ISBE due-process decision · FY 2021

Illinois due-process decision 2020-0176: district prevailed

The parent challenged the district's identification timing, the residential placement's ability to implement the IEP, and use of restraint and seclusion, seeking a non-approved out-of-state facility. The hearing officer found no FAPE violations and denied the requested placement.

Outcome: District prevailedDisability: Emotional DisabilityHearing officer: Kathleen FuhrmannFull decision (PDF, ISBE)
Filed by
The parent
Issues in dispute
Eligibility/evaluation/child findPlacement/LRERestraint/seclusion/abusePrivate/residential placement & reimbursement
Relief ordered
None
From the decision
I find that Mother failed to meet her burden of persuasion on all counts
ISBE removes the district's and student's names from every decision, so this case can't be linked to a specific district. The summary and outcome label were drafted with AI assistance from the decision's full text and checked against its order (how); the decision PDF is the authoritative record. This is not legal advice.

Decisions on similar issues

District prevailed The district filed to defend its reevaluation after the parent requested IEEs in several areas, including autism. The hearing officer…
District prevailed The parent challenged the district's decision that the student no longer qualified for special education, alleging inadequate evaluation…
District prevailed The district filed to defend its supplemental assessments, including an FBA and rating scales, after the pro se parent requested several…
Parent prevailed The parents alleged the district denied FAPE in the least restrictive environment by failing to provide an appropriate general education…
District prevailed The parent challenged the residential facility the district chose to implement the agreed residential placement, later seeking…
District prevailed The self-represented parent alleged the district failed to implement the transfer student's IEP and improperly required a pre-start…
Case 2020-0171All decisionsCase 2020-0202