Goldsmith v. Lower Moreland School Dist.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1983 |
| Citation | 461 A.2d 1341,75 Pa.Cmwlth. 288 |
| Parties | , 12 Ed. Law Rep. 431 Marvin GOLDSMITH, parent and natural guardian for Michael Goldsmith, a minor etc., Appellants, v. LOWER MORELAND SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Jay A. Hurvitz, Philadelphia, for appellants.
Philip Salkin, Pearlstine, Salkin, Hardiman & Robinson, Lansdale, for appellees.
Before BLATT, MacPHAIL and DOYLE, JJ.
Marvin Goldsmith (Appellant), parent and natural guardian of Michael Goldsmith, appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County which denied Appellant's motion for a preliminary injunction.
Michael Goldsmith was originally admitted into the kindergarten class at the Pine Road Elementary School in the Lower Moreland Township School District (School District) in September of 1981 when he was five years old. During August of 1981, Michael had been given preliminary tests by School District personnel and was given additional psychological testing after his admission. As a result of his disruptive behavior and the indications of the preliminary testing, a meeting was held in October of 1981 at which Michael's parents were asked to permit neurological and psychological testing of Michael at the Montgomery County Intermediate Unit. The parents refused and arranged private testing for Michael. Reports of the independent evaluation arranged by the parents were submitted to the School District.
In January of 1982, the principal of the Pine Road School informed Michael's parents, by letter, that the School District was unable to provide an appropriate educational program for Michael and that, pending placement with the Montgomery County Intermediate Unit, he would be provided homebound instruction. Homebound instruction was refused by the parents and on January 26, 1982 the School District refused to admit Michael to the Kindergarten Spring semester at the Pine Road School.
Appellants filed a complaint and motion for injunctive and other appropriate relief in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County on January 28, 1982, alleging a violation of Michael's right to due process in the School District's failure to hold a formal and complete hearing prior to the refusal to admit Michael to the Pine Road School in January. The court of common pleas held that a child below the age of six has no constitutional right to a kindergarten education and Michael was, therefore, not deprived of any liberty or property interest without due process of law.
Michael was admitted to the Fall 1982 semester and the District pursued the required procedures under the Public School Code of 1949 1 (Code) to place Michael in an appropriate program.
Initially, we must consider whether the admission of Michael Goldsmith into the Fall 1982 semester and pursuit of all the statutorily required procedures to provide Michael with an appropriate education renders this action moot. The law in this area is clear. An appeal will be dismissed when the occurrence of an event renders it impossible for the court to grant the requested relief. Chester Upland School District v. Chester Upland Education Association, 64 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 523, 440 A.2d 1283 (1982). Only if the issues involved are of a recurring nature, of important public interest and capable of repeatedly evading review will we refuse to dismiss. Chester Upland; Port Authority of Allegheny County v. Division 85, Amalgamated Transit Union, 34 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 71, 383 A.2d 954 (1978); Temple University of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education v. Department of Public Welfare, 30 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 595, 374 A.2d 991 (1977).
While it is clear that the relief requested can no longer be granted, we believe the issue presented in this case, whether a child below the age of six enjoys any constitutionally protected right to a kindergarten education, is likely to recur and will continue to evade review as the plaintiff children, like Michael Goldsmith,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Dorone, In re
...Bachman, 473 Pa. 56, 373 A.2d 748 (1977); Janet D. v. Carros, 240 Pa.Super. 291, 362 A.2d 1060 (1976); Goldsmith v. Lower Moreland School District, 75 Pa.Cmwlth. 288, 461 A.2d 1341 (1983); accord In re Remley, 324 Pa.Super. 163, 471 A.2d 514 (1984). Here we may assume that the particular pa......
-
Com. v. McDermott
...(appeal not moot when appeal presents important issues capable of repetition yet evading review); Goldsmith v. Lower Moreland School District, 75 Pa.Cmwlth. 288, 461 A.2d 1341 (1983) (same). 4 As our jurisdiction is we proceed to a review of the merits of appellant's contentions. III. Appel......
-
Unionville-Chadds Ford School Dist. v. Rotteveel
...important public interest of a recurring nature which is capable of repeatedly avoiding review. Goldsmith v. Lower Moreland School District, 75 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 288, 461 A.2d 1341 (1983).2 The brief of the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, which has been granted amicus curiae stat......
-
Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc. v. Com., Dept. of Environmental Resources
...the occurrence of an event renders it impossible for the court to grant the requested relief. Goldsmith v. Lower Moreland School District, 75 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 288, 461 A.2d 1341 (1983). The only exceptions to this rule occur where the issues involved are of a recurring nature, of import......