Forest Grove vs T.A.

STEPHEN C. AND BAILEY

Who Was Involved

 Plaintiff: Forest Grove School District

 Defendant: T.A. and his parents.
 Since the student was a minor during the trial, T.A. is how hid name appears in court
documents
Courts Involved

 Made it to the Supreme Court, but they ordered the case back to the Court of
Appeals, 9TH District.
The Trial: June 2009

 Question presented: Whether parents of a disabled child, who decide on their own
to transfer the child to a private school, are entitled to tuition reimbursement from
the local public school district if the child had never received any special
education assistance previously.
 Parents were not entitled to reimbursement because he transferred to the private sector
because of drug and behavioral issues.
 “[T]he parents who disagree with the proposed IEP are faced with a choice: go
along with the IEP to the detriment of their child if it turns out to be inappropriate
or pay for what they consider to be the appropriate placement. If they choose the
latter course, which conscientious parents who have adequate means and who are
reasonably confident of their assessment normally would, it would be an empty
victory to tell them several years later that they were right but that these
expenditures could not in a proper case be reimbursed by the school officials. If
that were the case, the child’s right to a free appropriate public education, the
parents’ right to participate fully in developing the proper IEP, and all of the
procedural safeguards would be less than complete”
The Outcome: April 27, 2011

 T.A.’s parents appealed to the Oregon District Court of Appeals

 Ruling: Forest Grove does not have to pay for the student’s education.
 The school withheld the reimbursement because it was “not appropriate”
 T.A. withdrew from the school district
 He never received Special Education services during his enrollment, and withdrew due
to reasons not related to his disabilities.
 “The district did not abuse its discretion when it determined T.A.’s parents
enrolled him at Mount Bachelor for non-educational reasons”-Judge Carlos Bea
Effects on Today’s Education.

 If a student with disabilities withdraws from a school district without receiving

proper services for the disabilities, the school does not have to pay
reimbursements to the parents of the students.
Work Cited

 “Parent Advocates.” Parent Advocates, 2003, parentadvocates.org/index.cfm?

fuseaction=article&articleID=7587.
 “Supreme Court Issues Pro-Child Decision in Forest Grove School District v. T.A.
by Peter Wright, Esq. and Pamela Wright, MA, MSW.” Supreme Court Issues
Pro-Child Decision in Forest Grove School District v. T.A. by Peter Wright, Esq.
and Pamela Wright, MA, MSW - Wrightslaw.com,
www.wrightslaw.com/law/art/forestgrove.ta.analysis.htm.