District failure to satisfy burden of proof results in SRO decision in favor of the parent

SRO 12-006: In this case where the Parent was represented by the Law Offices of H. Jeffrey Marcus, the Parent alleged, inter alia, that the student required the services of a 1:1 aide during adapted physical education (APE). The IHO did not rule on the issue. The District offered no evidence on the issue. The Parent claimed on appeal to the SRO that the District failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that the student did not require the services of a 1:1 aide during APE. The SRO agreed holding that the “District did not establish that the student did not require aide services during APE, and in the absence of any evidence in the hearing record that the student did not require them,” he ordered the District to provide aide services during APE.

SRO awards reimbursement for private placement

SRO 10-050: The parent rejected the district recommended program, placed the child in a private school and sought reimbursement. The IHO ruled in favor of the school district finding that the parents failed to demonstrate that the June 2009 IEP was not reasonably calculated to provide the student with a FAPE. The SRO found that the IHO had improperly shifted the burden of proof to the parents and that that was grounds for annulling the decision. He went on, however, to analyze the merits and he determined that the district had failed to offer a FAPE, that the parental placement was appropriate and that the equities weighed in favor of the parent.

SRO closes door tight on reimbursement claim

SRO 08-042: Parents prevailed at hearing. SRO Paul Kelly quickly disposed of the appeal by finding that the IHO improperly placed the burden of proof on the school district on the eligibility issue. “A misapplication of the burden of proof is reversible error (see M.M. v. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 512 F.3d 455, 459 [8th Cir. 2008]), and as such, the impartial hearing officer's decision regarding the student's eligibility for special education programs and services is annulled.”
Kelly did not stop there, however. He analyzed each of the three prongs and found for the district on each. Of particular note is the equities analysis. Kelly found that the parent never intended to place the child in the public school and that the parents had referred the child to the CSE not for special ed services, but rather to attempt to secure funding for a private school education.