G. "J" D. ex rel. G.D. v. Wissahickon School District
832 F. Supp. 2d 455
E.D. Pa.2011Background
- Parents filed a June 16, 2009 due process complaint claiming Wissahickon School District failed to meet Child Find obligations and denied FAPE under IDEA, Section 504, and Pennsylvania law.
- Hearing Officer (Jan 13, 2010) found no Child Find failure, but concluded a period of denial of FAPE from April 3, 2009 through end of 2008-2009 school year, awarding two hours of compensatory education per school day.
- District appeal consolidated with Parents’ civil action for fees; court affirmed Hearing Officer’s denial of FAPE during the April–June 2009 period and awarded limited compensatory education.
- Jack, a seven-year-old with ADHD and sensory processing disorder, had multiple evaluations; December 2008 504 plan and January–February 2009 private evaluations diagnosed ADHD; in spring 2009 behavior escalated, leading to a late evaluation and remediation attempts.
- April 2009 Re-ER by District psychologist Mallet was criticized as inadequate for not addressing behavior, attention, or ADHD-related concerns; June 2009 Third ER eventually found OHI, and IEP negotiations were not timely completed.
- Court applied modified de novo review, affording deference to Hearing Officer credibility findings and focusing on whether the District properly evaluated Jack and provided a FAPE.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the April 3, 2009 Re-Evaluation Report was adequate | Parents argue the Re-ER failed to address behavior/attention and ignored ADHD/processing issues | District contends the Re-ER considered relevant data and was consistent with prior evaluations | Re-ER inadequate; denial of FAPE for period before June 2009 |
| Whether District denied FAPE by delaying an IEP after the Re-ER | Parents contend timely IEP was not convened despite escalating behaviors | District claims progress and assessments supported ongoing review | Yes, denial of FAPE during April–June 2009; IEP not timely convened |
| Whether compensatory education is warranted and its scope | Plaintiffs seek compensatory education for the period of denial | District argues limited or no compensatory relief is appropriate | Entitled to limited compensatory education for period of denial (two hours per school day) |
| Whether the District complied with Child Find obligations | Parents contend District failed to timely identify and evaluate Jack | District asserts Child Find obligation was met | District met Child Find but evaluation was flawed, leading to partial denial of FAPE |
| Whether Plaintiffs are prevailing party entitled to fees | Plaintiffs prevail on compensatory-education remedy | Defined standards for prevailing party status | Plaintiffs prevailing party; attorney’s fees recoverable under IDEA |
Key Cases Cited
- P.P. v. West Chester Area Sch. Dist., 585 F.3d 727 (3d Cir. 2009) (standard for confirming FAPE and reviewing IDEA actions; deference to Hearing Officer findings)
- D.S. v. Bayonne Bd. of Educ., 602 F.3d 553 (3d Cir. 2010) (framework: proper evaluation and such program must be reasonably calculated to provide benefit)
- Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v. N.E. ex rel. M.E., 172 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 1999) (education must be tailored to the child’s potential; not just progress)
- Rowley v. Board of Education of Hinsdale, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (free appropriate public education requires more than minimal benefits; focus on meaningful education)
- S.H. v. State-Operated Sch. Dist., 336 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2003) (credibility and deference to hearing officer findings in IDEA review)