At Cherkas Metcalfe Law, Attorneys Katie Metcalfe and Jennifer Wilczynski prevailed on behalf of their client in a residential placement battle with the client’s local school district. The Pennsylvania administrative hearing officer found in favor of the parent’s request for a residential placement as a special education placement. The hearing officer found that the student needs a residential placement in order to receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”).
The student experiences extreme school avoidance and refusal behaviors which resulted in missing almost a full year of school. The evidence presented demonstrated that the student makes progress on his IEP goals and his avoidance behaviors decrease when placed in a residential placement. Parent brought an initial due process complaint in December 2024, and even though she prevailed on the denial of FAPE and was awarded compensatory education, she did not win the request for a residential placement.
Following the decision on the first due process complaint, the student continued to not attend school despite the implementation of an in-home attendance program though the student’s IEP.
Attorney Metcalfe and Attorney Wilczynski did not give up the fight on behalf of their client and filed another due process complaint in March 2025. In the second due process decision issued on May 21, 2025, the hearing officer found that the School District’s plan failed. Based on Metcalfe and Wilczynski’s presentation of evidence and argument, the hearing officer recognized that it was the responsibility of the School District to recognize that the IEP failed the student and to offer something different. In the decision, the hearing officer wrote, “The record of this case does, however, establish that the one intervention consistently enables the Student to attend school: an RTF placement. Throughout the Student’s educational history, the Student goes to school when the school is connected to an RTF. I cannot conclude that an RTF placement is the only way to get the Student to attend school, but I can conclude that the Student historically does not have attendance issues while placed at an RTF. I can also conclude that the District has not put any other reasonable option on the table. And so, I will order the District to do what works. Student receives no educational benefit when Student does not attend school.” Therefore, the only realistic resolution for Student to receive their entitled education is through a residential treatment facility.”
Because the student had been accepted to an out of state residential treatment facility, the hearing officer ordered the student’s placement there as he refused to allow the student to continue to languish and not receive an education. The order for placement at the out of state residential treatment facility means that this placement is now the student’s pendent placement. Although the School District may appeal, the School District is required to fund the ordered placement during any appeal.
We are happy to announce that the student’s placement has now begun at the out of state residential treatment facility and is being funded by the School District.
The information within this article is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. Please consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your personal situation.