Moorestown Tp. Bd. of Educ. v. SD
811 F. Supp. 2d 1057
D.N.J.2011Background
- MD, disabled with PDD-NOS and ASD, resided in Moorestown and had received special education since 1999; district recommended re-evaluation and IEP in 2006 but then parents unilaterally enrolled MD at Orchard Friends School (Orchard) for 2006-07 and seeking reimbursement; Moorestown declined to place or reevaluate while MD remained privately enrolled and residing in-district; parents sought evaluations and an IEP in 2007-08 but district refused, insisting on re-enrollment; ALJ found no FAPE for 2007-08 through 2009-10 and ordered private placement reimbursement; Yale-Cherry Hill program began in 2010-11 at district expense; case proceeded on cross-motions for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether residency triggers FAPE obligation despite private school enrollment | Moorestown must evaluate and offer FAPE to a resident child. | obligation to offer FAPE depends on enrollment in the district. | Yes; residency triggers FAPE obligation regardless of enrollment. |
| Whether the district was required to evaluate and develop an IEP for MD for 2007-08 despite not enrolling him | Defendants requested evaluations and an IEP; district refused. | Enrollment status controls whether an IEP must be developed. | District obligated to evaluate and develop an IEP; denial violated IDEA. |
| Whether Orchard placement was appropriate and reimbursable | Orchard was an appropriate placement with educational benefit; reimbursement proper. | Orchard unapproved; not least restrictive; no appropriate FAPE. | Orchard placement appropriate; tuition reimbursement warranted. |
| Whether the one-year/two-year statute of limitations applies and timing of reimbursement | Claims timely under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C) (two-year limit). | Timeliness contested; based on accrual when district should have offered FAPE. | Claims timely; accrual based on district's failure to offer FAPE in 2007-08. |
| Whether attorney’s fees should be awarded to the prevailing parents | Prevailing party entitled to fees; substantial relief obtained. | Fees should be reduced for partial success. | Fees to be addressed in a subsequent fee petition, with apportionment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (U.S. 2009) (private school reimbursement when FAPE not provided)
- Florence Cnty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (U.S. 1993) (IDEA ensure education is appropriate and free)
- Bernardsville Bd. of Educ. v. J.H., 42 F.3d 149 (3d Cir. 1994) (tuition reimbursement limitations under IDEA)
- James v. Upper Arlington School District, 228 F.3d 764 (6th Cir. 2000) (residency triggers FAPE obligation, not enrollment)
- Dist. of Columbia v. Abramson, 493 F. Supp. 2d 80 (D.D.C. 2007) (FAPE duties extend to residents even when private school placement)
- Ms. K. v. Maine Sch. Admin. Dist., 2006 WL 3081555 (D. Me. 2006) (parental placement and IDEA principles in private settings)
- A.Z. v. Mahwah Twp. Bd. of Educ., 2006 WL 827791 (D.N.J. 2006) (enrollment not barrier to IDEA obligations; private placement context)
- S.H. v. State-Operated Sch. Dist. of the City of Newark, 336 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2003) (modified de novo standard of review in IDEA appeals)