KL vs. Wallingford-Swarthmore School District

Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer

FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

Student’s Name:

K.L.

Date of Birth:

[redacted]

ODR File 18629 16 17

CLOSED HEARING

Date of Hearing:

5/17/17, 8/17/17

Parent(s):

[redacted]

Marc Davies1, Esquire, Marc Davies Law, 1315 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107
Counsel for Parent

School District:
Wallingford-Swarthmore School District, 200 South Providence Road, Wallingford, PA 19086

Lawrence D. Dodds, Esquire, Wisler Pearlstine, LLP, Blue Bell Executive Campus, 460 Norristown Road, Suite 100, Blue Bell, PA 19422
Counsel for the School District

Date of Decision:

9/6/17

Hearing Officer:

Brian Jason Ford, JD, CHO

Introduction

This special education due process hearing concerns the educational rights of a former student (Student) of the Wallingford-Swarthmore School District (District).2 The due process complaint was filed by the Student’s mother. The Student’s mother and father are divorced, but acted cohesively during the hearing. I refer to the Student’s mother and father collectively, as the Parents, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

The Parents claim that the District failed to identify the Student as a child with a disability, as defined by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. The Parents claim that this failure ultimately led them to place the Student in a private school. The Parents now seek tuition reimbursement.

The District presents alternative arguments in its defense. First, the District argues that the Parents are not entitled to tuition reimbursement as a matter of law. Second, the District argues that the Parents did not present preponderant evidence in support of their claims.

For reasons discussed below, I agree with the District’s primary argument. The Parents are not entitled to tuition reimbursement as a matter of law. I issue no opinion regarding the appropriateness of the District’s proposed special education placement for the Student (there wasn’t one), the appropriateness of the private school that the Parents selected, or equitable factors that may impact upon a tuition reimbursement award. Rather, I find only that the Student, by operation of law, was neither a “child with a disability” as defined by the IDEA, or a “thought to be eligible” student as defined by Pennsylvania regulations at the time that the Student withdrew from public school. Consequently, the Student had no right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the IDEA at the time that the Parents placed the Student in the private school, and I must grant the District’s motion to dismiss.

Issue

Are the Parents entitled to tuition reimbursement?

K-L-Wallingford-Swarthmore-ODRNo-18629-16-17

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.