GF vs. Antietam School District

Special Education Hearing Officer


Child’s Name: G.F.

Date of Birth: [redacted]
Date of Hearing: November 3, 2010


ODR No. 01413-1011JS

Parties to the Hearing: Parent[s]

Ms. Christine Raber
Supervisor of Special Education Antietam School District
201 N. 25th Street
Reading, PA 19606


Jennifer M. L. Bradley, Esquire McAndrews Law Offices
30 Cassat Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312

Mark W. Cheramie Walz, Esquire Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams LLP 331 E. Butler Avenue
New Britain, PA 18901

Date Record Closed: November 12, 2010

Date of Decision: November 26, 2010

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


Student1 is a kindergarten-age child residing within the Antietam School District (hereafter District). The District evaluated Student in May and June prior to Student’s entry into its kindergarten program at the start of the school year, and determined that Student was not eligible for special education. The parent requested an independent educational evaluation (IEE), and the District filed a due process complaint asserting that its evaluation of Student was appropriate and that the parents were not entitled to an IEE at public expense.2

This hearing was conducted in one session at which the parties presented evidence in support of their respective positions. For the reasons which follow, I find in favor of the District.


Whether the District’s evaluation of Student was appropriate in assessing all areas of suspected disability.


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.