Wyland v. West Shore School District
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 275
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Wyland resides in the District and pays District taxes; his two children attend a private elementary school located in the District.
- Custody is 50/50, with joint custody between Wyland and his ex-wife.
- The District previously provided morning transportation for the Wyland children when both parents lived in the District.
- In 2011, the ex-wife moved to a Cumberland Valley School District residence; CVSD began providing transportation from that residence, and the District stopped morning transportation from Wyland’s residence.
- Wyland sought injunctive relief, arguing the District remains obligated under Section 1361 to transport his children as resident pupils of the District.
- PDE staff testified that PDE designates one district for residency and reimbursement when parents reside in different districts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the Wyland children resident pupils of the District for transportation purposes? | Wyland contends the children reside in the District due to joint custody and a 50/50 arrangement. | The District argues CVSD is the district of residence and should provide transportation. | Yes; Wyland children are resident pupils of the District. |
| Does the absence of a 'Single Residency Rule' bar transportation to a private school from two residences? | Wyland asserts no single residency rule limits transportation to two residences. | District relies on PDE practices to designate one district for residency and reimbursement. | No; there is no such restriction in the School Code preventing transportation to private school from two residences. |
| Is the District required to provide transportation under Section 1361 to private school students when it already transports public school students? | Section 1361 requires transportation for resident pupils to nonpublic schools if provided to any resident pupils. | Transportation duties are not affected by enrollment in public schools or private schools and may be limited by residency rules. | Yes; private school transportation is required for resident pupils when the district provides transportation to resident pupils. |
Key Cases Cited
- Unionville-Chadds Ford Sch. Dist. v. Rotteveel, 487 A.2d 109 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (preliminary injunction standard; supports broad view of residency and transportation duties)
- In re Residence Hearing Before Bd. of Sch. Directors, Cumberland Valley Sch. Dist. (Thane), 744 A.2d 1272 (Pa. 2000) (defines 'resides' as a factual place of abode; rejects single-primary-residence concept)
- North Allegheny Sch. Dist. v. Gregory P., 687 A.2d 37 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (special-education-related transport; distinguishes 1361 from other contexts)
- Babcock Sch. Dist. v. Potocki, 502 Pa. 349 (1983) (transportation for private school students allowed within ten miles; public vs private distinction)
- Mathias v. Richland School Dist., 592 A.2d 811 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (dual residency not permitted for public school enrollment; context distinguished)
- Velazquez v. E. Stroudsburg Area Sch. Dist., 949 A.2d 354 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (administrative residency rules; agency authority to create residency rules)
- Slippery Rock School Dist. v. Pa. Cyber Charter Sch., 31 A.3d 657 (Pa. 2011) (distinguishes public school eligibility rules from transportation provisions)
- Lushen v. Peters Twp. Sch. Dist., 65 Pa. D. & C.2d 712 (C.P. Wash. 1974) (premise of dual residency for enrollment context; distinguishable facts)