CP vs. Central Bucks 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

Child’s Name: C.P.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

Dates of Hearing:
April 9, 2014
June 11, 2014
June 12, 2014
June 13, 2014

CLOSED HEARING

ODR File No. 14785-1314KE

Parties to the Hearing:

Parent[s]

Central Bucks School District 16 Welden Drive Doylestown, PA 18901

Representative:

Frederick M. Stanczak, Esquire 50 Creek Drive
Doylestown, PA 18901

Scott H. Wolpert, Esquire
Timoney Knox, LLP
400 Maryland Drive, P. O. Box 7544 Fort Washington, PA 19034

Date Record Closed: July 21, 2014
Date of Decision: August 6, 2014
Hearing Officer: Cathy A. Skidmore, M.Ed., J.D.

 

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Student (hereafter Student)1 is beyond teen-aged and is a student in the Central Bucks School District (hereafter District) who is eligible for special education pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).2 Student’s Parents filed a due process complaint3 against the District asserting that it denied Student a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) under the IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,4 and the Americans with Disabilities Act,5 as well as the federal and state regulations implementing those statutes.

The case proceeded to a due process hearing which convened over four sessions, at which the parties presented evidence in support of their respective positions. The Parent sought to establish that the District failed to provide Student with FAPE, particularly with respect to Student’s transition and behavioral needs, beginning in June 2013 and throughout the 2013-14 school year; and, they also challenged the District’s proposed placement for Student. The District maintained that its special education program, as offered and implemented, was appropriate for Student.

Following review and consideration of all of the testimony and documentary evidence,6 and for the reasons set forth below, I find in favor of the Parents on a portion of the claims, and in favor of the District on a portion of the claims.

 

ISSUES

  1. Whether or not the District complied with the directives in a previous hearing officer decision dated December 8, 2013, specifically with respect to a functional behavior assessment or analysis;
  2. Whether or not the District complied with the directives in a previous hearing officer decision dated December 8, 2013, specifically with respect to transitional/vocational services;

 

C-P-Central-Bucks-ODRNo-14785-1314KE

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.