## Facts

- Barbara de Mora’s daughter, Isabella, had developmental delays associated with cerebral palsy.
- When Isabella was about two years old, de Mora sought early-intervention services from the Bucks County Office of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (the county), which provided services under Pennsylvania’s IDEA Part C program administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW).
- The county and de Mora developed an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) providing physical therapy, speech therapy, occupational therapy, and special instruction totaling roughly 24 hours per week.
- After several months, de Mora asked the county to increase therapy hours and to include a different methodology—Lovaas-based discrete-trial training (an intensive behavioral approach). The county refused.
- De Mora then hired a private therapist trained in the Lovaas method to provide home-based services for Isabella.
- De Mora requested a due-process hearing, alleging the IFSP was not appropriate and seeking reimbursement for the private services.
- The hearing officer conducted a “paper hearing” based on written submissions, found the county’s IFSP appropriate, and concluded Isabella was not entitled to additional hours or to the Lovaas methodology.
- The hearing officer did not decide de Mora’s reimbursement claim, reasoning that reimbursement need not be reached given the finding that the IFSP was appropriate.
- De Mora petitioned for review in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the hearing officer’s determination that Isabella’s IFSP was “appropriate” under IDEA Part C and 34 C.F.R. § 303.344 in light of the evidence of Isabella’s progress (or lack of progress) under the services provided.
2. If the IFSP was not appropriate, whether the matter had to be remanded for consideration of reimbursement for the privately obtained Lovaas-based early-intervention services.

## Decision

- The court reversed the hearing officer’s determination that the IFSP was appropriate.
- The court remanded for development of an appropriate IFSP consistent with IDEA Part C requirements.
- The court remanded for further proceedings to consider de Mora’s request for reimbursement for the privately obtained Lovaas-based services.

## Legal Principles

- Under IDEA Part C, an IFSP must be tailored to the child’s identified needs and be reasonably calculated to provide meaningful developmental benefit, as reflected in the child’s actual progress.
- A hearing officer’s appropriateness determination must be supported by substantial evidence in the record; a conclusion based largely on the written plan, without adequate support regarding outcomes, cannot stand.
- Although public agencies are not automatically required to use a parent’s preferred methodology, decision-makers must evaluate record evidence showing whether the chosen approach is working for the individual child.
- When the record indicates limited benefit from components of the existing IFSP and shows significant progress with a different method obtained privately, the agency must account for that evidence in determining what services and methods are required for an appropriate IFSP.
- When a parent properly raises reimbursement for unilateral private early-intervention services, that claim must be addressed if the public program is found inappropriate; it may require fact-finding on remand.

## Conclusion

The Commonwealth Court held that the hearing officer’s finding that Isabella’s IFSP was appropriate was not supported by substantial evidence on this record, reversed that determination, and remanded for creation of an IFSP that meets IDEA Part C requirements and for further proceedings on de Mora’s request for reimbursement for the privately provided Lovaas-based services.


De Mora v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, 768 A.2d 904 (2001)