Y. Q. v. Chichester School District

── Y. Q. v. Chichester School District ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 08, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-2788 ____________ Y. C. Q., a minor, individually, by and through Educational Decision Maker Renee Platz; RENEE PLATZ, Individually, Appellants v. CHICHESTER SCHOOL DISTRICT ____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court No. 2:25-cv-03574) District Judge: Honorable Kelley B. Hodge ____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on January 15, 2026 ____________ Before: SHWARTZ, CHUNG, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges (Filed: April 8, 2026) ____________ OPINION * ____________ CHUNG, Circuit Judge. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.  We address here the narrow issue of whether, when no Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) is in place, a Special Education Hearing Officer’s order to develop an IEP is an agreement to a new “educational placement” pursuant to the “stay put” provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). We conclude that it is not and will affirm the District Court’s order. I. BACKGROUND 1 Y.C.Q. attends Chichester High School, which is run by defendant Chichester School District (“Chichester”). Y.C.Q. has been diagnosed with anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress, and scored within the “poor range” on the Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence. JA71-73. Renee Platz was appointed by the Family Court of Philadelphia to serve as Y.C.Q.’s Education Decision Maker (“EDM”). 2 Chichester placed Y.C.Q. in an English Language Development (“ELD”) class, with the majority of her courses being taught in English. JA65-66. She was in a general education setting and did not receive special education. JA83. Y.C.Q. struggled to perform academically. JA68. As a result, Platz requested that Chichester perform an 1 Because we write for the parties, we recite only the facts pertinent to our decision. The Background is largely derived from the findings of fact as outlined in the Hearing Officer’s April 14, 2025 Decision (the “Decision”), which are not challenged by the parties. 2 An EDM, pursuant to Pa.R.J.C.P. 1145, is vested with authority to make all decisions regarding a child’s education. See Pa.R.J.C.P 1145; see also In re J.J., 69 A.3d 724, 733 (Pa. Super. 2013). Neither party argues that the EDM does not serve as a “parent” for purposes of the IDEA. 34 C.F.R. § 300.519(g)(1)-(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.30(a)(5). 2 Independent Educational Evaluation of Y.C.Q. Chichester instead filed a due process complaint with the Pennsylvania Office of Dispute Resolution on April 30, 2024. Platz answered Chichester’s due process complaint and filed counterclaims, alleging that, among other things, Chichester denied Y.C.Q.’s right to a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) in violation of the IDEA. A hearing on Platz’s counterclaims was conducted by Hearing Officer Cathy A. Skidmore (“Hearing Officer”) across five days in early 2025. On April 14, 2025, the Hearing Officer concluded that Y.C.Q.