BB vs. School District of Philadelphia

Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer

DECISION

Child’s Name: B.B.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

ODR No. 18910-16-17-KE

OPEN HEARING

Parties to the Hearing: Parent[s]

School District of Philadelphia 440 North Broad Street, Su. 313 Philadelphia, PA 19130

Representative:

Sean J. McGrath, Esquire Education Law Center
1315 Walnut Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19107

Andrea Cola, Esquire
Assistant General Counsel School District of Philadelphia 440 North Broad Street, Su. 313 Philadelphia, PA 19130

Date of Hearing: June 27, 2017

Date of Decision: July 17, 2017

Hearing Officer: William F. Culleton, Jr., Esquire, CHO

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The child named in this matter (Student)1 is a three year old eligible resident of the District named in this matter (District). Student receives early intervention services from the respondent Early Intervention program named in this matter (EI Program), pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. (IDEA). These services include the related service of transportation, pursuant to Student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). Parents request due process, asserting that on multiple occasions the District as Student’s transportation provider has provided excessively long rides to Student; failed to provide appropriate safety equipment during transport; and failed to arrive on time to Student’s program. Parents request an order requiring the District to ensure appropriate transportation services.

The District responds that it has provided and will continue to provide appropriate transportation services pursuant to Student’s IEP from March 17, 2017. Thus, the District argues that the matter is moot and asks the hearing officer to dismiss Parents’ claims.

Parents filed separate requests for due process, naming as respondents all three of the agencies with possible responsibility to provide transportation to Student pursuant to Student’s IEP: the EI Program, which is respondent in ODR No. 18909; the District, which is respondent in this matter; and DOE, respondent in ODR No. 18911. I consolidated these three matters for purposes of hearing and adjudication; the decision that follows encompasses and decides all three claims.

The parties agreed to submit a stipulated record, and stipulated a number of exhibits into the record. I convened a one session hearing in the form of oral argument. I have considered and weighed all of the evidence of record.2

I conclude that DOE retains responsibility to assure that Student receives transportation services consistent with the provision of a FAPE. I exercise equitable authority to order DOE to provide additional appropriate services to ensure that the deficiencies of the past are not repeated in the upcoming school year. In addition, I order the EI Program and the District to participate in an educational planning meeting with DOE, in order to ensure that Parents are provided with appropriate, complete and effective relief. G.L. v. Ligonier Valley Sch. Dist. Auth., 802 F.3d 601 (3d Cir. 2015).

ISSUES

  1. What are the relative legal responsibilities of the EI Program, the District and DOE to provide Student with the related service of transportation pursuant to Student’s current IEP?
  2. Should the hearing officer order any of these parties to provide Student or Parents with transportation-related services in addition to those which they have agreed to provide?
  3. Should the hearing officer order any of these parties to provide Student with compensatory education on account of any denial of a FAPE from March 17, 2017 to date?
B-B-School-District-of-Philadelphia-ODRNo-18910-16-17-KE

Leave a Reply

Pennsylvania

Montgomery Law, LLC
1420 Locust Street, Suite 420
Philadelphia, PA 19102
T/F. 215-650-7563

Rate By
SUPER LAWYERS
Joseph W Montgomery, II

New Jersey

Historic Smithville, Suite 1
1 N. New York Road
Galloway, NJ 08205
(all mail to Phila. office)
T. 856-282-5550

Disclaimer: Montgomery Law, LLC does not give legal advice until after it has entered into an attorney-client relationship. No part of this website creates an attorney-client relationship. All Parts of this website are Attorney Advertising. The photos and videos on this website contain portrayals of clients by non-clients, re-enactment of scenes, pictures and persons which are not actual or authentic and depictions which are a dramatization.