{"id":754,"date":"2009-06-23T11:02:32","date_gmt":"2009-06-23T16:02:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/?p=754"},"modified":"2009-06-23T12:13:23","modified_gmt":"2009-06-23T17:13:23","slug":"supreme-court-issues-powerful-pro-child-decision-in-eligibility-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/supreme-court-issues-powerful-pro-child-decision-in-eligibility-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Issues Powerful Pro-Child Decision in Eligibility Case"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"padding-bottom:20px; padding-top:10px;\" class=\"hupso-share-buttons\"><!-- Hupso Share Buttons - https:\/\/www.hupso.com\/share\/ --><a class=\"hupso_pop\" href=\"https:\/\/www.hupso.com\/share\/\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/static.hupso.com\/share\/buttons\/gallery\/share-button-gray.png\" style=\"border:0px\" alt=\"Share\" \/><\/a><script type=\"text\/javascript\">var hupso_services=new Array(\"Twitter\",\"Facebook\",\"Google Plus\",\"Pinterest\",\"Linkedin\",\"StumbleUpon\",\"Digg\",\"Reddit\",\"Bebo\",\"Delicious\");var hupso_icon_type = \"labels\";var hupso_background=\"#FFFFFF\";var hupso_border=\"#FFFFFF\";var hupso_image_folder_url = \"\";var hupso_twitter_via=\"wrightslaw\";var hupso_url=\"\";var hupso_title=\"Supreme%20Court%20Issues%20Powerful%20Pro-Child%20Decision%20in%20Eligibility%20Case%20\";<\/script><script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"https:\/\/static.hupso.com\/share\/js\/share.js\"><\/script><!-- Hupso Share Buttons --><\/div><p>On Monday, June 22, 2009, the Supreme Court issued a powerful pro-child decision in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/law\/caselaw\/ussupct.forest.grove.ta.pdf\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\"><em>Forest Grove School District v. T.A.<\/em><\/span><\/a> This is a case about tuition reimbursement for a disabled child\u00a0 who was not found eligible for special education and received no\u00a0 special education services from the public school district.<!--more--><\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court held that:<\/p>\n<p>This dispute &#8220;&#8230;concerns not the adequacy of a proposed IEP but the School District&#8217;s failure to provide an IEP at all . . . moreover, when a child requires special education services, a school district&#8217;s failure to propose an IEP of any kind is at least as serious a violation of it&#8217;s responsibilities under IDEA as a failure to provide an adequate IEP.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The District&#8217;s position similarly conflicts with IDEA&#8217;s &#8216;Child find&#8217; requirement . . . [requiring States] .. to identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities&#8217; to ensure that they receive needed special education services.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Indeed, by immunizing a school district&#8217;s refusal to find a child eligible for special education services no matter how compelling the child&#8217;s need, the School District&#8217;s interpretation [of the statute] would produce a rule bordering on the irrational.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>This would &#8220;leave parents without relief in the more egregious situation in which the school district unreasonably denies a child access to such services altogether.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The Court ruled:<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;. . . we conclude that <em><strong>IDEA authorizes [tuition] reimbursement<\/strong><\/em> for the cost of private special education services when a school district fails to provide a FAPE and the private-school placement is appropriate, <em><strong>regardless of whether the child previously received special education or related services through the public school<\/strong><\/em>.&#8221; (emphasis added)<\/p>\n<p>The full text of this decision is available at:<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/law\/caselaw\/ussupct.forest.grove.ta.pdf\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/law\/caselaw\/ussupct.forest.grove.ta.pdf<br \/>\n<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p>To learn more about the case, including what happens next, read <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/law\/art\/forestgrove.ta.analysis.htm\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Supreme Court Issues Pro-Child Decision in Forest Grove School District v. T.A.<\/span><\/a> by Peter Wright, Esq. and Pamela Wright, MA, MSW.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On Monday, June 22, 2009, the Supreme Court issued a powerful pro-child decision in Forest Grove School District v. T.A. This is a case about tuition reimbursement for a disabled <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/supreme-court-issues-powerful-pro-child-decision-in-eligibility-case\/\">Continue Reading \u2192<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[102,216,35,5,6],"tags":[1307,1291,335,336,1316,1301,320,259,41,258],"class_list":["post-754","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-child-find","category-damages","category-eligibility","category-idea-2004","category-legal-decisions","tag-adhd","tag-advocacy","tag-burlington","tag-carter","tag-child-find","tag-eligibility","tag-forest-grove","tag-idea","tag-parental-rights","tag-tuition-reimbursement"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/754","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=754"}],"version-history":[{"count":39,"href":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/754\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":794,"href":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/754\/revisions\/794"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=754"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=754"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=754"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}