Watts, T. v. Manheim Twp. School District, Aplt.
121 A.3d 964
| Pa. | 2015Background
- Parents share equal legal and physical custody of C.W.; each parent lives within Manheim Township School District and C.W. alternates weeks between their homes.
- Father’s house is ~4.5 miles from school; Mother’s ~5.5 miles; the established bus stop near Mother is ~1.9 miles from Father’s house.
- School District changed its transportation policy (2010) to limit students to one pick-up/drop-off location, saving fleet resources; it initially continued bussing C.W. to both homes but later refused Father’s stop.
- Father sued under 24 P.S. § 13-1361(1) seeking injunction requiring transportation to both residences; trial court granted permanent relief limited to narrow facts; Commonwealth Court affirmed.
- Supreme Court considered whether the School Code requires transport to multiple residences and whether a student can have more than one residence for School Code purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Watts) | Defendant's Argument (Manheim Twp.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the School Code requires a district to provide transportation to more than one location within the district | Section 1361(1) requires transport “to and from” school for a “resident pupil”; because C.W. is a resident of both parents’ homes, transport must be provided to both residences | No statutory provision mandates multiple-residence transport; district may limit transport to a single residence | Court held Section 1361(1) requires transportation to a student’s residence and, where a student has two residences due to equally shared custody, the district must provide transport to both residences |
| Whether the district has discretion to deny transport to one of two residences (e.g., by requiring parent to use existing stop) | District discretion covers manner of transportation but not whether to provide transportation that would compel attendance; denying half-year transport undermines compulsory attendance scheme | District claims broad discretion under related provisions and regulations (e.g., what is "proper transportation" and route/scheduling authority) and budgetary/administrative concerns | Court held district lacks discretion to withhold required transport that would negate compulsory-attendance purposes; it cannot avoid statutory walking-distance limits by shifting burden to parent |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Residence Hearing Before Bd. of Sch. Dir., Cumberland Valley Sch. Dist., 744 A.2d 1272 (Pa. 2000) (construed term "resides" for school residency purposes)
- Wyland v. West Shore Sch. Dist., 52 A.3d 572 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (held a child can be a resident pupil of two school districts under shared custody)
- Martin v. Garnet Valley Sch. Dist., 272 A.2d 913 (Pa. 1971) (recognized school board discretion in transportation decisions concerning bus stop requirements)
- Chipman ex rel. Chipman v. Avon Grove Sch. Dist., 841 A.2d 1098 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (addressed limits of Section 1361(1) regarding transfer stations and transportation modalities)
- Harris v. Bd. of Pub. Educ. of Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 160 A. 443 (Pa. 1932) (articulated the School Code’s purpose prioritizing children’s education)