A federal judge has labeled as “untrue” multiple claims from the parents of a special-needs child who alleged a Fort Collins-based school district failed to provide their son the legally-required level of educational services.

U.S. District Court Senior Judge Christine M. Arguello agreed the Poudre School District in Larimer County provided a free and appropriate public education to Alex W., a boy with significant disabilities who started first grade in 2014. That obligation is part of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, which Congress enacted in 1975.

Alex’s parents claimed the district failed to assess and address the behaviors that impeded Alex’s learning, arguing their son made “minimal educational progress” and actually saw his skills decline. They also alleged the district improperly reduced the amount of therapy Alex received.

An administrative law judge heard the parents’ claims and sided almost entirely with the school district. Arguello reviewed the decision and agreed the parents’ claims did not hold up.

Colorado appeals court reinstates inmate's lawsuit over DOC's name-change policy

“Thus, the record reflects that, from Alex’s very first days in the District, the District was properly assessing Alex’s unique needs, including his need for behavioral supports,” she wrote in a July 15 order.

The cornerstone of the federal IDEA law is the individualized education program, or IEP, which is tailored to a child’s needs to help him or her make progress. There was no dispute Alex’s parents were heavily involved in his education, participating in four IEP meetings between 2014 and 2017. Arguello found no evidence the parents objected to the agreed-upon behavioral strategies in the IEPs.

Alex has autism, Down syndrome, vision and hearing loss, and impulse disorder, which his parents claimed interfere significantly with his ability to learn.

“Despite the progress reports provided periodically to the Parents, the School District’s evaluations showed that Alex had made no real progress on his goals and objectives, was regressing behaviorally, and was not really functional at school,” argued attorney Jack D. Robinson to the court.

The Poudre School District disputed the “dire” portrait of Alex’s development.

Appeals court orders new trial after discovery that judge previously represented defendant

“The District understood that Alex is a student with multiple disabilities whose programming cannot be considered in a narrow lens of behavior,” wrote the district’s attorneys. “However, Alex’s teachers always understood and successfully programmed to meet Alex’s behavior needs, and as a result, his behaviors never impeded his access to learning.”

After the administrative law judge’s determination that the school district provided Alex a legally-sufficient education, Arguello reviewed the steps the district had undertaken to assess and monitor Alex. She noted a psychologist had evaluated Alex before he had even enrolled, and the school district’s plan was consistent with the medical professional’s recommendations.

The IEPs, Arguello agreed, were calibrated to reasonably ensure his progress. To the extent Alex’s parents argued the district never performed a behavioral assessment, “This claim is untrue,” she wrote. The judge also labeled as false the claim that the Poudre School District never consulted with a behavioral specialist.

While Alex’s progress may have been limited given his developmental disabilities, Arguello rejected the opinions from the parents’ experts — offered after the parents had already begun their legal challenge — that the goals the IEP team set were inappropriate.

Fate of dentist accused of killing wife while on safari in hands of Colorado jury

“The parents’ appeal is essentially asking the Court to second-guess the reasoned judgment of Alex’s IEP team. The Court is not permitted to do so,” she wrote.

Finally, even though Alex’s parents challenged the district’s decision not to enroll Alex in an extended school year, Arguello discovered the parents had, in fact, explicitly ruled out such programming for their son.

Arguello also upheld the administrative law judge’s order for the school district to reimburse Alex’s parents for an independent evaluation by one of their experts.

The case is Alex W. v. Poudre School District R-1.