Disputes involving questions of a disabled child's residency in a school district must initially be resolved by a state agency, not a federal court, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Savage of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held in A.P. v. Lower Merion School District that the state Office of Dispute Resolution is the first stop in settling residency issues involving the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

“Because a school district has an obligation to provide a free appropriate public education to a disabled child who resides in its jurisdiction, the residency issue is intertwined with IDEA eligibility for FAPE,” Savage wrote in his opinion.

“A residency determination is an issue of state law. Thus, we conclude that a challenge to a residency determination, when intertwined with a disabled child's IDEA claim, must first be presented through the state administrative process,” he continued. “The ODR hearing officer must adjudicate the question of residency. Only on appeal from the ODR hearing officer's decision does the federal court have jurisdiction to review the school district's residency determination.”

Savage said IDEA does not directly address residency concerns as they are a matter of state law. The dispute in this case centered on whether or not A.P.'s home was within district lines. Before getting to the federal level, all administrative remedies must be exhausted, first through a due process hearing.

“Here, the residency issue was not exhausted. However, it was not [the mother] E.F.'s failure. She raised residency at the due process hearing,” Savage said. “But, the hearing officer did not decide it, concluding that it was beyond his jurisdiction. As we have explained, the ODR hearing officer had the obligation to resolve the residency dispute as a necessary part of the due process hearing mandated by the IDEA.”

He added, “The processes Lower Merion claims A.P. should have pursued are not acceptable alternatives. Lower Merion argues that E.F.'s only recourse from the district's denial of enrollment is the process provided under the Pennsylvania School Code and the Administrative Agency Law. This process entails navigating through several steps that potentially could take years to complete. Such a process frustrates, rather than vindicates, the federally mandated right to FAPE. Thus, to assure that a disabled child gets FAPE as soon as possible, the residency determination must be made at the ODR due process hearing and not relegated to another forum to conduct a separate proceeding.”

Mu'min F. Islam of the MFI Law Group represents the plaintiffs.

“I'm satisfied with the judge's interpretation as it has always been parent's intention to have the district implement services for her child. I simply hope this process is able to be completed expediently considering Parent has undergone this issue for over two years,” he said.

Kenn Roos represents Lower Merion and said the firm was still reviewing the decision. He added, “The family was offered a hearing … and they declined it.”