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 ‘Timeliness’

School district violated Child Find obligations by not evaluating student it assigned to alternative school due to behavioral issues.

Thursday, August 4th, 2011

D.G. v. Flour Bluff Independent School District, 56 IDELR 255 (S.D. Tex. 2011):  A U.S. District Court held a school district violated its Child Find obligations when it failed to evaluate a student under the IDEA after the district assigned the student to an alternative school due to his significant behavioral issues.

The student, who was privately diagnosed with ADHD and Tourette’s Syndrome, began to exhibit significant behavioral issues beginning in the Fall of his ninth grade school year.  As a result, the district assigned him to an alternative school and required that he have 31 “successful” days (i.e. – days without a behavioral incident) at such alternative school before returning to his regular placement.  The student was so assigned multiple times throughout the school year, but despite the repeated behavioral concerns and the fact that he received private diagnoses of ADHD and Tourette’s Syndrome, the district did not evaluate the student pursuant to the IDEA until October of his tenth grade school year.

The Court determined that the student’s behavioral issues, as well as his private diagnoses, gave the school district reason to suspect he had a disability, thereby obligating the district to evaluate the student under IDEA.  By waiting approximately a year from the manifestation of the behavioral problems before conducting an evaluation, the district’s evaluation was untimely.  Accordingly, the Court awarded the student a year of compensatory education.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on School district violated Child Find obligations by not evaluating student it assigned to alternative school due to behavioral issues.

Omission of counseling services from student’s IEP was harmless error that did not deny student FAPE

Monday, May 16th, 2011

M.H. v. New York City Department of Education, 56 IDELR 69 (S.D.N.Y. 2011): Agreeing with the decision of the state review officer (SRO), a federal district court from New York determined that the omission of the duration and frequency of counseling services in the Related Services section of the IEP of a student with anxiety and emotional issues did not deny the student a free appropriate education (FAPE).  Such omission was “harmless error” since counseling was discussed elsewhere in the IEP, the frequency and duration of counseling services were in the IEP meeting minutes, and the service was actually provided to the student.

The Court also rejected the parents’ argument that the school district did not timely arrange for the appropriate special education program and services to be provided to the student within 60 days of the receipt of parental consent to evaluate the student, consistent with New York state law.  Although the parents provided the school district with a letter on February 27, 2009 requesting that a FAPE be provided to the student, the school district did not receive the parents’ consent to evaluate until April 3, 2009.  Since a request for services is not the same as a consent to evaluate, the May 29, 2009 IEP meeting was timely.

Moreover, the Court concluded that the school district did not violate the law when it decided to rely on evaluations independently obtained by the parents, instead of conducting its own evaluations.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Omission of counseling services from student’s IEP was harmless error that did not deny student FAPE

Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS).