IN THE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
ODR File No. 3355-1213AS
CLOSED HEARING
Child’s Name: J.K.1
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Hearing Date(s): 09/21/2012, 09/24/2012
Parties to the Hearing
Parent
Annville-Cleona School District 520 South White Oak Street Annville, PA 17003
Representative
Jennifer M. L. Bradley, Esquire McAndrews Law Offices, P.C. 30 Cassatt Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Record Closed: 10/05/2012
Date of Decision: 10/19/2012
Hearing Officer: Brian Jason Ford
Introduction and Procedural History
This hearing was requested by the Parent against the Annville-Cleona School District (District) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (Section 504) and their federal and state implementing regulations.
In the Complaint, the Parent alleged that the District denied the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) between the start of the 2009-2010 school year through June of 2011. A number of correspondences and pre-hearing motions concerning the scope of this hearing followed. Ultimately, in a pre-hearing order, I decided that I would hear evidence and testimony concerning the IDEA’s statute of limitations and the exceptions thereto during the hearing. In the same pre-hearing order, I determined that if the statute of limitations applies, claims arising on or before February 24, 2010 are time barred.
In substance, the Parent alleges that the District breached its Child Find obligations under both the IDEA and Section 504 by failing to identify the Student as a child with a disability in need of special education. More specifically, the Parent alleges that the Student is IDEA-eligible as a student with an Emotional Disturbance, which manifested itself in school in a number of ways.
In response to the Parent’s substantive allegations, the District avers that it did not breach its Child Find duties and responded appropriately to all of the Student’s behaviors.
For reasons detailed below, I find that the exceptions to the IDEA’s statute of limitations have not been triggered, that the IDEA’s statute of limitations applies, that the District violated Child Find, and that compensatory education is owed.
Issues2
1. Are claims arising on or before February 24, 2010 time-barred by the IDEA’s statute of limitations?
2. Did the District breach its Child Find obligations to the Student, resulting in a denial of FAPE?
J-K-Annville-Cleona-ODRNo-3355-1213AS