 |
| Seal, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
In
the previous posts in this series we have looked at the sources of
special education law and discussed the critical concept of FAPE. Today
we look at some important decisions by U. S. Courts of Appeal taking
FAPE in some Potentially new directions:
In Deal v. Hamilton County 392 F.3d 840, 42 IDELR 109 (6th Cir. 1//16/04), the Sixth Circuit held that where the school district had already predetermined the student’s program and services before the IEP Team meeting, the parents were denied the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the IEP process. Accordingly, the district denied FAPE for the student.
In Shore Regional High Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. P.S. 381 F.3d 194, 41 IDELR 234 (3d Cir. 8/30/04), the Third Circuit held that a school district’s failure to stop bullying may constitute a denial of FAPE. Despite
repeated complaints by the parents the bullying continued; the student
became depressed and the school district developed an IEP. The harassment continued and the student attempted suicide. The
Third Circuit agreed with the hearing officer that the unabated
harassment and bullying made it impossible for the student to receive
FAPE. (See our recent series on Bullying for a more detailed discussion.)
In Lillbask ex rel Mauclaire v. State of Connecticut Dept. of Educ. 397
F.3d 77, 42 IDELR 230 (2d Cir. 2/2/05), the Second Circuit ruled that
an IDEA hearing officer has the authority to review IEP safety concerns. The
court provided an expansive interpretation of the jurisdiction of the
hearing officer, ruling that Congress intended the hearing officer to
have authority over any subject matter that could involve a denial of or
interference with a student’s
No comments:
Post a Comment