Do I have a case? And what would the statute of limitations on this be?

[Zigner]

Are you stating that there is a documented requirement that the school is to physically restrain your child? Or, are you stating that there is documented permission given by you for them to restrain your child?

 

[autismmommy]

Is "the doctor who diagnosed him with epilepsy has seen him and monitored him well over 12 months" also military? How about those who performed the three scans?

Not military, civilian.

 

[autismmommy]

Are you stating that there is a documented requirement that the school is to physically restrain your child? Or, are you stating that there is documented permission given by you for them to restrain your child?

I gave the school permission to restrain my son if he was doing something that could cause damage. According the restraint paperwork, they are to restrain him if he has behaviors that cause himself or others harm.

 

[Zigner]

I gave the school permission to restrain my son if he was doing something that could cause damage. According the restraint paperwork, they are to restrain him if he has behaviors that cause himself or others harm.

There is a difference between being ALLOWED to do something and being REQUIRED to do something.

 

[autismmommy]

There is a difference between being ALLOWED to do something and being REQUIRED to do something.

So the paper I signed stated that they are allowed to restrain, but does not require them to intervene if he is hurting himself. I love the legal loop holes this school uses.

 

[Silverplum]

So the paper I signed stated that they are allowed to restrain, but does not require them to intervene if he is hurting himself. I love the legal loop holes this school uses.

As much as the military doctors who serve you?

 

[Zigner]

So the paper I signed stated that they are allowed to restrain, but does not require them to intervene if he is hurting himself. I love the legal loop holes this school uses.

It's not a loophole. It's just not. If ou have enough concerns about your child that you DEMAND that the school serve as quasi-police officers and restrain your child, then your child may not belong in a public school setting.

And, before you go ape over that statement, please realize that THREE of my kids needed to be placed in a non-public school (not private - there is a difference.)

 

[tranquility]

It's not a loophole. It's just not. If ou have enough concerns about your child that you DEMAND that the school serve as quasi-police officers and restrain your child, then your child may not belong in a public school setting.

And, before you go ape over that statement, please realize that THREE of my kids needed to be placed in a non-public school (not private - there is a difference.)

The duty may arise in that the OP's son had an IEP that required son to be mainstreamed with an aide. Instead, the school (later found to be in violation of law for this decision), put the child in a classroom with 8 students overseen by a single teacher. The claim will be a single aide next to the student could have prevented the purported damage more effectively than a single teacher at the front of the room.

The OP would need to prove the following of the prior IEP would have prevented the damage.

I had some problem accepting an IEP with a different district would be transferable to a mandatory degree in a completely different district and state. However, the OP alleges this to already have been found to be the case as the result of a state complaint.

 

[autismmommy]

The duty may arise in that the OP's son had an IEP that required son to be mainstreamed with an aide. Instead, the school (later found to be in violation of law for this decision), put the child in a classroom with 8 students overseen by a single teacher. The claim will be a single aide next to the student could have prevented the purported damage more effectively than a single teacher at the front of the room.

The OP would need to prove the following of the prior IEP would have prevented the damage.

I had some problem accepting an IEP with a different district would be transferable to a mandatory degree in a completely different district and state. However, the OP alleges this to already have been found to be the case as the result of a state complaint.

YES-- the aide would have prevented this from happening. In OH the aide was in place to prevent tantrums, that's what she was required for, that's what the job description said in the IEP that the aide was for-- tantrum mitigation. The aide was trained in what set him off, and then she could prevent him from going into a tantrum by removing him from the situation, or removing the other children, and restraining him preventing him from injurying himself. For the most part, in the OH setting the teacher liked him (the teacher made it emphatically clear she did not like me, or my son from day one), and they did whatever they could to make him comfortable in a mainstream setting. He had ZERO tantrums after the first two weeks of school in OH. He was on target academically, the aide wasn't even assisting him with academics. DS would just tell her when he needed or wanted to go into the sensory room, and she took him there. He would blow off steam, return to the regular classroom and be fine.

According to the interstate compact, the inbound state has to follow the outbound state's IEP until new assessments and IEP are written. The state found in our favor, because I requested the assessments as the district wanted me to sign an illegal IEP without doing assessments that would have taken away services (aka the one-to-one aide). Basically, they placed him in an illegal placement then wanted me to make it legal by signing the IEP. They said I could sign it later. They actually threatened me, telling me that I didn't need to sign the document, and they could enact the IEP. They could legally, but then I would have hired a lawyer, and I'm a really big mouth. I didn't need to sign the IEP, because as I was fighting this IEP situation, was when the whole tantrum and head banging thing happened. After that, I didn't trust the teacher. Not simply because she didn't restrain him, but because he was not given proper medical treatment after the tantrum, and he was not sent to the nurse. I don't care what the law says, you don't allow a child to bang his head against a desk 14 times, then don't provide BASIC first aide, or have a nurse look at him. You call the mother, send him the nurse, and then if necessary call an ambulance. My mom is a 43 year daycare provider (she just retired), and she said if something like that happened in her daycare she would be out of business. The state found that the original IEP was null and void, and that if my son were to ever return to school, that the original IEP would be followed until legal assessments were made.

I will NEVER EVER send him to another public school in Florida.

 

[Zigner]

YES-- the aide would have prevented this from happening.

THAT is the problem you have (from a legal perspective.) It is entirely possible for this to have happened even in the presence of an aide.

 

[Silverplum]

YES-- the aide would have prevented this from happening. In OH the aide was in place to prevent tantrums, that's what she was required for, that's what the job description said in the IEP that the aide was for-- tantrum mitigation. The aide was trained in what set him off, and then she could prevent him from going into a tantrum by removing him from the situation, or removing the other children, and restraining him preventing him from injurying himself. For the most part, in the OH setting the teacher liked him (the teacher made it emphatically clear she did not like me, or my son from day one), and they did whatever they could to make him comfortable in a mainstream setting. He had ZERO tantrums after the first two weeks of school in OH. He was on target academically, the aide wasn't even assisting him with academics. DS would just tell her when he needed or wanted to go into the sensory room, and she took him there. He would blow off steam, return to the regular classroom and be fine.

According to the interstate compact, the inbound state has to follow the outbound state's IEP until new assessments and IEP are written. The state found in our favor, because I requested the assessments as the district wanted me to sign an illegal IEP without doing assessments that would have taken away services (aka the one-to-one aide). Basically, they placed him in an illegal placement then wanted me to make it legal by signing the IEP. They said I could sign it later. They actually threatened me, telling me that I didn't need to sign the document, and they could enact the IEP. They could legally, but then I would have hired a lawyer, and I'm a really big mouth. I didn't need to sign the IEP, because as I was fighting this IEP situation, was when the whole tantrum and head banging thing happened. After that, I didn't trust the teacher. Not simply because she didn't restrain him, but because he was not given proper medical treatment after the tantrum, and he was not sent to the nurse. I don't care what the law says, you don't allow a child to bang his head against a desk 14 times, then don't provide BASIC first aide, or have a nurse look at him. You call the mother, send him the nurse, and then if necessary call an ambulance. My mom is a 43 year daycare provider (she just retired), and she said if something like that happened in her daycare she would be out of business. The state found that the original IEP was null and void, and that if my son were to ever return to school, that the original IEP would be followed until legal assessments were made.

I will NEVER EVER send him to another public school in Florida.

Alrighty then.

 

[tranquility]

YES-- the aide would have prevented this from happening.

Your job would be to prove it.

In OH the aide was in place to prevent tantrums, that's what she was required for, that's what the job description said in the IEP that the aide was for-- tantrum mitigation. The aide was trained in what set him off, and then she could prevent him from going into a tantrum by removing him from the situation, or removing the other children, and restraining him preventing him from injurying himself. For the most part, in the OH setting the teacher liked him (the teacher made it emphatically clear she did not like me, or my son from day one), and they did whatever they could to make him comfortable in a mainstream setting. He had ZERO tantrums after the first two weeks of school in OH. He was on target academically, the aide wasn't even assisting him with academics. DS would just tell her when he needed or wanted to go into the sensory room, and she took him there. He would blow off steam, return to the regular classroom and be fine.

And, this is part of the problem. It is not a reasonable accommodation to have an aide trained in the specific needs of your child so quickly. Comparison of completely different states and classrooms is simply inappropriate. Also, those on the spectrum don't like change. Could the change of conditions been a part of the issue?

According to the interstate compact, the inbound state has to follow the outbound state's IEP until new assessments and IEP are written. The state found in our favor, because I requested the assessments as the district wanted me to sign an illegal IEP without doing assessments that would have taken away services (aka the one-to-one aide). Basically, they placed him in an illegal placement then wanted me to make it legal by signing the IEP. They said I could sign it later. They actually threatened me, telling me that I didn't need to sign the document, and they could enact the IEP. They could legally, but then I would have hired a lawyer, and I'm a really big mouth. I didn't need to sign the IEP, because as I was fighting this IEP situation, was when the whole tantrum and head banging thing happened.

I understand the issues related to the compact. But, it is not so simple.

After that, I didn't trust the teacher. Not simply because she didn't restrain him, but because he was not given proper medical treatment after the tantrum, and he was not sent to the nurse. I don't care what the law says, you don't allow a child to bang his head against a desk 14 times, then don't provide BASIC first aide, or have a nurse look at him. You call the mother, send him the nurse, and then if necessary call an ambulance. My mom is a 43 year daycare provider (she just retired), and she said if something like that happened in her daycare she would be out of business. The state found that the original IEP was null and void, and that if my son were to ever return to school, that the original IEP would be followed until legal assessments were made.

It was not necessary. When you took your son in, a doctor released him quickly. You will need an expert, not your mom in a completely different field, to prove the way things were handled fell below the school's standard of care. Even then, because of the doctor's diagnosis, the way things were handled after the incident is unlikely to be an issue.

I will NEVER EVER send him to another public school in Florida.

There are problems in all the states regarding educational civil rights.

And, even with all that, you will need to prove the banging could have been mitigated with an aide. The legal duty here is not as clear as you think.

 

[Just Blue]

OP there was a very good reason that I asked the question I did. Now if you don't want to share that information, I understand. But at least let me know rather than ignoring the question.