CM vs. Montgomery County IU EI Program

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

Child’s Name: C.M.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

Dates of Hearing: October 3, 2011 November 15, 2011 November 30, 2011

CLOSED HEARING

ODR File No. 2128/1112KE

Parties to the Hearing:

Parent

Montgomery County IU EI Program 1605 West Main Street
Norristown, PA 19403

Representative:

Frederick M. Stanczak, Esquire 179 N. Broad Street Doylestown, PA 18901

Timothy E. Gilsbach, Esquire Fox Rothschild LLP
10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 200 P. O. Box 3001

Blue Bell, PA 19422

Date Record Closed: December 21, 2011

Date of Decision: January 3, 2012

Hearing Officer: Cathy A. Skidmore, M.Ed., J.D.

 

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

C.M. (hereafter Child)1 is an eligible young child who resides within the geographic area served by the Montgomery County Intermediate Unit (IU) and is eligible for special education early intervention services pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) on the basis of autism.2 Child’s Parent filed a due process complaint against the IU in July 2011, asserting that it denied Child a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) under the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504),3 and the federal and state regulations implementing both statutes, in its evaluation of Child and the proposed educational program as Child transitioned to the IU.

The case proceeded to a due process hearing convening over three sessions, at which the parties presented evidence in support of their respective positions. The Parent sought an independent educational evaluation, compensatory education, and development of an appropriate educational program. The IU disagreed that its evaluation and program were deficient, with the exception of certain services which it admitted were not provided and remain due and owing.

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

 

ISSUES

1. Whether the Parent and Child are entitled to an Independent Educational Evaluation at public expense;

2. Whether the Individualized Education Program developed by the IU was appropriate for Child pursuant to the IDEA;

3. Whether the IU has violated Section 504;

4. Whether Child is entitled to compensatory education and, if so, in what amount?

 

C-M-Montgomery-County-ODRNo-21281112KE

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.