KS vs. Capital Area IU/EI Program

Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer

DECISION

Child’s Name: K.S.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

ODR No. 2702-11-12-AS

CLOSED HEARING

Parties to the Hearing: Parent

Capital Area IU/EI Program 55 Miller Street Summerdale, PA 17093

Representative: Pro Se

William J. Zee, III, Esquire
Hartman, Underhill & Brubaker, LLP 221 East Chestnut Street
Lancaster, PA 17602

Date of Hearing: February 9, 2012

Record Closed: February 20, 2012

Date of Decision: March 6, 2012

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

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The child named in the title page of this decision (Child) is an eligible young child entitled to receive preschool early intervention services, from the Intermediate Unit named in the title page of this decision (IU), pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. (IDEA) and the Pennsylvania Code, 22 Pa. Code §14.151 et seq. (NT 8- 10.) Child currently receives Infant and Toddler services through an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP), provided by the local behavioral health agency for children aged birth to three. (NT 8-10.) Child is of an age to transition from the Infant and Toddler program to Early Intervention, (NT 8-10), and the IU has evaluated Child for that purpose.

Child’s Grandparent (Grandparent)1, named in the title page of this decision, brought this Complaint for due process hearing, challenging the appropriateness of the IU’s evaluation.2 In particular, Grandparent raised the concern that the evaluation did not identify all of the disabilities with which the Child has been diagnosed or from which Child suffers. The IU asserts that its evaluation is appropriate under the IDEA, and that it has appropriately identified Child for services that will address all of Child’s educational needs.

The hearing was concluded in one session. At the request of the IU, I allowed the parties to submit written summations, and the record closed upon receipt of those summations. I conclude that the IU’s evaluation was appropriate, and I decline to order the relief sought by Grandparent.

ISSUES

  1. Was the IU’s evaluation of the Child appropriate?
  2. Did the IU’s evaluation recognize the appropriate category or categories of disability as part of its determination of eligibility?
  3. Did the IU’s evaluation recognize all of the educational needs of the Child that require specially designed instruction and related services?
  4. Should the hearing officer provide declaratory or proscriptive relief and order the IU to identify the Child with the classifications that the Grandparent requests?
K-S-Capital-Area-IU-EI-Program-ODRNo-2702-11-12-AS

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.