CF vs. Radnor Township 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.

PENNSYLVANIA
SPECIAL EDUCATION HEARING OFFICER

DECISION
DUE PROCESS HEARING

Name of Child: C.F.

ODR #18805/16-17 KE

Date of Birth: [redacted]

Dates of Hearing:
May 24, 2017
June 8, 2017
June 22, 2017

CLOSED HEARING

Parties to the Hearing:

Radnor Township School District 135 S. Wayne Avenue
Wayne, PA 19087

Parent[s]

Representative:

Tracey Waldmann, Esquire Raffaele & Puppio
19 W. Third Street
Media, PA 19063

Michael Raffaele, Esquire Frankel & Kershenbaum 1230 County Line Road Bryn Mawr, PA 19010

Date of Decision: July 26, 2017

Hearing Officer: Linda M. Valentini, Psy.D. CHO
Certified Hearing Official

 

Background

Student1 is a mid-teen aged student residing within the boundaries of the District who is eligible for special education pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Pennsylvania Chapter 14 under the current classifications of autism and speech/language impairment. As such, the Student is also an individual with a disability as defined under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 and a protected handicapped student under Pennsylvania Chapter 15.2

The Parents requested this hearing because they believe that the program and placement the District offered for Student through its June 15, 2016 IEP was inappropriate, and that in order to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) Student requires placement in the private school (Private School) where Student is currently unilaterally enrolled. They are seeking tuition reimbursement. The District maintains that the IEP it offered to Student is appropriate, that it can be implemented in the District high school, and that tuition reimbursement is not warranted.

Having carefully considered the witnesses’ testimony and the documents entered into evidence, as well as reviewing the parties’ written closing arguments, I find in favor of the District.

Issues

  1. Is the June 15, 2016 IEP3 the District offered to the Student appropriate?
  2. If the IEP is not appropriate, is the Parents’ unilateral private placement appropriate?
  3. If the District’s IEP is not appropriate and the Parents’ unilateral private placement is appropriate are there equitable considerations that would remove or reduce the District’s obligation to fund the private placement?

 

C-F-Radnor-Township-ODRNo-18805-16-17-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.