.g.,j56366,subd.(a)Erequiredtermsofagreuments
betweenlocaleducationalagenciesandnonpublic,nonsectarianschoolsor
agenciesl.)Althoughthereisnospecificstatutoryprovisionsettingforththe
requiredtermsofacontractbetweenschooldistrictsandotherentitiesforthe .
provisionofspecialeducationservicesincountyjails,aschooldistrictisnot
withoutanyguidanceinthismatter.Forexample,manyofthetermsfor
agreementswithnonpublic,nonsectarianschoolsmandatedbysection56366,
subdivision(a),couldbeimportedintoexistingagreementsforthegeneral
educationofcountyjailinmatespursuanttosections1900through1909.5.(See
alsoj1259gregardingagreementsfoteducatinginmatesunderthejurisdictionof
theDepartmentofCorrectionsandRehabilitationq.)lfanyadditionalguidanceor
26
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 26 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 30

-- 30 of 33 --

clarificationisneeded,schooldistrictsarefreetoseekfurtheractionbythe
Legislature.
CONCLUSION
Anindividualwithaqualifyingdisabilitywhoisbetweentheagesof18
and22yearsandhasmetcertainspecifiedprerequisitesisentitledtocontinuehis
orherspecialeducationprogramwhileincarceratedinacountyjail.Althoughthe
Legislaturehasexpresslydesignatedtheentityresponsibleforprovidingspecial
educationandrelatedsèrvicestbeligiblkpupilsresidinginvariousinstitutional
settingssuchasjuvenilecourtschools,ithasnotadoptedasimilarnarrowstatute
applicabletothecountyjailsetting.Intheabsenceofsuchlegislativeaction,we
concludeforthereasonsexplainedabovethattheassignmentofresponsibilityfor
providingspecialeducationtoeligiblecountyjailinmatesbetweentheagesof
18and22yearsisgovemedbythetermsofsection56041.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE,C.J.
WECONCUR:
KENNARD,J.
BAXTER,J.
WERDEGAR,J.
CHIN,J.
CORRIGAN,J.
LIU,J.
27
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 27 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 31

-- 31 of 33 --

SeencxfpageforaddressesandtelephonenumbersforcounselwhoJrpfc#inSupremeCourt.
NameofOpinionLosAngelesUnifiedSchoolDistrictv.Garcia
UnpublishedOpinion ' OriginalAppeal
OriginalProceedingX'XXonrequestpttrsuanttorule8.548,Cal.RulesofCourtReviewGranted
RehearingGranted
OpinionNo.5199639
DateFiled:December12,2013
Court:
County:
Judge:
Counsel:
DianeH.Pappas,DonaldA.Erwin,MampreR.Pomakian;LittlerMendelson,BarrettK.GreenandDaniel GonzalezforPlaintiffandAppellant.
KeithBray,ElaineYama-Garcia;VuVaccaro,VanT.VuandKourtneyVacaroforCaliforniaSchool
BoardsAssociationanditsEducationLegalAllianceasAmiciCuriaeonbehalfofPlaintiffandAppellant.
KamalaD.Harris,AttorneyGeneral,ManuelM.Medeiros,StateSolicitorGeneral,AliciaFowler,Acting ChiefAssistantAttorneyGeneral,JulieWeng-Gutierrez,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,SusanM.Carson, ActingAssistantAttorneyGeneral,NiromiW.Pfeiffer,GlendaN.ReagerandlsmaelA.Casko,Deputy AttorneysGeneral,fortheCaliforniaDepadmentofEducationasAmicusCuriaeonbehalf(lfPlaintiffand Appellant.
DisabilityRightsLegalCenter,PaulaD.Pearhnan,MichelleUzeta,AnpaRivera;Milbank,Tweed,Hadley &Mccloy,LindaDakin-Grirmn,DanielM.Perry,DelilahVinzonandHannahL.Cnnnom forDefendant andRespondent.
Youth&EducationLawProjectWilliamS.KoskiandCarlyJ.MunsonforChildren'sRightsClinicat SouthwesternLaw School,DisabilityRightsAdvocates,DisabilityltightsCalifornia,LearninglkightsLaw Center,LawFoundationofSiliconValley,LoyolaLawSchool,CenterforJuvenileLawandPolicyand
PublicCotmselLawCenterasAmiciCuriaeonbehalfofDefendantandRespondent.
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 28 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 32

-- 32 of 33 --

CounselwhoarguedinSupremeCourt(notintendedforpublicationwithopinion):
BarrettK.Green
LittlerMendelson
2049CenturyParkEast,5thFloor
LosAngeles,CA 90067-3107
(310)553-0308
JulieWeng-Gutierrez
AssistantAttorneyGeneral
1300IStreet,Suite125
Sacrmnento,CA 94244-2550
(916)323-8203
DelilahVinzon
Milbank,Tweed,Hadley&Mccloy
601FigueroaStreet,30thFloor
LosAngeles,CA 90017
(213)892-4000
Case: 10-55879 12/17/2013 ID: 8911992 DktEntry: 63 Page: 29 of 29
LAUSD V. GARCIA 33

-- 33 of 33 --