Manifestation Determinations Done Right: Caselaw Lessons and Compliant Practices. Presented by Jose Mart ín, Attorney at Law Richards Lindsay & Martín, L.L.P. Austin, Texas. Basic IDEA Rule.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Jose Martín, Attorney at Law
Richards Lindsay & Martín, L.L.P.
Student claims possession of pills was impulsive and related to ADHD
Student had texted and talked to another about sharing the pills at school
HO upheld school’s no-link finding based on the student’s long-term arrangements
ED Student involved in paintball vandalism at school over span of hours at night
Notice parents’ procedural arguments…
Court found no link, noted student was the “planner,” and that he went back for ammo three times
Student involved in off-campus car break-in
Facts showed planning (disguise, alibi)
Private psych argued relation to “executive function deficits,” but without evaluation and limited contact with student
Student with ADHD, ODD, borderline IQ, took a pill given to him by older boy
Records indicated he was impulsive, susceptible to peer pressure
School’s brief MDR did not review key info above, predetermined MD
Argument is essentially de rigeur in cases of emotional or behavioral disabilities
But, if behavior involves steps, plans, time, argument tends to fail
Facts must on their face show impulsivity
MaST Charter Sch Compliant Practices. (SEA PA 2006)
Student brings knife for protection, on various occasions
Parent submits new eval with new diagnoses (with scant support)
Panel finds behavior not impulsive or related to ADHD
Panel notes new diagnoses don’t seem to meet Compliant PracticesIDEA eligibility model
Does a condition need to rise to level of IDEA eligibility, alone, to “count” for MD purposes?…
Why did it matter if behavior was related or not, if school only wanted 45-day removal for the weapon offense? Is this not moot?
See Pemberton case
Also see R. S. v. Corpus Christi ISD (controlled substances, 30-day placement, HO finds mootness)
Facebook threat not related to teen’s ADHD, Bipolar, borderline IQ
HO finds link, says student did not intentionally violate school rules because “he did not fully comprehend the potential consequences” and did not intend to carry out the threat
Fulton County Sch. Dist. school only wanted 45-day removal for the weapon offense? Is this not
OHI student threatens to kill teacher
Team only addresses link to ADHD without addressing ODD, which they knew about
And, there was evidence of pattern of threats…
Scituate Pub. Schs school only wanted 45-day removal for the weapon offense? Is this not .
Asperger’s student having bad day, wants to go home, escalates by pulling on principal’s necktie
School interprets tie as a “weapon”
HO says no dice—not readily capable of injury, and no “possession” (control)
But, behavior not related to disability, since it was purposeful, calm escalation
HO says no evidence of lack of understanding of consequences… (slipping back to old thinking?...)