Goldstein, Ackerhalt & Pletcher
70 Niagara Street, Suite 200 Buffalo , New York, 14202
Phone: 716-362-1533
Fax: 716-362-1534

The GAP Attorneys Blog

Meeting the needs of people with disabilities, their families, educators & service providers

Posts Tagged ‘Part C’

Lead agencies under IDEA Part C must inform parents of evaluation process and eligibility criteria for students transitioning to preschool if the school district fails to attend transition conference

Friday, July 6th, 2012

Letter to Hutton and East, 58 IDELR 140 (OSEP 2011): The United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) reminded two special education chiefs of the series of steps and activities required to ensure a smooth transition from Part C to Part B services under the IDEA.  The Part C lead agency is required to convene a transition conference not less than 90 days before the child becomes eligible for Part B services (his or her third birthday).  If a representative from the local educational agency (LEA) (i.e. the child’s local school district) does not attend the transition conference, the Part C lead agency must inform parents at the conference about Part B preschool services and eligibility criteria.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Lead agencies under IDEA Part C must inform parents of evaluation process and eligibility criteria for students transitioning to preschool if the school district fails to attend transition conference

Parent who claims denial of FAPE under IDEA does not have to allege bad faith or discriminatory intent to state a claim under Section 504.

Thursday, June 21st, 2012

Rayan R. v. Northwestern Education Intermediate Unit No. 19, 58 IDELR 95 (M.D. Pa. 2012):  A U.S. District Court held that a parent could maintain a claim of discrimination under Section 504 by virtue of her claim that the school district failed to provide a free appropriate public education to her school-aged child under the IDEA.

The child, who was diagnosed with autism, borderline intellectual functioning, ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, and an adjustment disorder, received services from the school district as a preschool student, but the school failed to provide adequate services and did not appropriately plan for the student’s transition to kindergarten.  The parent alleged the school district denied him a FAPE, and brought suit under the IDEA and Section 504.  The school district argued that since the student was over the age of three, but not yet in kindergarten, there could be no discrimination because it did not offer a “programming analogue for non-disabled children.”  The Court rejected such position, noting that Part B of the IDEA applied to the student, who was over the age of three, despite the fact that he was not yet in kindergarten.  Accordingly (based on precedent in that federal circuit), allegations of a denial of FAPE under Part B of the IDEA to this school-aged child, thereby states a claim of discrimination under Section 504 (even without any allegation of bad faith or discriminatory intent).

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Parent who claims denial of FAPE under IDEA does not have to allege bad faith or discriminatory intent to state a claim under Section 504.

Individual Family Services Plan (“IFSP”) Team should make an individualized determination relating to respite services.

Saturday, November 13th, 2010

Letter to Hutton, 53 IDELR 334 (OSEP 2009):  The New York State Department of Health (“DOH”) sought clarification from the U.S. Dept. of Education Office of Special Education Programs (“OSEP”) that its policy regarding respite services is consistent with the Early Intervention Services (EIS) required by Part C of the IDEA.

OSEP found that the DOH’s policy is consistent with Part C because (1) it “requires consideration of a variety of factors that highlight specific circumstances when respite may be needed;” (2) “the determination of whether respite is identified on the child’s IFSP is made on an individualized basis and is made by the eligible child’s IFSP team;” and (3) under its policy, respite does not serve as routine child-care, but is limited to when respite may enhance, in child and family specific circumstances, the capacity of the family to meet the developmental needs of their infant or toddler with a disability.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Individual Family Services Plan (“IFSP”) Team should make an individualized determination relating to respite services.

Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS).