On March 4, 2014, in C.F. v. NYCDOE, No. 11-5003-CV 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4085 (2d Cir. March 4, 2014), the Second Circuit reversed the federal district court and the SRO to restore a hearing officer’s order that had held that the student was entitled to be awarded significant tuition relief to the not-for-profit McCarton School.  The Second Circuit held that C.F. had been denied a FAPE by the NYCDOE because (a) C.F.’s IEP made no provision for parent training; (b) despite C.F.’s need for a one-to-one ratio classroom, C.F. was recommended for the NYCDOE’s 6:1:1 classroom; and (c) despite C.F.’s interfering behaviors, the  offered behavior plan was “vague” and otherwise not appropriate because the NYCDOE failed to correlate and match C.F.’s individual behaviors with the individual strategies needed to address such behavior(s).  Significantly, the Second Circuit also ruled that the pleading/waiver rule was not to be “mechanically” applied, inasmuch as the IDEA statute does not specify any “formulaic” manner of pleading. Finally, the Second Circuit reiterated that “on appellate review, we disregard the retrospective testimony improperly relied upon by the SRO and the district court.”  We anticipate that the protective impact of  the decision in C.F. will be quite substantial.