CASE NO. 2022060347
Student v. MILLER CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT
Counsel for Student: Donald J. Farber
Counsel for School District: Attorney Jan Tomsky
ALJ: Brian H. Krikorian
Date of Decision: September 06, 2022
- Did the school district deny Student a FAPE by removing him from NPS without Parent’s permission and without an IEP meeting prior to change of placement?
FACTS OF THE CASE:
- Student had autism and speech and language impairment. He was placed in IEP at NPS under an independent contract with school.
- Director of NPS also informed the parents that student was “aging out” from the curriculum offered by the NPS.
- Student’s occupational therapist reported several incidents of student’s outbursts, tantrums and conflicts with parents to NPS which were duly communicated to district as well.
- NPS sent a 20-days written notice terminating ISA before terminating the contract with district.
- NPS also informed parents in writing that they have not expelled the student, rather have found a space for him in another nonpublic school under the Master Contract and California law. However, parents rejected the placement.
- Student alleged that an IEP meeting was required with parents before declining education to student by the NPS as it resulted in improper change of placement.
- District DID NOT violate the Section 1415(k) of the IDEA and DID NOT deny student a FAPE by removing him from NPS without Parent’s permission and without an IEP meeting.
– NPS’s decision to terminate the contract was backed by concern that student will not return to physical learning program and he was aging out of the program offered by the said NPS.
– As per master contract between NPS and District, either party could terminate the agreement after giving 20-day written notice of the termination.
– Prior to termination, district located another contracted nonpublic school that could carry out Student’s IEP as per his age and needs.