Decision
Due Process Hearing For N.C.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Date of Hearing: August 17, September 11, 13, October 26, 27, November 6, 2006
Closed Hearing
Parties to the Hearing: Parent[s]
Montgomery County Intermediate Unit/EI Program
1605 West Main Street
Norristown, PA 19403-3290 rboehning@mcMCIU.org
Representative:
Caryl Oberman, Esquire Grove Summit Office Park 607 A North Easton Road Willow Grove, PA 19090 edlaw@caryloberman.com
Karl Romberger, Esquire
Fox Rothschild O’Brien & Frankel, LLP 1250 S. Broad Street, P.O. Box 431 Lansdale, PA 19446-0431 kromberger@foxrothschild
Transcript Received: November 15, 2006
Record Closed: December 5, 2006
Date of Decision: December 14, 2006
Hearing Officer: Max Wald, Ed.D.
Background
[Redacted] (hereinafter Student) is a [preschool-aged] eligible child living with [Parent(s)] within the Montgomery County Intermediate Unit (hereinafter IU)
The Student was evaluated by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s Neonatal Follow- up Program on September 24, 2004 using the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, 2nd edition, when [Student] was 18 months of age, in order to determine [Student’s] developmental progress and to make recommendations for interventions. The Student was found to be in the mildly delayed range of overall cognitive development. Recommendations for [Student’s] IFSP goals included occupational therapy, speech therapy, and other activities to further [Student’s] play and cognitive skills.
At age 26 months the Student participated in the Autistic Diagnostic Observation Schedule – Module I and met the criteria for placement on the Autistic Spectrum in both the areas of communication and social interaction and was subsequently identified with a diagnosis of PDD-NOS. [Student’s] score on the Childhood Autism Rating Scale, however, is in the non-autistic range.
The Student has been involved in an early intervention program and receives services privately as well. [Student] attends a private pre-school with typically developing students and receives early intervention services at that location.
Upon transitioning into the IU on April 3, 2006 and transferring from an Individualized Family Service Plan to an Individualized Education Program the IU recommended, as a result of their evaluation, a reduction in the length of time and range of services offered to the Student both at school and at home.
When the IU and the Parent could not reach an agreement as to these services, the Parent requested a due process hearing whereupon the IFSP remained pendant while the hearing progressed through 6 sessions.
Issues
- Is the current Individualized Education Program being offered to the Student appropriate in that it meets the obligation of the Intermediate Unit’s obligation to provide the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)?
- If the IEP is not appropriate is the Student entitled to compensatory education?