HB vs. Abington School District

Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer

DECISION

Child’s Name: H.B.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

ODR No. 18081-16-17-KE

CLOSED HEARING

Parties to the Hearing: Parent[s]

Abington School District 970 Highland Avenue Abington, PA 19057-4014

Representative:

Caryl Andrea Oberman, Esquire Law Offices of C. A. Oberman, LLC 705 North Easton Road
Willow Grove, PA 19090

Claudia L. Huot, Esquire Wisler, Pearlstine, LLP
Blue Bell Executive Campus 460 Norristown Road, Suite 110 Blue Bell, PA 19422-2323

Dates of Hearing: September 29, 2016; November 14, 2016; December 8, 2016; December 12, 2016; January 23, 2017; February 8, 2017

Date of Decision: March 21, 2017

Hearing Officer: William F. Culleton, Jr., Esq., CHO

 

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The child named in this matter (Student)1 is a resident of the District named in this matter (District), and is enrolled in kindergarten at a private school (School) for the 2016-2017 school year. (NT 8-9.) Prior to enrolling in the School, Student was enrolled in an early intervention program under the auspices of the local intermediate unit. Student’s Mother and Father (Parents) and the District participated in the transition to school age educational planning process. The District, at Parents’ request, provided a re-evaluation report and conducted three meetings with Parents, offering successively revised iterations of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) for Student. The District has classified Student under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. (IDEA) as a child with the disability of Autism. (NT 8-9.)

Parents assert that the District failed to offer Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for Student’s kindergarten year. Parents filed this due process request in August 2016, pursuant to the IDEA; section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794 (section 504); and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq. (ADA).2 Parents request reimbursement for one year’s tuition and costs for Student’s participation at the School, and the costs of private evaluations that Parents obtained unilaterally.

The District asserts that it offered Student a FAPE for Student’s kindergarten year.

The hearing was completed in six sessions. I have determined the credibility of all witnesses and I have considered and weighed all of the evidence of record. I conclude that the District failed to offer a FAPE to Student, and I enter the appropriate equitable relief.

ISSUES

  1. Did the District offer to provide a FAPE to Student for Student’s kindergarten year in compliance with the IDEA?
  2. Did the District provide Parents with appropriate opportunity to participate in educational planning for Student in compliance with all of the procedural requirements of the IDEA?
  3. Is the School an appropriate placement for Student?
  4. Considering the equities, should the hearing officer order the District to reimburse Parents for tuition and costs incurred on account of Student’s participation in the School during the 2016-2017 school year?
  5. Should the hearing officer order the District to reimburse Parents for the cost of the private educational evaluation by the private school psychologist, along with the cost of the private psychologist’s participation in this matter to the extent provided under section 504?
  6. Did the District offer to provide a FAPE to Student for Student’s kindergarten year within the meaning of section 504?
H-B-Abington-ODRNo-18081-16-17-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.