Due Process Hearing for D.S.

Date of Birth: xx/xx/xx

File Number: 6209/05-06KE

Dates of Hearings:
February 6, 2006, February 15, 2006, February 24, 2006


Parties: Parent(s)

Nancy Payton Checchia Penn-Delco School District 2821 Concord Rd
Aston, PA 19014-2907

Nancy Ryan, Esq
1520 Locust Street, 10th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102

Leo Hackett, Esq
300 West State Street, Suite 301 Media, PA 19063

Date Transcript Received: March 1, 2006

Date of Decision: March 6, 2006

Hearing Officer: David F. Bateman, PhD



Student is [a late teenaged] student eligible for special education and related services identified as needing learning support. Student is a resident of the Penn Delco School District. On December 13, 2005, a [weapon] was found in his vehicle at school. The District held a manifestation determination hearing and found that the behavior was not a manifestation of his disability. After the completion of the manifestation determination the District placed Student on homebound instruction.

The Parents filed a due process hearing challenging the adequacy of the manifestation determination, and the appropriateness of the recommendation of the District for a 45-day interim alternative placement.

The Parent disagreed with the manifestation determination report as completed by the District, and requested a due process hearing. They contend the behavior was a manifestation of his disability and that the 45-day interim alternative placement was inappropriate.

This due process hearing was held shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court issued their decision in the Schaffer v. Weast matter shifting the burden to the party filing for the hearing. Additionally, this hearing was briefly delayed, as there was a switch in hearing officers and to allow the Parents expert witness to return from vacation.



Was the manifestation determination held by the District appropriate?

Was the District’s recommendation for a 45-day interim alternative placement appropriate?


Leave a Reply