 |
|
|
 |
Is my child entitled to placement in a private school or a residential facility?
Maybe.
In one recent case, the parent enrolled the student in a private school after increased behavioral problems and use of restraint. The district had proposed a behavior intervention plan ("BIP"), but the parents disagreed with the plan and dismissed the IEP team’s suggestions. According to the court, the district did not deny the student a FAPE. This means that when the district attempts to develop a BIP, and the parent disagrees, the parents’ placement of the student in a private school may not be reimbursed. C.J.N. v. Minneapolis Pub. Sch., Special NO. 1, 323 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2003).
In another case the parents rejected the placement the district offered their dyslexic son at an IEP meeting. The parents requested a due process hearing and unilaterally enrolled him in a private residential placement without attending another IEP meeting or allowing the district to consider alternate placements. The hearing officer ruled that placement offered by the district was inappropriate, but declined to order residential placement until the school district had been given the opportunity to develop a new IEP and provide an alternate placement. The hearing officer ordered that another IEP meeting be convened to discuss alternate placements. The parents kept their son at the residential placement and filed a claim in federal court. The court held that the parents jumped the gun in placing their son at a private residential school. They failed to demonstrate why the hearing officer’s decision was inappropriate or why they should not have followed the process ordered by the hearing officer before filing suit. This case means that parents may not unilaterally place their child in a residential facility when they disagree with the district’s offer. Morgan v. Greenbrier Co. West Virginia Bd. of Educ., 2003 U.S. app. LEXIS 26315 (4th Cir. 2003).
However, where the district’s placement offer is inappropriate a private school placement may be necessary. In one California case the parents of a preschool student with a language disorder placed her in a private school where she would have contact with non-disabled peers. The district had offered placement in a non-inclusion preschool classroom. This court found that the placement offered by the district failed to provide the student FAPE because it did not meet her needs in the areas of social skills and pragmatics. This means that if parents can show private placement confers education benefit on their child and a district’s placement would have been in a more restrictive environment, the parents will likely prevail on a claim that the district did not provide FAPE in the least restrictive environment. Katherine G. v. Kentfield School District, 261 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (N.D. CA 2003)
|
 |
|
|
|
20042 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Tel (714) 698-0239 Fax (714) 698-0243 Contact Us
|
|
|
|
