Skip to Main Content 
Home Arrow Icon Laws & Regulations Arrow Icon Appeal Decisions Arrow Icon Appeal Decisions -- Search & Display

Appeal Decisions

Search

Keyword    Type   
1 Matching Record
If you have questions contact Nicole Proesch, legal counsel for the Department and the State Board,
at 515-281-8661 or nicole.proesch@iowa.gov.
BOOK: 20 
DECISION: 139 
MONTH-YEAR: December - 2001
IN RE: In re Maurice M.
APPELLANT: Robin M.
APPELLEE: Des Moines Independent Community School District and Heartland AEA 11
KEYWORDS: Special Education
FULL TEXT: https://www.educateiowa.gov/documents/appeal-decisions/2013/04/book-20-decision-139 
DETAILS: Appellant alleges 7 issues: 1) whether the district violated IDEA by use a state court injunction to attempt to alter the students IEP; by changing the provision of special education without prior written notice to the parent; by engaging in a pattern of suspensions without thereafter convening the IEP team to conduct a manifestation determination review; by engaging in a pattern of suspensions consituting a change in placement without providing alternative educational services; by reporting the alleged conduct to the police; by reporting an alleged simple misdemeanor to the policy without providing copies of the student special education and disciplinary records to appropri-ate authorities; by reporting a simple misdemeanor which changed the educational placement of the student for more than 10 days without conducting a manifestation review.
  The actual terms of the mutually agreed to court order resulting from the injunctive action do not on their face result in any violation of IDEA procedures or parents rights. By seeking injunctive relief, the district did not violate IDEA process or procedures. Regarding the second issue, Ms. M. was not fully informed or involved in the decision to use deep pressure exerc ises. Maurice became upset when they were stopped at her demand.  Appellant is the prevailing party on the second issue.
  The District prevails on the third issue since Maurices suspensions do not constitute a "pattern". Since the suspensions did not constitute a "pattern", the District prevailed on the specific issue alleged in the four issue.
  In the fifth issue, there is nothing in the IDEA to distin-guish "crimes" from "misdemeanors." The District prevails. Because the record does not establish that the District "re-ported" Maurice to law enforcement for committing a crime, the District prevails on the sixth issue. It appeared from the record that Maurice was taken into custody and charged by the arresting officers who acted independently in charging Maurice.
OUTCOMES: Nothing in this decision should be construed as a condemnation of District staff efforts at attempting to serve Maurices educational needs.