BW vs. Upper Darby School District

This is a redacted version of the original decision. Select details have been removed
from the decision to preserve anonymity of the student. The redactions do not affect the
substance of the document.

Special Education Hearing Officer


Child’s Name: B.W.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

Dates of Hearing:
December 10, 2010
February 3, 2011


ODR Case # 01671-10-11-AS

Parties to the Hearing:


Upper Darby School District 4611 Bond Avenue
Drexel Hill, PA 19026


Pro Se

Scott Gottel, Esq. Holsten & Associates One Olive Street Media, PA 19063

Date Record Closed: February 3, 2011

Date of Decision: February 18, 2011

Hearing Officer: Jake McElligott, Esquire



Student is an early teen-aged student residing in the Upper Darby School District (“District”) who has been identified as a student with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEIA”)1. The student has been identified as a student with an emotional disturbance and specific learning disabilities. The District feels that the student requires therapeutic services as part of the student’s educational program and recommends that the student be placed in a private placement outside of the District. The Parent counters that the student’s placement should remain at the District.

For the reasons set forth below, I find in favor of the student.


Is the District’s proposed change in placement appropriate for the student?



Leave a Reply


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

Rate By
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.