Opinion ID: 4535004
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Parents’ Alternative Argument

Text: The Parents also argue that the City must pay for iBRAIN’s services on a pendency basis because it is the Students’ “operative placement” at the time when the IEP proceedings were initiated. That argument fails for all of the reasons stated above. A parent cannot unilaterally transfer his or her child and subsequently initiate an IEP dispute to argue that the new school’s services must be funded on a 70 Fallis, 710 F.2d at 56 (quoting Tilton, 705 F.2d at 804). 35 pendency basis. That argument effectively renders the stay-put provision meaningless by denying any interest of a school district in resolving how the student’s agreed-upon educational program must be provided and funded. It bears recalling that the term “operative placement” has its origin in cases where the school district attempts to move the child to a new school without the parents’ consent, 71 or where there is no previously implemented IEP so that the current placement provided by the school district is considered to be the pendency placement for purposes of the stay-put provision. 72 Neither circumstance is presented here.