Luo v. Owen J. Roberts Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 27 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-6354,CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-4248,CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-2952 |
| Parties | JENN-CHING LUO v. OWEN J. ROBERTS SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. OWEN J. ROBERTS SCHOOL DISTRICT v. B.L., by and through his Parent, Jenn-Ching Luo. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
MEMORANDUM
Currently pending are three related actions under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1411, et seq. (IDEA), arising out of the creation of and efforts to amend an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for Jenn-Ching Luo's son, B.L. within the Owen J. Roberts School District. The parties filed multiple motions to dismiss the various claims in these actions and Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells provided three separate reports and recommendations on the motions. I now focus on the multiple objections Luo has submitted with respect to those reports.
Luo's son, B.L. receives special education services. He was originally placed in a day program in an approved private special school in the Owen J. Roberts School District. Am. Compl., No. 14-6354 (Luo I), ECF No. 5, ¶ 19. The special school also has a residential program. Id. At an IEP meeting on November 21, 2013, Luo asked the IEP team to consider a residential placement for B.L. Id. ¶ 20. The team agreed to consider this request in a follow-up meeting. Id. ¶¶ 21-23. At the February 28, 2014 meeting, the team concluded that B.L. would become a residential student effective in school year 2014, and it revised the IEP to reflect that decision. Id. ¶¶ 24-25.
After the District learned of the revision, it asked the special school to provide a confirmation letter for a residential slot for B.L. Id. ¶ 26. Defendant Geoffrey Ball, a supervisor of special education in the Owen J. Roberts School District, then presented a seven-day 2010 residential form to Luo for her signature. Id. ¶¶ 15, 28. Luo immediately signed and returned the form on May 9, 2014. Id. ¶ 28.
On June 25, 2014, Ball called Luo regarding an application which Luo had sent to Chester County requesting assistance for B.L. Id. ¶ 30. Ball indicated that he had helpful resources in Chester County and asked Luo to come to his office the next day. Id. During Luo's June 26 visit, Ball handed her a request for reevaluation paper with no further explanation. Id. ¶ 31. Believing the request to be for the reevaluation due in 2015, Luo signed the document. Id. The form actually sought Luo's consent to conduct the evaluation in the coming summer of 2014. Id. ¶ 32. At the same meeting, Ball asked Luo to sign an IEP invitation notice. Id. ¶ 33. Ball insisted that Luo's June 26, 2014 visit to his office was an IEP meeting, even though there were no other attendants and Luo was not given any advanced notice. Id. ¶ 34. Luo signed the meeting invitation notice, but indicated that notice was only given after she attended the meeting. Id. ¶ 35. After she signed the notice, Ball told Luo that the District could not place her son in a residential program. Id. ¶ 36.
Initially, Luo believed the District's refusal to place B.L. in the residential program resulted from the State's denial of the funding application. Id. ¶ 37. Eventually, however, shelearned the District never sent the 4010 funding application to the State. Id. ¶ 38. Even though the District had repeatedly informed her that her son would be a residential student and required her signature on the 2010 residential form, Ball indicated that the District had no intention to place the child into a residential program because the IEP was insufficient and the District required a new evaluation. Id. ¶¶ 43-44. At that point, Luo had limited opportunity to seek a remedy before the beginning of the new school year. Id. ¶ 47.
On June 27, 2014, Luo received a letter from Ball with a revised IEP. Id. ¶ 50. The revision included Specially Designed Instructions (SDIs) that required Luo to take a parent training course under the District's supervision. Id. ¶ 52. He also issued a Notice of Recommended Educational Placement (NOREP) to purportedly coerce Luo into taking the parent training prescribed. Id. ¶ 56. Luo requested that Ball remove the revisions from the IEP, but he refused to do so. Id. ¶ 55.
Luo filed an administrative special education due process complaint against the District under the IDEA, identifying four issues: (1) whether the District could refuse to carry out the IEP; (2) whether the District delayed Luo's opportunities to seek an appropriate educational program for the child because of failure to timely issue a NOREP to reject a parent's concern for residential placement; (3) whether the IEP revisions made by the District on June 26, 2014 were appropriate and (4) whether the District denied B.L. a free appropriate public education. Id. ¶ 60. To address these issues, Hearing Officer Cathy A. Skidmore held an administrative hearing on August 27, 2014. Id. ¶ 59. In a decision dated September 15, 2014, Skidmore ordered an independent educational evaluation (IEE) in order to determine B.L.'s needs. Id. ¶ 73. Luo informed Ball that she disagreed with the Hearing Officer's order for an IEE and communicated her intent to appeal the decision. Id. ¶ 82.
On November 5, 2014, Luo commenced her first action (Luo I) in federal court to seek review of the Hearing Officer's order for an IEE. Id. ¶ 83. Nonetheless, Ball persisted in conducting the IEE and was assisted by defendant Sharon W. Montayne, a private attorney hired by the District. Id. ¶¶18, 88. The District also contracted with defendant Keri Kolbay, a licensed psychologist, to serve as an independent evaluator. Id. ¶¶ 17, 89. The District then released B.L.'s records to Kolbay without parental consent. Id. ¶ 90. Kolbay prepared an IEE report based on those records. Id. ¶ 93.
Ball subsequently set December 15, 2014 as the date for a review of the IEE report and sent Luo an invitation to the IEP meeting by e-mail. Id. ¶ 97. After B.L's parents received the meeting notice, they checked the box stating, Id. ¶ 101. Ball never contacted them to arrange a mutually agreed-upon time and place, but instead sent a notice stating: Id. ¶ 103. The District then had the meeting at its chosen time. Without a parent in attendance at the meeting, Ball revised the IEP to again demand that Luo take District-supervised training. Id. ¶ 103. On December 18, 2014, following the meeting, Ball, joined by Montayne, forwarded a NOREP to Luo, indicating that the revised IEP included a provision that Luo participate in District-supervised training. Id. ¶¶ 109, 111, 112.
In response to Luo's request, the IEP team held another meeting on January 12, 2015, during which time it discussed both the IEE and proposed revisions to B.L.'s current IEP, based on Dr. Kolbay's recommendations. Compl., No. 15-2952 (Luo II) ¶ 26. The proposed revisions included "observations of B.L. by a behavioral specialist in the home and school environment upon parental consent and Camp Hill staff to provide the parents with information and opportunities or guided training on self-help and self-care." Id. ¶ 27. On January 16, 2015, the District issued another NOREP which notified Luo of its intent to implement the proposed SDIs requiring parent training that it intended to add to B.L.'s IEP. Id. ¶ 28.
In February 2015, the District's school psychologist, Brian Schneider, evaluated B.L. Compl., No. 15-4248 (Luo III) ¶¶ 18, 73. Luo gave consent for the evaluation, which included an adaptive behavior assessment. Id. ¶ 73. By directly comparing raw scores from the parent rating form and the teacher rating form—a process Luo claims is similar to comparing apples to oranges—Schneider opined that B.L. was more independent at school than at home. Id. ¶¶ 80, 82. Accordingly, Schneider determined that Luo should undergo parent training. Id. ¶ 84.
Luo filed four1 due process complaints objecting to the District's actions, all of which were consolidated into one hearing session with the consent of the parties. Compl., Luo II, ¶¶ 8-10 & n.2. A due process hearing was held on February 13, 2015. Id. ¶ 11. In a February 21, 2015 decision, the Hearing Officer found as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial