Procedural Safeguard Case Study

also Hooker v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 3:09–CV–0676–G–BH, 2011 WL 1592300, at *5 (N.D.Tex. March 31, 2011). The rationale for the exception is that “a local education agency's withholding of procedural safeguards would act to prevent parents from requesting a due process hearing ... until such a time as an intervening source apprised them of their rights.” Richard R., 567 F.Supp.2d at 945. Because neither of the Plaintiff's withholding information allegations pertain to the District's failure to provide procedural safeguards, the court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to show that the § 1415(f)(3)(D)(ii) exception applies. Accordingly, the court finds that the court finds that the hearing officer did not err in finding that IDEA's …show more content…
Even if a procedural safeguard or prior written notice were withheld, it still triggers no limitations exception unless the Petitioners also prove the procedural safeguard or prior written notice withheld directly prevent the parents from filing a due process complaint within the one-year limitations period. Petitioners have not directly alleged that PISD withheld a procedural safeguards and/or prior written notice and have not alleged nor asserted any specific facts that any failures to provide a procedural safeguards and/or prior written notice prevented the Petitioners from requesting a due process …show more content…
696 F.3d at 248. Parents are often in a position to be forceful advocates for their children and through their vigilance and perseverance to help fulfill the IDEA's promise of a free appropriate public education. (Emphasis added.) (G.L. v. Ligonier Valley Sch. Dist. Auth., 802 F.3d 601, 625 (3d Cir. 2015).)

For additional clarification the District notes that the United States Department of Education, Office of General Counsel’s Amicus-Brief dated November 19, 2014 regarding G.L., Mr. G.L. and Mrs. E.L. v. Ligonier Valley School District Authority, No. 14-1387 addressed to Vanita Gupta, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division states: The United States Department of Education ("Department") submits this letter in response to the Court's orders dated October 1 and 18, 2014, requesting that the Department submit, by November 19, 2014, an amicus curiae letter brief “concerning the significance of the two-year time period specified in 20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(6)(B) to the scope of redressability for an alleged IDEA [the Individuals with Disabilities Education