34 C.F.R. § 300.104
Residential placement
If placement in a public or private residential program is necessary to provide special education and related services to a child with a disability, the program, including non-medical care and room and board, must be at no cost to the parents of the child.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: Muhammad Munir v. Pottsville Area Sch. DIstric, 723 F.3d 423 (3rd Cir. 2013).
Muhammad Munir v. Pottsville Area Sch. DIstric, 723 F.3d 423 (3rd Cir. 2013). “School - districts are responsible for the costs of a disabled child’s placement in a residential program when that placement is “necessary to provide special education and related services.”
Ashland Sch. Dist. v. Parents of Student E.H., 587 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2009). “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.104 ; cf. Carter, 510 U.S.”
Mary Courtney T. v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 575 F.3d 235 (3rd Cir. 2009). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.104 (emphasis added). Thus, we must consider whether the residential placement at SLS was necessary to provide Courtney with special education.”
Ashland Sch. Dist. v. Parents of Student R.J., 588 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2009). “.., are educated with children who are not disabled,” and that “separate schooling .”
PK Ex Rel. PK v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist., 569 F. Supp. 2d 371 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.104 . But in light of the IDEA’S “strong preference for ‘mainstreaming’ ” children with disabilities, Gagliardo v.”
Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. R-1 v. Elizabeth E. Ex Rel. Roxanne B., 702 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2012). “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.104 . On November 20, 2008, the District responded: As you are aware, pursuant to a settlement agreement, the District was in the process of evaluating Elizabeth to develop an individualized education program and appropriate placement for Elizabeth when her…”
M. S. v. L. A. Unified Sch. Dist., 913 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2019). “This "continuum" of alternative placements may include "placement in a public or private residential program, " in the event such a program "is necessary to provide special education and related services to a child with a disability.”
Ashland Sch. Dist. v. Parents of Student R.J., 585 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (D. Or. 2008). “Pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 300.104 , If placement in a public or private residential program is necessary to provide special education and related services to a child with a disability, the program, including non-medical care and room and board, must be at no cost to the parents of…”
M.K. Ex Rel. Mrs. K. v. Sergi, 554 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D. Conn. 2008). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.104 . In Mrs. B. v. Milford Board of Educ.”
Richardson Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael Z. Ex Rel. Leah Z., 561 F. Supp. 2d 589 (N.D. Tex. 2007). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.104 . The parties have not addressed this specific issue in the briefing before the Court.”
Edmonds Sch. Dist. v. A.T., 299 F. Supp. 3d 1135 (W.D. Wash. 2017). “" 34 C.F.R. § 300.104 . The district implicitly argues that Provo is actually a hospital, rather than a school, and should therefore be characterized as a medical facility.”
Jenna R.P. v. The City of Chicago Sch. Dist. No. 229, 2013 IL App (1st) 112247 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.104 (2007). ¶ 50 Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court has ruled: “[P]arents who unilaterally change their child’s placement during the pendency of review proceedings, without the consent of state or local school officials, do so at their own financial…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.