PA vs. Montgomery County Intermediate Unit

Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer

DECISION

Student’s Name: P.A.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

ODR Nos. 14380-13-14-KE

OPEN HEARING

Parties to the Hearing: Parent[s]

Montgomery County Intermediate Unit 1605 West Main Street
Norristown PA 19403-3290

Representative:

Pro Se

Timothy E. Gilsbach, Esquire Fox Rothschild, L.L.P.
10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 200 P.O. Box 3001

Blue Bell, PA 19422-3001

Record Closed: January 10, 2014

Date of Decision: January 23, 2014

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

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The student named in the title page of this decision (Student) is an eligible resident of the Intermediate Unit named in the title page of this decision (IU) and was an eligible resident of the IU during the period of time relevant to this decision.1 (NT 19-21.) Student is identified with Autism pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. (IDEA), and is receiving Early Intervention (EI) services. (NT 18, 21.)

Parent requested due process under the IDEA, alleging2 that the IU failed to provide the Student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE), by placing Student inappropriately; failed to supervise and provide the hours of behavioral consultant services offered in the Student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP); inappropriately photographed Student; failed to assign a one to one teacher or educational assistant; prevented parental participation in educational decision making; failed to provide extended school year services; inappropriately photographed Student and released a copy of the photograph to a third party without parental consent; and retaliated against Parent by excluding Student from school photographs.

The hearing was completed in four sessions, and the record closed upon receipt of written summations. I conclude that the IU did not deprive Student of a FAPE, and that no relief is warranted.

ISSUES

  1. Did the IU fail to offer and provide Student with a free appropriate public education during the period from October 14, 2011 to December 11, 2013?
  2. Did the IU fail to offer and provide Student with an appropriate placement during the period from October 14, 2011 to December 11, 2013?
  3. Did the IU fail to supervise and provide Student with the hours of behavioral consultant services offered in the Student’s IEP during the period from October 14, 2011 to December 11, 2013?
  4. Did the IU fail inappropriately to provide Student with a one to one teacher or educational assistant for school hours during the period from October 14, 2011 to December 11, 2013?
  5. Did the IU fail to permit full parental participation in the IEP team, by altering or withholding documents that Parent was entitled to receive according to law, during the period from October 14, 2011 to December 11, 2013?
  6. Did the IU fail to provide extended school year programming for the summer of 2014?
  7. Did the IU inappropriately photograph Student without parental consent or release a photograph of Student to a third party inappropriately?
  8. Did the IU retaliate against Parent by excluding Student from school photographs?
  9. Should the hearing officer order the IU to provide compensatory education to Student for all or any part of the period from October 14, 2011 to December 11, 2013; placement in an approved private school or other placement; an additional year of EI services; a one-to-one attendant; or an apology from the IU?
P-A-Montgomery-County-Intermediate-Unit-ODRNo-14380-13-14-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.