Source: http://www.childrenslegalrightsjournal.com/childrenslegalrightsjournal/volume_35_issue_3?pg=49
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:35:16+00:00

Document:
144 Warren G. ex rel. Tom G. v. Cumberland Cnty. Sch. Dist., 190 F.3d 80, 83–84 (3d Cir. 1999).
147 Id. at 84; see also A.Y. v. Cumberland Valley Sch. Dist., 569 F. Supp. 2d 496, 502, 511–12 (M.D. Pa. 2008) (noting that while appropriateness and restrictiveness are factors to be considered in evaluating a private placement, greater weight is given to appropriateness, but holding that administrative record was insufficient to determine appropriateness of private placement in that particular case); Coleman v. Pottstown Sch. Dist., 983 F. Supp. 2d 543, 568 (E.D. Pa. 2013) (holding that restrictiveness of private placement does not render it “‘inappropriate’ for reimbursement purposes”).
148 Lauren W. v. DeFlaminis, 480 F.3d 259, 259 (3d Cir. 2007).
149 Id. at 276 (citing Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v. N.E. ex rel. M.E., 172 F.3d 238, 248 (3d Cir. 1999)).
150 Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v. N.E. ex rel. M.E., 172 F.3d 238, 238 (3d Cir. 1999) (noting that a less restrictive, but inappropriate setting is not preferable to a more restrictive setting that provides a child with an appropriate education. In other words, educational appropriateness should not be sacrificed in favor of a less restrictive setting. However, the appellate court remanded the issue on whether the private placement was considered to the district court).
151 Lauren W., 480 F.3d at 276.
152 N.E., 172 F.3d at 248 (citing Oberti v. Bd. of Educ. of Clemton Sch. Dist., 995 F.2d 1204, 1213 (3d Cir. 1993)).
153 Muller ex rel. Muller v. Comm. on Special Educ. of E. Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 145 F.3d 95, 105 (2d Cir. 1998) (holding that failure to classify child as disabled was improper); see also M.S. ex rel. S.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 105 (2d Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 942 (noting that parents had failed to establish that education provided at their selected private school served their child’s educational needs and that it was an overly restrictive setting); L.K. ex rel. Q. v. Ne. Sch. Dist., 932 F. Supp. 2d 467, 492 (S.D.N. Y. 2013) (finding that parents failed to adduce evidence demonstrating that specialized school met their child’s education and social needs); Weaver v. Millbrook Cent. Sch. Dist., 812 F. Supp. 2d 514, 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (holding that parents failed to demonstrate that specialized school was appropriate for their child or that child could not succeed in a mainstream environment).
154 Muller, 145 F.3d at 105.
155 Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 985 (2007) (stating that the ultimate issue is whether the unilateral placement meets the child’s unique needs and enables them to receive educational benefit).
156 Id. at 364–65; see also M.S., 231 F.3d at 100–01 (noting that the SRO found that private placement was inappropriate both because it failed to address child’s spelling and language needs and failed to produce progress in those areas and because it was overly restrictive).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.