|
|
Post by zippity on Jun 22, 2009 10:02:41 GMT -5
It's in and it is what I wanted to hear a judge rule. Reimbursement is an available remedy even if the student never received public special education services. www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-305.pdfLet's see how LRP tries to downplay this one. Oh yeah, doing a happy dance for all of those who have been denied eligibility and the schools thought they could ignore those kids! This will not set a precedent to just deny a student as a way not to be responsible for providing a FAPE. I other words if there is enough to identify then do it. |
|
|
|
Post by michellea on Jun 22, 2009 10:12:02 GMT -5
This is GREAT news!!!!!!!! I can't wait to start reading.
|
|
|
|
Post by kewpie on Jun 22, 2009 10:14:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dihicks6 on Jun 22, 2009 10:20:09 GMT -5
Woo hoo!!!! What cracks me up (even though I know this isn't the actual legal issue), is that he didn't receive sped services because the school refused eligibility -- twice! Finally, some caselaw we can use!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mayleng on Jun 22, 2009 10:27:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zippity on Jun 22, 2009 10:31:56 GMT -5
We were denied 2x as well. The first time we then skipped off to private school. The second time when in private school we were flicked off like we were a nuisance again denying. I saved our rights by writing to them to say, "a mere observation on a playground does not make an evaluation in my book so if you have nothing more to offer my child we have no choice but to leave her in private school." That letter was key in why we asked for reimbursement for the therapies we provided and the private school tuition we paid after the second denial.
This case was running along the courts about the time ours was. I was so praying and hoping it was a given since it prevailed while ours dragged on by the unscrupulous SD attorney bent on wearing us down and making us go away a 3rd time. I referred to it in my 3rd or 4th revised DP brief the jerk kept getting dumped for insufficiency.
When FG was appealled we were done but I was pulling hard for them and everyone who still needed to get help for their kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by cobyseven on Jun 22, 2009 12:06:29 GMT -5
Great news...thanks for posting, zip.
|
|
|
|
Post by tebald on Jun 22, 2009 14:18:48 GMT -5
This is sooooo cool! Thanks for letting us know Zip.
|
|
|
|
Post by zippity on Jun 24, 2009 1:50:12 GMT -5
I was about to drive DS to private school sitting in the car when I read it on my phone. I wanted to pee I was so ecstatic. Here I was driving my son to private school that we pay out of pocket instead of taking the denying district A**es to court. So not EVERYONE does go after district's even when they had a slam dunk case. We have to choose our battles and keep our sanity.
On the other hand, there's DD . . . . . . . . . . . I am still waiting to find out if a certain document was signed and it was sneakily not read into public record tonight whether they did or not. I am feeling snarky because I had no word when I left the board meeting and yet I saw 2 agenda items for an additional $250,000 for yet ANOTHER legal firm for going over budget this year on the district's SPED cases. They will get their contract renewed for next year as the second item. This is on top of the other 2 firms already hidden in the budget but paid an exorbitant amount to be sure. They have but 24 hours.
Sure the naysaying clueless general public may think Forest Grove was a walk in the park for that family --many of us here can assure them it was NOT!
|
|
Kell
Full Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by Kell on Jul 2, 2009 12:31:31 GMT -5
|
|
