![]() Father argued that the child was a “resident pupil” of two homes and that transportation must be provided to both homes. In support of his claim, Father cited the portion of the School Code which requires a School District to provide free transportation for any “resident pupil”. Thereafter, Father started an action and requested injunctive relief to require the School District to provide transportation to both parents’ residences. In 2012, the School District changed their policy and notified Father that the child could only have one bus stop and that it would be Mother’s residence, as she was the child’s default address. At one point the school permitted the child to have a bus stop at both Mother’s and Father’s residences. Both parties resided within the School District where the child attended school. The parties in Watts shared legal and physical custody of their child on an alternating weekly basis pursuant to a Court Order. ![]() Manheim Township School District, 2015 WL 5033184. The Commonwealth Court previously held that the School District was required to provide transportation to both parents’ residences. In a recently issued decision, the PA Supreme Court was asked to consider whether the Public School Code “mandates that a School District provide free transportation to a student from two different residences where the student’s parents share physical custody of the student and both parents reside within the School District.” The case was before the Supreme Court on an appeal from the Commonwealth Court. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |