|
Thank you for the overwhelming positive response to our inaugural Newsletter issue! Welcome to the the June issue of our monthly newsletter dedicated to keeping you current on Education Law and related issues. We hope you enjoy our letter and find the contents valuable to you and your clientele.
|
| David v. City of New York, (N.Y.A.D., 2 Dept.) |
|
May 18, 2007
Torts - A school did not breach its duty to supervise students on a hay ride on a school field trip. Thus, the school could not be held liable in a personal injury suit brought by a kindergarten student who cut her eyelid when the wagon in which she and others rode hit a bump. Prior field trips to the farm, which included hay rides, had passed without incident. Moreover, the school had no knowledge or notice that a hay ride would be hazardous to a child of the student's age or that there were any specific hazards on the wagon that might injure her. |
| P.R. v. Woodmore Local School District, (N.D., Ohio) |
April 13, 2007
Special Education - A school district's evaluation leading to the conclusion that a child was not entitled to services under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was appropriate, and, thus, the child's parents were not entitled to reimbursement for obtaining an independent educational evaluation (IEE). The district had not requested a due process hearing to show that the evaluation was appropriate. However, the District Court's prior review and determination upholding the administrative decision indicated that the evaluation was appropriate. |
|
Perry v. Board of Education of Rondout Valley Central School District, (N.Y.A.D. 3, Dept.) |
|
April 10, 2007
Torts - A school district and a bus company were not negligent in designating a school bus stop and stopping a bus in an allegedly dangerous location. A motorist had brought an action against both parties, alleging that he was rear-ended at the subject bus-stop by another vehicle after he stopped behind the school bus. According to the court, however, the motorist failed to offer proof that there was a safer, alternate stop, that either the school district or the bus company had the authority to place a warning sign on the roadway, that either had the duty to request such a sign from the local municipality, or that such a sign would have prevented the accident in the first place. |
|
I am committed to providing individualized service to our clients while dealing with large and complex consultations quickly and professionally whether it involves expert testimony, school reviews, presentations or working with parents or schools to ensure children receive the appropriate education. I take pride in the fact that we respond to our client's needs personally and promptly. We continue to strive to combine the resources of a large firm with the personal consultant-client rapport of a small practice.
Sincerely,
Edward F. Dragan, Ed.D.
Founder and Principal Consultant
Education Management Consulting, LLC |
| Quick Links |
| Learn more about us and how our education and school liability expertise can help.
web: www.edmgt.com
phone:609.397.8989 | |
|
|
|
| June Feature Article |
 |
|
How an Education Expert Can Assist with Child Custody Solutions
Parents, and their attorneys, are increasingly aware that decisions they make about a child's education factor into custody decisions. Issues such as what school a child should attend and the relative quality of education offered in different school systems and schools profoundly impact a child's future choices as well as the quality of life for the child and parents.
Courts throughout the country have not developed a uniform approach to addressing issues involved in relocation requests. Some courts recognize a presumption against removal as a point of departure; others use a presumption in favor of removal; still others presume nothing and rely on a best-interests analysis. (Driscoll, 1997)
Case law places the burden on the custodial parent to show that any move would "significantly improve the quality of life" for the child. (See Gruber v. Gruber, 583 A.2d 434 (Pa. Super. 1990); Lozinak v. Lozinak, 390 Pa. Super. 597, 569 A.2d 353 (1990).) Some courts have incorporated a variation on a best interests analysis and require proof that the child will not suffer from the move. (See Holder v. Polanski, 111 N.J. 344, 544, A.2d 852 (1980); Cooper v. Cooper, 99 N.J. 42, 491 A.2d 606 (1984).
An education expert is not an advocate for one side or the other. The expert is an active and objective participant who has training and the ability to authoritatively and effectively put forth solutions to complex, emotional, and life altering issues.
In custody matters it is critical that lawyers recognize early on the value of the consultant expert. Early intervention helps the expert to undertake a comprehensive and detailed review that is critical to the overall conclusion and recommendation. An education expert can have the greatest beneficial impact when the issues are in their infancy; before emotions run too high and a crucial amount of time has passed.
Other relevant articles are available on our website.
|
|
|
