Due Process-Generally Student diagnosed with autism, epilepsy, and PTSD had an IEP that included door-to-door transportation. The van company stopped providing transportation after incidents in which the student behaved violently and broke windows. The A.L.J. found, however, that under “stay put,” the district must reinstate transportation because it is included in the IEP. J.T. v. Butler 3/11/2019.
Graduation Student with special needs and 118.5 credits brought claim alleging that he had enough credits to graduate. Student had significant attendance issues. A.L.J. found that the student did not have the minimum number of credits to graduate, and there was no entitlement to compensatory education because the absences were not related to his IEP. T.T. v. West Essex 3/28/2019.
Special Education-Eligibility District filed petition for emergent relief so that it could move forward with evaluating student for the purposes of determining eligibility for special education and related services. Student had substantial behavioral and attendance issues. The A.L.J. ruled in favor of the district, finding that it met the criteria for emergent relief, but denied the districts request for finding that it complied with the IDEA and should be exempted from liability. Pemberton v. C.M. 4/11/2019.
Special Education-Evaluations District filed due process claim to compel parent to have child undergo a neurological evaluation. The parent did not submit reasons for her objection or raise questions, and did not appear at the due process hearing. District showed that the evaluation was necessary. Finding in favor of district. Middletown v. M.S. 3/18/2019.
Special Education-FAPE/Meaningful Educational Benefit Parents of student with anxiety and ADD brought due process claim alleging child find violation and failure to provide a FAPE, and sought reimbursement for unilateral placement. Among other issues, there was no expert testifying about the program offered by the unilateral placement, the unilateral placement did not appear to be appropriate, and it appeared that the parents were not cooperating with the school district in good faith — they first consulted with experts before communicating concerns to district. Parents’ claims were denied. F.R. v. Verona 3/5/2019.
Parents of a preschool student with autism filed a claim for due process seeking, among other things, continued unilateral placement as well as home programming and other costs for placement. The IEP did not provide a FAPE because, among other things, it generally described a placement without incorporating information already known to the district, did not mention the student’s actual disability, and did not provide a 1:1 aide despite evidence to the contrary. Though the placement was not state-approved, parents were still entitled to reimbursement. S.S. v. Madison 3/22/2019.
Special Education-Parental Consent/Participation Parents of student classified for special education and related services under the category of “autism” filed a petition for emergent relief, asserting that the student should be returned to the school in his current IEP pending out-of-district placement. Student had made violent gestures, attacked and harmed a staff member, and threatened violence. District proposed to provide home instruction until the out-of-district placement could be finalized. Petition for emergent relief was denied – stay put exception applied. L.G. v. Gloucester City 3/15/2019.
Parents of student classified for special education and related services under the category of “autism” filed a petition for emergent relief, asserting that the student should be returned to the school in his current IEP pending out-of-district placement. Student had made violent gestures, attacked and harmed a staff member, and threatened violence. District proposed to provide home instruction until the out-of-district placement could be finalized. Petition for emergent relief was denied – stay put exception applied. L.G. v. Gloucester City 3/15/2019.
Special Education-Placement Parent brought due process claim on behalf of son classified to received special education and related services. Claim challenged district’s placement of student in evening program, seeking to have him placed in a day program. Petition was moot because student was subsequently transferred to a different school. D.F. v. Black Horse Pike 3/28/2019.
Dismissal for failure to appear. L.G. v. Gloucester City 4/18/2019.
Parent brought request for emergent relief, along with due process, on behalf of student classified as “emotionally disturbed” to extend home instruction, among other things. A.L.J. found that the record was not clear as to the recommended placement for the student going forward, and that the parents did not show immediate irreparable harm, and therefore the request for emergent relief was not granted, though the A.L.J. ordered that an IEP meeting take place within 5 business days. S.E. v. Hunterdon 3/14/2019.
Special Education-Placement Unilateral Petitioner parents sought emergent relief for immediate placement of their student in a residential, therapeutic setting. Student had been at a therapeutic residential setting, but the placement determined it could not meet her needs following an incident of self-harm. The district made little change to the IEP, and it remained almost the same as the IEP prior to the student going to the residential placement. Emergent relief granted. R.H. .v Barnegat 4/17/2019.
Petitioner parents sought emergent relief for immediate placement of their student in a residential, therapeutic setting. Student had been at a therapeutic residential setting, but the placement determined it could not meet her needs following an incident of self-harm. The district made little change to the IEP, and it remained almost the same as the IEP prior to the student going to the residential placement. Emergent relief granted. R.H. v. Barnegat 4/17/2019.
Special-Education-Generally Board filed petition asserting that petition by initially pro se parents of special education student is insufficient. A.L.J. found that a sufficiency challenge should be used sparingly, and that it would be inappropriate to delay consideration of the parents’ claims by forcing them to refile, even if the district should not have been named (because claims are ultimately only recoverable from votech school). E.J. v. Watchung 3/7/2019.
Parent’s due process petition on behalf of special education student dismissed for failure to appear. M.R. v. Edison 3/4/2019.
Dismissed following non-appearance. N.C. v. Gloucester 3/13/2019.
Parents’ petition for due process filed on behalf of student with special needs who was on home instruction as a result of a medical condition dismissed. Petitioners’ challenge to IEP for one school year was filed out of time, and other claims for failure to provide FAPE for compensatory education and reimbursement were denied. While the petitioners felt the district could have done more such as providing more opportunities for social engagement, the district met the requirements of the IDEA. S.P. v. Glassboro 3/6/2019.
Special Education Due Process-Generally Student diagnosed with autism, epilepsy, and PTSD had an IEP that included door-to-door transportation. The van company stopped providing transportation after incidents in which the student behaved violently and broke windows. The A.L.J. found, however, that under “stay put,” the district must reinstate transportation because it is included in the IEP. J.T. v. Butler 3/11/2019.
Special Education Graduation Student with special needs and 118.5 credits brought claim alleging that he had enough credits to graduate. Student had significant attendance issues. A.L.J. found that the student did not have the minimum number of credits to graduate, and there was no entitlement to compensatory education because the absences were not related to his IEP. T.T. v. West Essex 3/28/2019.
Special Education-Child Find Petitioning parents filed a claim for tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement, compensatory education, and independent evaluations, alleging that the district failed to provide a FAPE by, among other things, offering an out-of-district placement that was inappropriate for their child. The ALJ found that some claims were not timely filed and denied petitioners’ request for reimbursement for an evaluation, but also found that the out-of-district placement offered by the district was not appropriate because, among other things, it did not offer the LRE. Petitioners were awarded compensatory education, reimbursement for the unilateral placement, and reevaluation of the student. D.D. v. West Windsor 3/12/2019.
Special Education-Eligibility District filed petition for emergent relief so that it could move forward with evaluating student for the purposes of determining eligibility for special education and related services. Student had substantial behavioral and attendance issues. The A.L.J. ruled in favor of the district, finding that it met the criteria for emergent relief, but denied the districts request for finding that it complied with the IDEA and should be exempted from liability. Pemberton v. C.M. 4/11/2019.
Special Education-Evaluations District filed due process claim to compel parent to have child undergo a neurological evaluation. The parent did not submit reasons for her objection or raise questions, and did not appear at the due process hearing. District showed that the evaluation was necessary. Finding in favor of district. Middletown v. M.S. 3/18/2019.
Special Education-FAPE/Meaningful Educational Benefit Parents of student with anxiety and ADD brought due process claim alleging child find violation and failure to provide a FAPE, and sought reimbursement for unilateral placement. Among other issues, there was no expert testifying about the program offered by the unilateral placement, the unilateral placement did not appear to be appropriate, and it appeared that the parents were not cooperating with the school district in good faith — they first consulted with experts before communicating concerns to district. Parents’ claims were denied. F.R. v. Verona 3/5/2019.
Parents of a preschool student with autism filed a claim for due process seeking, among other things, continued unilateral placement as well as home programming and other costs for placement. The IEP did not provide a FAPE because, among other things, it generally described a placement without incorporating information already known to the district, did not mention the student’s actual disability, and did not provide a 1:1 aide despite evidence to the contrary. Though the placement was not a state-approved, parents were still entitled to reimbursement. S.S. v. Madison 3/22/2019.
Special Education-Placement Parent brought due process claim on behalf of son classified to received special education and related services. Claim challenged district’s placement of student in evening program, seeking to have him placed in a day program. Petition was moot because student was subsequently transferred to a different school. D.F. v. Black Horse Pike 3/28/2019.
Dismissal for failure to appear. L.G. v. Gloucester City 3/15/2019.
Parent brought request for emergent relief, along with due process, on behalf of student classified as “emotionally disturbed” to extend home instruction, among other things. A.L.J. found that the record was not clear as to the recommended placement for the student going forward, and that the parents did not show immediate irreparable harm, and therefore the request for emergent relief was not granted, though the A.L.J. ordered that an IEP meeting take place within 5 business days. S.E. v. Hunterdon 3/14/2019.