629 F. App'x 235
3rd Cir.2015Background
- J.F., a 14-year-old student with learning disabilities, had a Westwood-generated IEP (May 2014) placing him at the Craig School (a private out-of-district school) for 2014–2015.
- After the IEP was issued but before the school year began, J.F.’s family moved from Westwood to Byram and enrolled him in Byram schools.
- J.F.’s parents sought Byram funding to keep him at the Craig School and filed for mediation/due process, invoking IDEA’s stay-put to require Byram to pay for Craig during the proceedings.
- An ALJ denied the parents’ stay‑put motion; the District Court affirmed. This appeal followed.
- Byram told the parents it could implement the Westwood IEP in-district and offered services it regarded as comparable; the ALJ and District Court found the parents refused to cooperate with any placement other than Craig.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IDEA’s stay‑put requires Byram to fund continued placement at Craig after the family relocated | Craig is the student’s then‑current educational placement because the only active IEP placed him there | Because the family unilaterally transferred districts, stay‑put is inoperative and Byram need only provide services comparable to the prior IEP per § 1414(d)(2)(C)(i)(I) | Stay‑put does not mandate Craig funding after a parental unilateral intrastate transfer; Byram must provide comparable services and implement or adopt an IEP per § 1414(d)(2)(C)(i)(I) |
| Whether Byram satisfied its statutory obligation to provide comparable services and implement/adopt an IEP during the dispute | Byram did not provide equivalent services and therefore must fund Craig | Byram offered comparable services and attempted to implement/adopt an IEP; parents obstructed placement other than Craig | Court found no clear error in ALJ/District Court findings that Byram provided comparable services and that parents refused to cooperate; injunction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Drinker v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 78 F.3d 859 (3d Cir. 1996) ("then‑current placement" tied to the IEP actually functioning when stay‑put is invoked)
- DeLeon v. Susquehanna Cmty. Sch. Dist., 747 F.2d 149 (3d Cir. 1984) (stay‑put does not bar district changes unlikely to significantly affect learning)
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) (stay‑put aimed to prevent unilateral exclusionary actions by schools)
- Ms. S. ex rel. G. v. Vashon Island Sch. Dist., 337 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2003) (new district must implement prior IEP or approximate it for transfer students)
- Michael C. v. Radnor Twp. Sch. Dist., 202 F.3d 642 (3d Cir. 2000) (unilateral parental relocations can render stay‑put protections inoperative pending new placement agreement)
- Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2014) (standard of review for IDEA appeals; plenary review of legal conclusions)
- Shore Reg’l High Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. P.S., 381 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2004) (deference to ALJ factual findings and credibility determinations)
- M.R. v. Ridley Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2014) (stay‑put is an automatic preliminary injunction; abuse‑of‑discretion review of denial)
- K.A. ex rel. Ayers v. Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist., 710 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2013) (stay‑put relief treated as preliminary injunction)