Teen not a danger, filing says
Claims over gun inflated, it states
The parents of a 15-yearold boy the Vilonia School District contends is dangerous and shouldn’t be allowed to return to school said Friday in court documents that he isn’t dangerous and that claims of him posing with a gun on social media are exaggerated.
The parents want a federal judge to retain jurisdiction of a lawsuit that the district filed Tuesday in Faulkner County Circuit Court to keep the boy from returning to school after he was suspended March 6 in connection with the social media posts. The parents transferred the case to fedStanding
eral court later that same day.
Through their attorney, Theresa Caldwell of Maumelle, the parents want a federal judge to order the district to comply with federal education law.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act specifies that schools can’t expel or transfer special-education students, such as the ninthgrade boy, before a hearing to address the school’s concerns against a backdrop of his disabilities and laws protecting such students.
A hearing is set for April 12, which is more than a month after the boy was suspended. But the Disabilities Education Act requires a Manifestation Determination Review, which is a specialized meeting pertaining to a special-education student’s Individualized Education Plan, to occur before the student can be suspended beyond 10 days.
After the boys’ parents complained to the Arkansas Department of Education that the district is trying to remove their son from the school without following the law’s due-process requirements, a hearing officer the department assigned to the case ordered the district to allow the boy to return to school immediately, prompting the district to seek court intervention.
The boy suffers from multiple disorders, including traumatic brain injury, memory deficits, psycho-motor deficits, front lobe and executive function deficit, depression and oppositional defiant disorder, according to the district’s lawsuit.
In an answer filed Friday, the parents disagreed with the district’s argument that the case should be remanded to Faulkner County Circuit Court, arguing that it involves the boy’s rights under federal law.
The parents also indicated that the district took out of context the boy’s March 1 posting on Snapchat of a photo of himself holding a handgun, with his finger on the trigger and the hashtag, in all capital letters, I Love It When They Run.
The parents acknowledged that their son posted the photo, but they said he did it while he was at home, and the gun he was holding was an “Airsoft rifle (a replica weapon for use in Airsoft sports).” They said the posting “contained a lyric from a rap song” that included the hashtag.
The district alleged in its lawsuit that on March 6, a student intern “came forward” about a conversation the student had with the boy, in which the boy said, “I just want to fight someone and end up killing them and go to prison for the rest of my life.”
The parents denied the allegations and said the conversation in question was alleged to have occurred Feb. 14.
They denied that their son is a threat to the safety of staff members and students at the Freshman Academy, the district’s school for ninth-graders.
The parents also noted that in 2004, Congress amended the Disabilities Education Act to create “an expedited process for removing an allegedly dangerous student from school” and said the district should apply that remedy.
The act “specifically requires [the district] to ‘return the child to the placement from which the child was removed,’ unless parents agree to a change of placement,” they said, adding, “Parents did not agree to a change of placement.”
The district asked that a judge order the boy to remain at home until his parents can complete the necessary paperwork to transfer him to a day treatment facility — one option available under the act when a special-education student cannot be accommodated at the school itself. The other options are residential placement or remaining homebound.
The boy “is not currently a threat to himself or others. [His] actions … were a cry for help, and [he] is now receiving the help he needs,” the parents said Friday in their answer. “[He] never really intended to harm anyone. [He] is currently stable and remorseful. [He] has no access to weapons. [He] has no history of violence and has never hurt anyone. He is prepared to return to school and comply with his behavior support plan and individualized education plan.”
The parents also noted that “after the events at issue,” the boy’s psychiatrist changed his medication. They said the psychiatrist recommends that the school provide a location where he can go, and specific staff members that he can talk to, when he is overwhelmed.
Attached to the filing is a letter from the psychiatrist dated March 5 that says, “As of today, [the boy] does not pose a threat to himself or others and does not meet the criteria for acute hospitalization.”
The federal case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker.