COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In re: Forrest[1] BSEA # 2603889
DECISION
This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), the state special education law (MGL c. 71B), the state Administrative Procedure Act (M.G.L. c. 30A), and the regulations promulgated under these statutes.
A hearing was held on November 5 and 14, 2025 and February 3, 2026, before Hearing Officer Amy Reichbach. With the consent of both parties and agreement of all participants, the Hearing was held virtually, via Zoom videoconference. Those present for all or part of the proceedings were:
Mother
Father
Student
Shannon Dion Team Chair, West Springfield Public Schools
Mary Anne Morris Director of Special Education, West Springfield Public Schools
Christina Rizzo Founder, Executive Director, and Program Director, Tate Behavioral Learning Center
Carol Kusinitz Court Reporter
The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by Parents and marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-7;[2] documents submitted by West Springfield Public Schools and marked as Exhibits S-1 to S-12; approximately two and one-half days of oral testimony and argument; and a three-volume transcript produced by a court reporter. The parties requested that the Hearing be continued to April 2, 2026, to submit written closing arguments, which request was allowed for good cause. The District filed its closing argument on March 31, 2026, and the record closed on April 2, 2026.[3]
INTRODUCTION
On October 1, 2025, Parents filed a Hearing Request against West Springfield Public Schools (West Springfield, or the District) on behalf of Forrest, a then nineteen-year-old[4] resident of West Springfield, asserting that since he received his certificate of attainment from West Springfield in June 2024, Forrest has not received the appropriate transition services to which he is entitled until the age of 22. Parents also contend that they declined 2025 extended school year (ESY) services at Tate Behavioral Learning Center (Tate, or TLC), Forrest’s then-current placement, to permit him to recover from several incidents that had occurred there; that Tate refused to permit him to return in the fall of 2025; and that he is currently without a placement. The Hearing was scheduled for November 5, 2025, and the matter was assigned to Hearing Officer Sara Berman.
On October 14, 2025, Parents filed a Change of Hearing Date Request Form, asking that the Hearing be advanced because Student was then without a placement. No formal action was taken on this request, but scheduling was discussed during Conference Calls on October 20 and 23, 2025.
West Springfield filed a document entitled Status Response (Response). Although this Response is undated, it refers to actions taken by the District up to and including October 21, 2025; presumably, it was filed on or after that date. According to West Springfield, in April 2024 Forrest, who had been attending an in-district program but had been displaying aggressive behavior toward peers, was placed by West Springfield at Tate, a private day school. During his time at Tate, Forrest displayed significant aggressive behavior toward peers and staff, resulting in documented injuries to both Forrest and Tate staff. In January 2025, Parents expressed concern regarding the lack of transition skills instruction and support at Tate. In late spring 2025, Parents informed West Springfield that they intended to send Forrest to a recreational camp rather than to ESY services at TLC. West Springfield declined to fund the camp and instead maintained and funded the ESY placement at Tate. In June 2025, Parents indicated that they would not send Forrest back to Tate. The District attempted to locate another placement without success. On September 30, 2025, Parents accepted the most recently proposed individualized educational program (IEP) and placement in full and requested that Forrest resume attendance at Tate immediately. District personnel explained that transportation would have to be secured. In the interim, West Springfield received notice from Tate that Forrest had been discharged. Since that date, the District has continued to propose alternative private day placements, including the Center School, and to offer virtual tutoring. Although Parents consented to several referrals, they declined Center School and virtual tutoring.
On October 28, 2025, West Springfield provided an additional update regarding the status of referrals made by the District, indicating, among other things, that Forrest remained without a placement.
On October 28, 2025, Hearing Officer Berman issued an Order extending the due date for submission of exhibits and witness lists to the close of business on November 3, 2025.
On November 3, 2025, the matter was transferred to the undersigned Hearing Officer for administrative reasons. A Conference Call took place on November 4, 2025, to finalize the issues for Hearing.[5] Those issues are as follows:
1. Whether West Springfield has deprived Student of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) because the District has not located a placement for him for the 2025-2026 School year;
2. Whether West Springfield violated Student’s right to a FAPE by failing to seek enforcement of Student’s stay-put rights at his prior placement;
3. Whether Parents have impeded West Springfield’s efforts to locate a placement for Student by refusing to have Student participate in virtual tutoring; refusing to consider the Center School; refusing to consent to other referrals proposed by the District, and/or other similar conduct; and/or
4. Whether Student is entitled to compensatory services.
At the end of the first day of Hearing, on November 5, 2025, West Springfield filed an assented-to request to continue the Hearing to November 14, 2025, to permit the District to complete the presentation of its evidence. That request was allowed for good cause on the same day. On November 14, 2025, the parties requested a longer continuance to explore potential resolution. Their request was allowed for good cause. The matter did not resolve, and the third day of hearing took place on February 3, 2026.
For the reasons below, I conclude that Forrest has not been provided with a FAPE since September 28, 2025, and that West Springfield must provide compensatory services in the form of services and placement, consistent with his IEP (including extended school year services), for a period of time beyond Forrest’s twenty-second birthday. To the extent that Forrest is not attending Oak Hill or a similar program at the time this decision is issued, within 10 days of the issuance of this decision, West Springfield must begin providing Forrest with all services on his last accepted IEP within the District, and must continue doing so until Forrest begins attending an out of district placement.[6]
FINDINGS OF FACT[7]
1. Forrest is a 19-year-old resident of West Springfield, Massachusetts, in the permanent guardianship of Parents, pursuant to an Order of the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court. Forrest enjoys going for walks, being read to, using the trampoline, and playing music. Forrest has been diagnosed with autism and presents with significant impairments in communication, cognition, and daily living skills. His scores on cognitive assessments fall in the extremely low and very poor ranges. He is a complex, multimodal communicator who uses mostly unconventional behaviors (whole body movements, reaching, taking, etc.), conventional movements (pointing, waving, etc.), vocalizations, and aided Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) devices. Forrest has struggled with incidents of aggressive behavior and non-compliance for many years. (P-1, P-5; S-1; Mother, I: 75)
2. According to Mother, Forrest is currently independent at home except that he needs help with academic tasks, and he benefits from “a little bit of soft touch or reassurance.” (Mother, I: 77-78)
3. Forrest has been working with a private speech therapist for approximately 16 years, as Parents believed the speech services that West Springfield provided for him when he was younger were ineffective. (Mother, I: 76-77) In fact, Mother believes Forrest would have been better served in a specialized school serving other students with similar diagnoses, and she testified that she has been asking for this since Forrest was in the third grade. (Mother, I: 78, 89)
4. Mother believes Forrest had great potential when he transitioned from elementary school to West Springfield Middle School (WSMS). In the spring of 2019, while at WSMS, Forrest engaged in functional activities in the school library. According to Mother, Forrest was an honors student in middle school. (P-4; Mother, I: 40, 78, 80)
5. Following middle school, Forrest attended West Springfield High School (WSHS), where he received consulting and behavioral services and staffing through Behavior Services of Western Mass (BSWM). (P-2) BSWM is a private applied behavior analysis (ABA) company that provides board-certified behavior analysis (BCBA) consultation and direct staffing. (Rozzo, I: 117)
6. Mother believes that Forrest should have been placed in an out-of-district program rather than at WSHS, and she requested as much. She expressed dissatisfaction with Forrest’s classroom in the high school's basement. Mother objected to an IEP goal that targeted learning to clean a toilet and described an incident in which Forrest refused to clean the toilet at school, then “whooped the teacher” who had instructed him to do the cleaning. (Mother, I: 79-81, 108)
7. According to Mother, the District’s decision to contract with BSWM to provide services for Forrest as early as September 2023 demonstrates that he was not receiving a FAPE, as those services were not provided by the public school itself. As such, Forrest is entitled to compensatory services. (Mother, I: 38-39, 71, 79)
8. During his last months at West Springfield, Forrest was placed in a substantially separate classroom of twelve, where the District was double-staffing him with a District paraprofessional and a paraprofessional from BSWM. Forrest was able to sustain safe behavior for periods of time, but he would then engage in high-intensity, severe incidents, such as attacking peers and staff. (Rizzo, II: 118-19)
9. At Hearing, Mother testified that she was not aware that Forrest had behavior problems while he was in West Springfield. (Mother, I: 106)
10. Parents were concerned that Forrest was being secluded at WSHS, and that while he was receiving behavioral services through BSWM, he was receiving no teaching, speech therapy, occupational therapy, or other services through the District. At some point, Mother requested that West Springfield consider TLC for Forrest. (Mother, I: 74)
11. From January to May 2024, Forrest participated in an extended evaluation at Tate. (Rizzo, I: 116, II: 178) The District described Forrest to Tate personnel as having some significant daily living skill needs, a need for support with challenging behavior, and a strong trigger response to sounds, particularly those that surprised him and those of other people around him who were dysregulated. (Rizzo, I: 120) Before Forrest began his extended evaluation, Tate’s Program Director, Christina Rizzo, informed West Springfield that Tate did not have sufficient staff to support him one-on-one. As a result, Tate and the District agreed that West Springfield would continue to contract with BSWM to provide behavior service professionals who know and have worked with Forrest. (Rizzo, I: 118)
12. During the extended evaluation, BSWM provided direct staffing by several individuals who rotated on a full-time schedule, and consultation with a BCBA, while Tate staff provided additional support to ensure safety as Tate’s own paraprofessional staff got to know Forrest. (P-2; Mother, I: 71-73; Rizzo, I: 118-19, II: 154-56) According to Parent, during the extended evaluation, Tate was “evaluating him. They were not educating him.” (Mother, I: 73-74) Ms. Rizzo testified, however, that all services outlined on Forrest’s IEP were delivered by Tate’s special education teacher and related specialists during his extended evaluation. (Rizzo, I: 116)
13. According to Ms. Rizzo, Forrest’s paraprofessionals helped him to become familiar with the building when he first started at Tate, and staff read to him often, as he loves books. Forrest was then integrated into a cohort of five high schoolers, most of whom use AAC devices to communicate. During work blocks, Forrest would work one-to-one on his academic goals, primarily using discrete trial training. During physical breaks, Forrest would walk outside the building, as would his peers, and he would access afternoon activities which often pushed out into the community. (Rizzo, I: 120-22)
14. During Forrest’s extended evaluation, Tate’s behavior analyst, Erica Nason, administered Essential for Living, an assessment of Forrest’s daily living skills. (Rizzo, I: 117) Tate’s speech therapist and occupational therapist also worked with Forrest during this time. (Rizzo, I: 155-56)
15. Tate shares a campus and parking lot with the Jewish Community Center (JCC), though the two are not affiliated. As a result, TLC students’ community exposure often includes the JCC, where they ring the doorbell, encounter unfamiliar security personnel who ask questions, use a fob, approach the front desk, etc. Some students in Forrest’s cohort worked out at the JCC, and some were ultimately assigned jobs there. Forrest would go to the JCC to explore, though his trips were fairly brief as he did not appear very motivated to be there. (Rizzo, I: 123-24)
16. Parents requested that Forrest’s community exposure include a library outside of the Tate campus. Tate set up a program for Forrest in which he would go to the Longmeadow Public Library in a Tate vehicle, with a minimum of two-to-one staffing. Forrest would choose texts that the teacher would read to him, which he appeared to enjoy. When he showed signs of wanting to leave, they would return to the school. (Rizzo, II: 122-23)
17. Following the extended evaluation, Forrest’s Team convened for his annual review on May 7, 2024. An IEP was developed following that meeting (initial 2024-2025 IEP), but there is no evidence in the record regarding its content other than that Forrest’s placement was changed from an in-district program at WSHS to a private day school. Based on a Notice of Proposed Action (N1) associated with a meeting that occurred in October 2024, it appears that Parents partially rejected the initial 2024-2025 IEP, requesting that the Team discuss employment and vocational skills, but accepted placement. Forrest was placed at Tate in May 2024. (S-1; Rizzo, II: 171, 78)
18. The Team did not convene to discuss the rejected portions of the IEP until October 8, 2024, at which time the initial 2024-2025 IEP was updated and reissued to include a goal area in employment skills and changes to language regarding instructional methodology. (S-1) At some point, Parents returned the Response Section of an IEP dated 10/8/2024 to 5/7/2025. Though they had checked “I reject the IEP entirely,” they had also written, “I rejected the IEP except for communication and employment community goal and no vocational [illegible] indicated.” This statement was dated 11/24/24. Parents requested a meeting to discuss the rejections, and they consented again to the Team’s proposed placement of Forrest in a separate private day school setting. (P-6)
19. During and after Forrest’s extended evaluation, Tate was working with him on several targeted behaviors, including tolerating others’ target behaviors, transitioning to work activities, accepting “no,” self-regulation, aggression against objects, aggression against persons, and tolerating touch. The record includes multiple reports of restraints (up to four separate restraints in one day, on four separate occasions), at least one of which required reporting to the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). (S-3; Mother, I: 45)
20. At Hearing, Mother expressed her discontent that she was informed of these incidents by Tate, rather than by West Springfield. (Mother, I: 45, 48-50)
21. In October 2024, Forrest was involved in several behavioral incidents at school and on the bus, most of which involved Forrest becoming frustrated (often by the behavior of peers, particularly younger peers who ran, darted, and screamed in a high-pitched tones), putting his hands up, and charging at other students and/or staff.[8] When Forrest became escalated like this, he would attempt to grab and bite. At times, restraints were required. (P-3; S-1, S-3; Rizzo, I: 127-29)
22. During one such incident, on October 7, 2024, Forrest was outside the JCC with his AAC, in a fenced-in area on the playground, where he enjoyed walking and talking with staff. He was one-to-one with a staff person when another student from Tate, also accompanied by his one-to-one staff member, walked toward the playground. The other student, who often makes loud noises, began vocalizing, which was disruptive to Forrest. Forrest stood up and attempted to attack the other student. Immediately, additional staff members were called to intervene, and Forrest bit one staff member on the hand. Measures employed to get Forrest to release the bite, while multiple staff members had to apply restraints in the process of working to de-escalate and attempt to stabilize him, resulted in the loss of one of Forrest’s teeth. (P-3; S-1, S-3; Rizzo, I: 124-26)
23. Following this incident, it became clear to Ms. Rizzo that although Forrest was mostly redirectable and his dangerous behavior was infrequent, he could be triggered without warning and move quickly from a calm state to aggression. “[O]ut of an abundance of caution,” Tate took additional restrictive measures, including restrictions on Forrest’s time in the community. (Rizzo, I; 126-28)
24. Forrest’s Team held an emergency meeting on October 25, 2024 to discuss the incidents described above. Parents requested counseling services and reimbursement for replacing Forrest’s tooth. They asked about after school “compensatory services” and travel training for Forrest. (S-1)
25. Following this meeting, West Springfield contacted three different agencies regarding counseling for Forrest. (S-1) On November 1, 2024, the District applied for an alternative travel training program on behalf of Forrest. (S-1)
26. Tate staff recognized that Forrest might be experiencing trauma after the event on the playground. Although Forrest did not express anxiety, his family wanted Tate to employ a multidisciplinary approach moving forward. Staff sought support from the speech team to reassure Forrest that Tate was still safe for him, in part through social stories and by previewing safety expectations. The speech team also assisted in creating a plan to help staff process future incidents of frustration with Forrest verbally, visually, and on his AAC device, encouraging him to use the AAC to ask for breaks and other things he needed. A staff member trained in trauma-informed care reached out to Forrest’s family, got to know Forrest, and folded in debriefing opportunities for him. These measures were not reflected in Forrest’s IEP. (Rizzo, I: 134-37)
27. While at Tate, Forrest displayed excellent in-seat learning skills. He would come to the table for discrete trial work responsive and motivated to learn. He worked with a staff member one-to-one across different modes on basic math skills such as identifying numbers, rote counting, and counting manipulatives. In reading, Forrest was working on identifying CVC words and their corresponding pictures and was familiar with some sight words, particularly community-based words. Forrest wanted to be successful, and he would look to the staff member working with him to ensure that he had done a task correctly before moving on to the next trial. Forrest needed frequent breaks and a high volume of praise as reinforcement. Throughout his time at Tate, across all activities, Forrest needed one-to-one and sometimes two-to-one support. (Rizzo, I: 130-33)
28. Ms. Rizzo described Forrest’s post-secondary transition services as focused on functional daily living skills across settings beyond the one-to-one dynamic. For example, Forrest’s instruction included making purchases; setting a table; counting objects; reading signs to increase his safety in the building and the community; and activities of daily living, such as learning to fold and manage clothing. (Rizzo, I: 133-34)
29. Forrest’s Team reconvened on November 20, 2024 to discuss an independent psychoeducational evaluation completed by Dr. Elena Davis, which documented extremely low cognitive abilities across all areas. At this time, the Team also revisited Parents’ request for counseling services and other concerns they had raised.[9] (P-7; S-1)
During the meeting, Tate staff reported that traditional talk therapy would not be effective for Forrest. They noted that it would be important to identify a provider skilled in working with individuals with limited vocal/verbal skills. Tate staff recommended that therapeutic support services be delivered through a consultative model that includes the establishment of a common language and approach between school and home, and that may include facets of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) focused on distress tolerance, modified to meet Forrest’s needs; Tate staff also expressed that they would like “recommendations from a consultant who can assist with effective communication around [Forrest’s] behaviors focused on honouring [sic] and labeling emotions.” Dr. Davis was asked whether counseling services would be appropriate for Forrest. She agreed with Tate staff that counseling support for Forrest would be different from traditional therapy; that it might be difficult to find a provider; and that a largely consultative model, providing school staff with strategies to implement (such as identifying emotions, which school staff had reported they were doing with Forrest), might be an effective approach. Dr. Davis also noted that some agencies might provide in-home supports. Forrest’s Transition Coordinator from the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) attended the meeting and agreed to attempt to locate such in-home counseling services and/or supports through her contacts at DDS. Mother responded that she was seeking services from the District, not from DDS. (S-1) Parents maintain that West Springfield should be providing counseling for Forrest’s trauma and post-traumatic stress, which arose largely from his experiences at Tate (including the loss of his tooth). (Mother, I: 90-91)
The Team discussed Parents’ request for after-school (extended day) services. Although extended day services had been removed from Forrest’s IEP during the annual review meeting that took place on May 7, 2024, Tate had been providing such services until October 22, 2024, when they were discontinued after Forrest bit a staff member. Following this incident, Tate informed the District that, going forward, after-school services could not be provided, as there was no full safety team during these hours to respond to another high-level aggressive behavior. (S-1)
30. Following the November 20, 2024, Team meeting, Forrest’s Team proposed an IEP for the period from November 20, 2024 to May 7, 2025 (revised 2024-2025 IEP). Forrest’s revised 2024-2025 IEP includes Goals in Math, Reading Skills, Social Emotional, Communication, Independent Living Skills, and Employment Skills; a number of classroom accommodations; and a plethora of services. Specifically, the C-Grid provides for Special Education provided by a special education teacher (1 x 30 minutes/week); Behavior Support provided by a BCBA (2 x 30 minutes/week); Speech and Language therapy provided by a speech language pathologist (SLP) or speech language pathology assistant (SLPA) (2 X 45 minutes/week); occupational therapy provided by an occupational therapist (OT) or certified occupational therapy assistant (COTA) (1 x 30 minutes/week); and special education support provided by a special education teacher or paraprofessional (5 x 360 minutes/week). In addition, Grid A provided for consultation in a range of areas.[10] Specialized transportation and ESY services were also proposed, on the same schedule, within TLC’s full-year, 222-day program. (P-7; S-1)
31. On or about December 17, 2024, Parents returned the signature pages for the revised 2024-2025 IEP. They checked the box to reject the IEP in its entirety, but noted again that they were rejecting it except for communication and employment goals. Parents again accepted placement in a separate private day school. (P-7)
32. Mother was dissatisfied with the transition services provided by Tate for Forrest. (Mother, I: 39) She testified that as Forrest had been able to get some training in middle school by going to the library, he should have been receiving that kind of training at a grocery store or other placement as preparation for community involvement through work or a volunteer job. (Mother, I: 40, 84)
33. During the spring of 2025, some concerning incidents occurred in the hallways and classrooms at Tate, where Forrest displayed attacking behaviors and additional staff injuries occurred. Forrest’s family continued to express concerns about his trauma. In or about April 2025, Tate moved Forrest to a solo classroom, a large space adjoining the main high school classroom, for his work blocks with his one-to-one paraprofessional. Forrest was permitted to participate in social opportunities throughout the day, such as morning meeting, lunch, and afternoon meeting, but he was not forced to go if he did not want to. Tate staff noticed, however, that whereas previously Forrest was mainly triggered by younger peers, he had started attempting to attack similarly sized and aged students. A teacher who intervened was hurt badly. The Team created a program around de-escalation, incorporating evidence-based practices such as counting and deep breathing that Forrest could utilize once directed by an adult to sit down. Forrest was working on these skills one-to-one throughout this period. By March or April, Ms. Rizzo felt that Forrest was making progress in learning to be responsive to whoever was supporting him after he showed signs that he might charge or attack. She was hoping that with more progress in managing his frustration, these additional restrictive supports could be faded and Tate might be able to expose Forrest to other settings again. (Rizzo, I: 138-41; II: 163-64, 167-68)
34. Shortly after Tate transitioned Forrest to the solo classroom, Parents were invited to visit the space. (Rizzo, II: 161, 163)
35. Parents objected to these programmatic changes. Tate maintained that serious safety concerns prevented Forrest from spending time in the community, as TLC staff did not believe they could ensure Forrest’s safety or that of others around him in such settings. (S-3; Mother, I: 41, 45) Mother described Forrest as being “in a semi-seclusion, because he was in a room by himself,” which she believed violated his right to social inclusion and made him depressed. (Mother, I: 83; Rizzo, II: 165) Although Mother testified that the door to the room where Forrest was located was locked, Ms. Rizzo explained that the door is accessible by students and staff and that she did not remember it being locked. (Mother, I: 83-84; Rizzo, II: 164-65)
36. In late spring of 2025, Parents indicated that Forrest would not participate in Tate’s ESY program that summer. Parents preferred to send Forrest to a recreational camp, as they believed he was depressed and needed to recuperate, particularly as West Springfield refused to provide him with psychological counseling. The camp would be funded in part by DDS and Parents requested that the District fund the remainder. (Mother, I: 46, 50; Dion, III: 204-05, 261; Morris, III: 285)
37. When West Springfield Director of Special Education Mary Anne Morris contacted the camp, she was told that the District would need to provide aides to staff Forrest at a two-to-one ratio, given his level of need. West Springfield agreed to these conditions, but the District was unable to locate the required staff and, as such, did not ultimately fund the recreational camp for Forrest. The District maintained and funded Forrest’s ESY placement at Tate, but Parents kept him home during the summer. (Mother, I: 68; Rizzo, I: 142-43; Dion, III: 204-05, 231, 263-64; Morris, III: 285-86, 295, 298)
38. At this time, West Springfield’s plan was for Forrest to return to Tate for the 2025-2026 school year. Even so, as of late March 2025, the District proactively began sending referrals for Forrest to other private schools. (S-2; Dion, III: 247-48)
39. Ms. Rizzo was surprised to learn of Parents’ decision not to send Forrest to Tate over the summer, as she believed he was making progress in his ability to calm down when frustrated, and she was concerned that he would regress in these skills without the services and structure of Tate. (Rizzo, I: 142)
40. On July 2, 2025, Mother received an email from the Massachusetts Inclusive Higher Education (MAIHE) program in response to her inquiry regarding Forrest. MAIHE personnel explained that Forrest could not participate in concurrent enrollment because he was enrolled in a private day school, whereas MAIHE supports students enrolled in local school districts’ transition programs.[11] (S-2; Mother, I: 47-48, 95)
41. Also on July 2, 2025, Parents emailed Dr. Morris to inform her that Forrest would not be returning to Tate, in part because that placement disqualified him from MAIHE and, according to Mother, because Dr. Morris had previously communicated that Tate was not a qualified private school. (S-2; Mother, I: 46-48; Rizzo, I: 137)
42. Dr. Morris responded to Parents the same day, suggesting a virtual meeting and informing Parents that Tate “is now approved by the state as a private special education school.” Dr. Morris explained that if Parents were not willing to send Forrest back to Tate in September, the District would need to send referral packets to other private day schools. (S-2)
43. Over the spring and summer of 2025, Shannon Dion began familiarizing herself with Forrest’s records. She attended one meeting for him in June 2025 and became his Team Chair at the beginning of the 2025-2026 school year. As Team Chair, Ms. Dion collects and sends out documents to families, including consents and other forms; she also schedules meetings for students, convenes Teams to develop IEPs, and assists parents in ensuring they have access to community services and other supports. (Dion, III: 203-04, 264)
44. When Ms. Dion became Forrest’s Team Chair, she understood that Parents were dissatisfied with Tate and concerned about transition planning and access to community supports. She reached out to Parents to discuss their intentions regarding Forrest’s return to Tate. (Dion, III: 204-5)
45. At Hearing, Mother testified that Parents would have been willing to have Forrest return to Tate only if he was offered a transition program there, as they believed he had not received any transition services during the previous school year. (Mother, I: 82)
46. Aware of Parents’ concerns, West Springfield intended to meet with Tate to discuss additional supports to help stabilize Forrest and reengage him in transition services with community access. (Dion, III: 237-39) There is no evidence in the record that such a meeting ever occurred.
47. Mother spoke with Ms. Dion in August or September 2025, at which time she requested that West Springfield permit Forrest to return to the transitional program at WSHS. Mother testified that Ms. Dion agreed to this request and told Mother she would receive a form to sign to effectuate this change, but that later the same day, Dr. Morris sent an email to Mother stating that Forrest would not be permitted to return to WSHS. Ms. Dion, on the other hand, testified that she and Mother discussed Parents’ concerns about transition planning at Tate, her desire to explore other options, and the fact that Forrest’s previous transition plan was unsigned. According to Ms. Dion, her response to Mother’s request that Forrest return to WSHS was that she would share it with administrators, after which a meeting would be held to determine placement. (Mother, I: 57-60; Dion, III: 226-31)
48. Despite Parents expressing to the District that they were unwilling to have Forrest continue at Tate without additional transition support, West Springfield’s plan remained to have Forrest return to Tate at the beginning of the 2025-2026 school year. The District was aware that Forrest was not attending school, as West Springfield had not submitted a formal request to the District’s transportation coordinator to reinstate transportation.[12] Ms. Dion testified that West Springfield was “exploring him not just returning to Tate, but what the wishes were and why there was a little bit of a barrier in regards to that.” Asked why the District wasn’t providing services in some other way, given that Forrest had not attended Tate or any other school or program for the first month of the school year, Ms. Dion testified that a few referrals were being sent out and that virtual tutoring was offered “to see if we could provide service, for us to be able to meet as a team.” (Dion, III: 266-69; Morris, III: 308) According to Ms. Dion, personnel transitions were occurring within West Springfield during the month that Forrest was not receiving any services, which “made it a little bit more challenging.” (Dion, III: 270-71)
49. Dr. Morris acknowledged West Springfield did not offer services for Forrest during the beginning of the school year, which she estimated to be about three weeks, “in the hopes that the Parent would reconsider, as we were... trying to look at other placements, but we still had an active placement open at Tate.” (Morris, III: 287)
50. Tate sent a letter dated 9/28/25, signed by Ms. Rizzo, addressed “To the West Springfield Public Schools.” The body of the letter stated: “We regret to inform you that we are discharging [Forrest] from the Tate Learning Center Program effective 9/28/25. We have separately notified the family of this decision. Please reach out to me directly with any questions.” (S-2)
51. The letter from Tate to West Springfield provided no reasons for Forrest’s discharge, nor did it provide any advance notice or include a termination plan. (S-2)
52. At Hearing, Dr. Morris stated that she did not know whether Forrest had been terminated on an emergency or planned basis. She testified that she was aware Tate should have given the District notice prior to discharge but failed to do so. (Morris, III: 327-28)
53. As Forrest was not attending or present at Tate at the time of his discharge, it was not an emergency termination. At hearing, Ms. Rizzo acknowledged that although it was a planned termination, Tate did not reach out to West Springfield to inform the District that it needed to hold a Team meeting before Forrest’s placement was terminated. Ms. Rizzo also testified that Tate did not intend to hold Forrest’s placement open while the District convened to locate a new placement. Ms. Rizzo stated that she expressed to West Springfield that Tate was willing to help with Forrest’s transition to a different program, but she admitted that Tate did not develop a written termination plan for Forrest. (Rizzo, II: 179)
54. At Hearing, Ms. Rizzo testified that the paramount reason for Forrest’s discharge from Tate was safety. (Rizzo, II: 176-77) According to Ms. Rizzo, it would not be appropriate for Forrest to return to Tate, as his setting had become very restrictive by May and June of 2025, such that he was one-to-one in a separate classroom and five to seven people were required to maintain safety during incidents, sometimes without success. (Rizzo, I: 144) Moreover, Tate could not function as an interim placement for Forrest because between June and September, while West Springfield was funding Forrest’s ESY placement that he was not attending, Tate had accepted some younger students who were noisy. Ms. Rizzo was concerned about the safety issues that might occur were Forrest to return. (Rizzo, I: 146)
55. On or about September 30, 2025, Mother visited the Central Office of the West Springfield Public Schools. She provided a signed copy accepting in full the revised 2024-2025 IEP, including placement at a private school.[13] Mother indicated that she wanted Forrest to resume attending Tate the following day. Dr. Morris responded that she would need time to notify Tate so Tate could ensure that proper staffing was in place, and to contact the transportation vendor to resume transportation. (S-1; Morris, III: 301-06) Ms. Dion reached out to Tate to inform staff that Forrest would be returning. At this time, Ms. Dion was unaware that TLC was discontinuing his enrollment.[14] (Dion, III: 235-360, 271-72)
56. Once West Springfield became aware that Forrest had been discharged from Tate, Ms. Dion began investigating schools in the area that might be able to implement Forrest’s IEP. (Dion, III: 205-06, 249) The only possible program that appeared to have an immediate opening was the Center School (Center, or Center School). (Morris, III: 288-89)
57. Mother testified that she was surprised that Tate would not allow Forrest to return, and that when she learned of this development, she would have wanted Forrest “to go to any school the District want[ed] to offer, but it has to be a proper school.” (Mother, I: 85)
58. The N1 generated by West Springfield on or about October 2, 2025, indicated that Dr. Morris had shared Forrest’s discharge from Tate with Mother during her visit on September 30, 2025. Under the section describing rejected options, the N1 noted that Dr. Morris had proposed a referral and a visit to Center, both of which Parents refused; referrals to the Branches School of the Berkshires (Branches) and Hillcrest Educational Centers (Hillcrest); and virtual tutoring, “[a]s the district does not have options for other private day placements at this time.” Parents had requested placement at the WSHS Transitions Program, which the District denied because it would entail a change to a less restrictive placement that could not support Forrest’s needs, including safety issues. (S-1; Dion, III: 281)
59. For each possible placement, the District generated a consent form that was sent to Parents as a pdf via email, through DocuSign for an electronic signature, and/or by regular (“snail”) mail. Parents were also notified that they could sign consent forms in the Central Office if they preferred to do so. (Dion, III: 212-13)
60. Around this time, West Springfield proposed an Amendment to Forrest’s revised 2024-2025 IEP, dated September 30, 2025 and signed by a District Representative on October 8, 2025. The Amendment, which added a 1:1 paraprofessional to the IEP grid for both school year and ESY services, does not appear to have been signed by Parents. Nevertheless, it was included in referral packets sent to potential programs to clarify Forrest’s need for this service. According to Ms. Dion, a 1:1 paraprofessional had been “loosely stated” in the C-Grid of the IEP itself, but the Amendment was meant to clarify the level of support he needed, based on feedback from Tate. (S-6; Dion, III: 211, 249, 265-66)
61. On its face, the Amendment appears to be associated with an IEP dated 11/20/2024 to 11/19/2025, though there is no evidence in the record that an IEP was ever actually proposed for this period. (S-6) Moreover, there is no indication that Forrest’s Team convened in connection with the development of the Amendment.
62. Dr. Morris believes Center School would be a good option for Forrest, as it offers transition services through a multidisciplinary approach and a range of vocational services and opportunities, in the school and the local community. (S-1, S-2; Mother, I: 50-51) Ms. Dion, who has visited multiple Center School sites, agrees. She identified one site in particular, Northampton Street, that has bike paths and a pool for therapeutic adaptive swimming; community outreach and events with additional staffing; ESY and extended day programming; a transition coordinator that provides ongoing support and assessments for students; and an educational director who is a BCBA and provides ongoing training and support for students. (Dion, III: 282-83) According to Ms. Rizzo, Center, located in Holyoke, is a “sister school” of Tate’s, but it is better equipped to handle Forrest’s needs. Center School serves a similar demographic of students, primarily those with academic profiles similar to Forrest’s who use AACs to communicate. Center School uses similar speech and communication strategies and supports to those employed at Tate. Unlike TLC, Center School has “safe rooms,” or spaces that are padded where students can go to proactively access breaks or staff can guide them there. (Rizzo, I: 143-45)
63. Parents refused to visit Center and denied consent for West Springfield to send a referral packet for Forrest. According to Mother, Center is a very “poor” school. Because of what she learned through someone who works there, and/or someone whose child attends Center, it is not appropriate for Forrest, and Parents would not send him there. (S-1; Mother, I: 50-52)
64. The District sent a redacted IEP to Center; in or about October 2025, West Springfield learned that Center might be able to provide Forrest with a placement. West Springfield maintains that Center is an appropriate placement for Forrest and Dr. Morris has attempted repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, to convince Mother to consider Center for Forrest. (S-2; Dion, III: 281-82; Morris, III: 289)
65. Dr. Morris continued to offer virtual tutoring for academics and for speech, as Mother had explained that Forrest is often alone in the home and the District cannot have a tutor work with a student in-person unless another adult is present in the home. (Morris, III: 288, 293) According to Mother, virtual tutoring would not and will not work for Forrest; because he is often alone, no one is available to help him log on to a computer to participate. (Mother, I: 56-57) Ms. Dion agreed that virtual tutoring, by itself, would not be sufficient to educate Forrest; he would need additional support as well as access to direct instruction. (Dion, III: 269)
66. Dr. Morris was unwilling to explore tutoring for Forrest in a school building or a library, given concerns about his unsafe behaviors in the community. (Morris, III: 310-12, 315)
67. Mother maintains that Forrest could have been (and could still be) placed in the transition program at WSHS while West Springfield seeks a subsequent placement for him, but she believes that Dr. Morris is scared to allow him to return to the District. (Mother, I: 95)
68. On or about October 2, 2025, West Springfield sent Parents through Docusign one document requesting consent for a placement referral for both Hillcrest and Branches. On or about October 15, 2025, West Springfield sent the same request for consent to send packets to Hillcrest and Branches, again through Docusign. (S-2; Mother, I: 65)
69. On or about October 15, 2025, after Mother emailed Ms. Dion, noting that she preferred to receive consent forms in hard copy through the mail, West Springfield mailed a copy of the request for consent to Parents. (S-2; Mother, I: 65-66) Mother also indicated that she wanted to receive individualized consent forms for each program, as she objected to Branches, which she referred to as “psych ward” or a “psych school.” (S-2; Mother, I: 62, 65-67) Asked at Hearing why she believes Branches is a psychiatric facility, Mother acknowledged that she saw on Branches’ website that it is a fully approved educational school with ABA for children with autism that uses the Massachusetts curriculum frameworks, but testified that she had done her own due diligence in looking up additional information about Branches, including reviews. (Mother, I: 100-02)
70. As of October 21, 2025, West Springfield had sent out at least five referral packets to schools since the spring. According to an undated document entitled “[Forrest] Referral Tracker,” a referral was made to MAIHE at Holyoke Community College (HCC) on August 6, 2025 but no response had been received; an email of acknowledgement had been sent to the District by the River School on August 6, 2025, but no response had been received; and Gengras had responded on August 19, 2025 that it would not move forward with placement as it lacked availability in an appropriate classroom. The Tracker also listed a referral to MAIHE at HCC on March 31, 2025, with no response; a response from the May Center in April, at which point the referral was withdrawn due to Forrest’s placement elsewhere; and referrals to the Gengras Center and River Street, with no response received. (S-2)
Exhibits submitted by the District include a Release of Confidential Information signed by Parents for each of the following programs: the Gengras Center (dated 3/20/24); MAIHE at HCC (dated 3/20/25); River Street (dated 3/20/25); and the May Center (dated 3/20/25). (S-2)
71. On or about October 24, 2025, the May Center School communicated to West Springfield that it could not meet Forrest’s needs. (S-2) River Street also declined Forrest’s referral, as it did not have openings for a student of Forrest’s age. (Dion, III: 243-44)
72. On October 27, 2025, Ms. Rizzo sent an email to Dr. Morris that appeared to be in response to an email sent by Dr. Morris to Ms. Rizzo, though that email is not in evidence. In her email, Ms. Rizzo declined West Springfield’s request that Tate provide Forrest with an interim placement while the District worked to identify a permanent placement, “[g]iven his history of attempting to attack other students and our concern for staff safety as they would be required by their training to prevent this.” (S-2; Rizzo, II:179-80)
73. Although Ms. Rizzo testified that West Springfield asked whether Tate would accept Forrest back into the program on an interim basis until a new placement could be located, she could not recall the date of the request. Similarly, both Dr. Morris and Ms. Dion testified that Dr. Morris requested that Tate maintain Forrest’s placement while the District searched for an alternative placement, but neither of them could recall the date such a request may have been made. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that this request was made in writing before the October 27, 2025 email response, nor is there any evidence that West Springfield challenged Tate’s failure to follow necessary procedures before its termination of Forrest’s placement. (Rizzo, II: 179-80; Dion, III: 272-73; Morris, III: 327-28)
74. On the first day of Hearing, Mother testified that she was willing to sign consents for Forrest to be referred to any school but Center. (Mother, I: 87-88) She indicated that, notwithstanding her concerns about Branches, she would sign a consent to permit West Springfield to send a referral packet there. Asked on the same date whether she would sign a consent for a referral to the Lower Pioneer Valley Educational Collaborative that was sent to her the previous day, Mother agreed to do so once she received a hard copy. As to both schools, however, Mother testified that it was a waste of time, as history had already shown that Forrest would not get in, and she believes that West Springfield is “just wasting time [to] get [Forrest] to 22 years old without... services.” (Mother, I: 103-04)
75. Mother also testified that she has applied, on Forrest’s behalf, to two college programs for students with special needs for the spring semester. As of the date of the Hearing, no response had been received. (Mother, I: 86)
76. Following the second day of Hearing, West Springfield began exploring potential residential placements and day placements more than one hour away, as Mother had indicated her willingness to consider these options. (Dion, III: 206-07)
77. Mother identified Oak Hill as a potential placement for Forrest and requested that West Springfield send a referral. The District agreed and did so. There is no evidence in the record about programs and services offered at Oak Hill. (Morris, III: 289)
78. According to Ms. Dion, between October and November 2025, West Springfield sent out referrals to ten programs. (Dion, III: 274-76)
79. Parents signed consent for a packet to be sent to Evergreen, a residential school. Evergreen indicated that a space was available, requested additional information from Parents regarding Forrest, and expressed interest in having Parents bring Forrest for a tour. The referral process came to a standstill, however, as Mother subsequently shared that the family would not consider residential placement. (S-12; Dion, III: 207-08; Morris, III: 289)
80. Between December 17 and December 19, 2025, West Springfield mailed consent forms for Solterra, Oak Hill, Addelbrook, and Benhaven to Parents, requesting consent to send packets. On or about January 5, 2026, Parents returned blank consent forms for Adelbrook and Solterra, declining to sign them. The District submitted redacted records to these schools for consideration. (S-4, S-5, S-6, S-7, S-9; Dion, III: 209-210)
81. Although she has never been to Adelbrook, Ms. Dion testified that it has several locations within the state and provides programming for students with a variety of learning and communication needs and intellectual challenges, with an emphasis on students with autism. Adelbrook offers extended school day and ESY programming; conducts vocational assessments for each student; and offers an extensive vocational program for students 15 and older. (Dion, III: 240-41) Dr. Morris has visited Adelbrook and believes, based on her visits there and her knowledge of the staff and the program, that it would be an appropriate setting for Forrest. (Morris, III: 316-17)
82. On January 12, 2026, Adelbrook responded, explaining that its closest program was Bloomfield, but that its Cromwell program might also work, and that the next step would be to schedule a tour for parents and possibly a district representative. On January 20, 2026, Adelbrook personnel followed up, indicating that the file had been reviewed and Adelbrook wanted to move forward to schedule a tour, meet the student, and review any functional behavioral assessments (FBAs) or behavior intervention plans (BIPs). (S-10; Dion, III: 215-19)
83. Based on her experience, Ms. Dion interpreted Adelbrook’s response as a willingness to potentially offer placement. Because Parents had not signed the consent, West Springfield could not provide a full packet or a FBA or BIP. On January 13, 2026, Dr. Morris contacted Mother to let her know that Adelbrook was interested in Forrest based on the redacted packet the District had sent, and she requested permission to send a full packet and/or set up a visit. (S-12; Dion, III: 218-20)
84. On February 3, 2026, Solterra contacted West Springfield and requested an unredacted IEP in order to process the referral. (S-8; Dion, III: 214-15)
85. In the meantime, in or about January 2026, Mother spoke to Dr. Morris about a speech therapist who had worked with Forrest previously, who may have been funded at least in part through West Springfield. Dr. Morris could not locate documentation regarding this individual or contact information and requested that Mother provide it. Parents ultimately provided an old invoice, but the District was unable to reach the provider. (Morris, III: 292-93)
86. Oak Hill subsequently indicated its interest in Forrest and the likelihood that it would have availability in April or May of 2026, though no definite start date had been established by the conclusion of the Hearing. Mother also expressed interest in Oak Hill. Ms. Dion testified that Oak Hill contacted her for clarification that Forrest was not on a high school diploma track,[15] and she explained that he had received a certificate of attainment. (Dion, III: 221-22, 245-46, 253, 255, 257-59; Morris, III: 290-91, 294, 318-19)
87. In February 2026, on the third day of Hearing, Dr. Morris testified that the District “has done everything and beyond.” (Morris, III: 292) West Springfield maintains that its plan is to locate a program appropriate for Forrest to attend until Oak Hill has an opening for him, but that its efforts have been stymied by Parents’ decision to withhold consent for full packets to be sent to one third of the programs the District recommended. In the alternative, according to Ms. Dion, West Springfield continues to offer virtual tutoring. (Dion, III: 249-51)
88. By the conclusion of the hearing, West Springfield had sought Parents’ consent for referrals to 21 day and residential school placements. Parents signed consents for 13, and West Springfield sent full referral packets to all 13. (S-5; Dion, III: 206, 208, 211) The District also sent redacted IEPs, including the most recent (unsigned) Amendment, to several of the schools for which it had not received consent. Some of these programs indicated that there were no present openings. (S-5, S-6; Dion, III: 208-09, 211)
89. By the conclusion of the Hearing, Evergreen and Oak Hill were the only two programs that had indicated they would accept Forrest and have availability for him, though neither had offered a date certain. Evergreen had responded in December 2025 and Oak Hill had responded toward the end of February. Only three additional programs – Adelbrook, Solterra, and Center – had indicated interest in learning more about Forrest, based on redacted IEPs. (Dion, III: 276-78; Morris, III: 289) Dr. Morris testified that placement at Center may have been available as early as mid-to-late October and Adelbrook and/or Solterra may have been available as early as January, if Parents had consented to full referrals and Forrest was accepted to these programs. (Morris, III: 290, 310, 313)
90. Dr. Morris suggested that Forrest was likely to be accepted at Center School based on informal conversations with the director, but not on any written correspondence. (Morris, III: 323-24)
91. Similarly, Dr. Morris’s representations regarding the likelihood of Forrest’s acceptance at Adelbrook and Solterra, and her estimate that he could have started there as early as January, are based solely on the fact that both schools offered tours to the family. Neither school formally accepted Forrest, as Parents did not consent to referrals, which would have permitted West Springfield to send full packets.(Morris, III: 324-25)
92. There is no evidence in the record, documentary or testimonial, that a Team meeting was convened at any time after November 20, 2024.
93. Parents are concerned about Forrest’s regression. They are fighting for Forrest to return to school because he wants to be in school, and because they want him to be educated in an appropriate environment where he can reach his potential. Parents would like Forrest to attend Oak Hill. Mother believes that if necessary, he can pass the GED with accommodations. (Mother, I: 96-97; Dion, III: 252-53)
DISCUSSION
It is not disputed that Forrest is a student with a disability who is entitled to special education services under state and federal law. To determine whether Parents are entitled to a decision in their favor, I must consider substantive legal standards governing special education. As the moving party in this matter, Parents bear the burden of proof.[16] To prevail on their claim, they must establish that West Springfield deprived Forrest of a FAPE from September 2025 forward, and that he is entitled to compensatory services for such failure.
I address the delineated issues below, incorporating the factual findings above to avoid repetition.
I. FAPE and Implementation of IEPs
Parents do not contend that West Springfield proposed inadequate IEPs during the relevant time period;[17] their assertion focuses on the District’s failure to provide special education and related services from late September 2025, when Tate terminated his placement, through at least the third day of Hearing in February 2026. This is, essentially, a claim that West Springfield failed to implement the operative IEP during this time frame.
A. Legal Standard
The IDEA was enacted “to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education [FAPE].”[18] FAPE is delivered primarily through a child’s IEP, which must be tailored to meet his unique needs after careful consideration of his present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, disability, and potential for growth.[19] The IEP must be reviewed “periodically, but not less frequently than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved.”[20] As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, the IEP must “describe how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum, and set out measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals, along with a description of how the child’s progress toward meeting those goals will be gauged.”[21] “To meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a [district] must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”[22] The goals of all students should be “appropriately ambitious... just as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately ambitious for most students in a regular classroom.”[23] Moreover, “the IDEA manifests a preference for mainstreaming disabled children,” such that the goal is to place a student in the “least restrictive environment that will accommodate the child’s legitimate needs.”[24]
“To provide a free and appropriate public education to a student with disabilities, the school district must not only develop the IEP, but it also must implement the IEP in accordance with its requirements.”[25] The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has linked the failure to implement an IEP to the failure to permit a student to benefit educationally – or in other words, to provide a FAPE.[26] In a subsequent case, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico relied on the generally adopted standard articulated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Houston Independent School District v. Bobby R., requiring “more than a de minimis failure” to prevail on an implementation claim under the IDEA.[27] The court summarized the analysis as follows:
... a court reviewing failure-to-implement claims under the IDEA must ascertain whether the aspects of the IEP that were not followed were “substantial or significant,” or, in other words, whether the deviations from the IEP’s stated requirements were “material.” A material failure occurs when there is more than a minor discrepancy between the services a school provides to a disabled child and the services required by the child’s IEP. This standard does not require that the child suffer demonstrable educational harm in order to prevail; rather, courts applying the materiality standard have focused on the proportion of services mandated to those actually provided, and the goal and import (as articulated in the IEP) of the specific service that was withheld.[28]
The Colon-Vazquez Court adopted the approaches endorsed by the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, as well as the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and such approach is appropriate to follow here as the First Circuit has yet to address this question.[29] The BSEA has also utilized this standard, under which not all deviations from a child’s IEP constitute violations of a FAPE, but “more than a minor discrepancy” between the services provided by a school district and those required by the student’s IEP constitutes a material failure to implement the IEP.[30]
B. Forrest Was Deprived of a FAPE From September 28, 2025 to the Present
The most recent IEP in the record is Forrest’s revised 2024-2025 IEP, as amended (though the Amendment was not signed) in September or October 2025. To the extent West Springfield relies on this expired IEP to set forth Forrest’s services during the 2025-2026 school year, pursuant to this IEP Forrest should have been receiving consultation in a number of areas and the following C-Grid services:
• Special Education (1 x 30 minutes/week)
• Behavior Support (2 x 30 minutes/week)
• Speech and Language therapy (2 x 45 minutes/week)
• Occupational therapy (1 x 30 minutes/week)
• Special education support (5 x 360 minutes/week)
The undisputed evidence shows that Forrest received none of these services at any time during the 2025-2026 school year. Although Parents elected not to send him to Tate for the first month of the school year, Tate was available to Forrest. Once Tate terminated Forrest’s placement on or about September 28, 2025, the robust services on Forrest’s IEP were no longer available to him, constituting a material failure on the District’s part to implement Forrest’s IEP.[31]
Furthermore, it appears that West Springfield failed to propose an IEP for Forrest for the 2025-2026 school year. Although Forrest’s Team met on November 20, 2024 to review an independent evaluation, and this meeting was called an “annual review,” nothing in the evidence – testimonial or documentary – suggests that West Springfield convened an annual review or proposed an IEP on or before May 7, 2025, when the previous IEP expired. It appears that Parents signed and accepted the revised 2024-2025 IEP in either September or October 2025, months after its expiration. Moreover, as the Amendment West Springfield proposed to the revised 2024-2025 IEP, reportedly for purposes of clarity, was signed by District staff on October 8, 2025, it was actually proposed after the IEP it purported to amend expired on May 7, 2025.[32] Nor is there any evidence of a Team meeting in the fall of 2025 while Forrest remained out of school. The absence of an IEP for the 2025-2026 school year is, in itself, a significant violation of Forrest’s right to a FAPE.[33]
C. Parents Have Not Met Their Burden to Prove that Forrest was Deprived of a FAPE Due to Tate’s Failure to Implement Transition Services
In their Hearing Request, Parents allege that Tate failed to provide Forrest with the transition services to which he is entitled. Though they did not identify specific services within Forrest’s IEP they contend were not provided, the focus of their critique is that following the behavioral incidents in October 2024, Tate limited Forrest’s exposure to the community. Behavior charts and physical intervention/restraint documentation forms submitted by the District, in conjunction with Ms. Rizzo’s credible testimony, demonstrate the significance of Forrest’s behaviors and the dangers they presented to Forrest, his peers, and Tate staff. By the spring of 2025, Tate was implementing a program to assist Forrest in de-escalating, with the goal of fading restrictive supports such that staff could manage his behaviors in the community setting. The evidence before me suggests that this was a responsible approach to reintroducing community exposure. As such, Parents have not shown that West Springfield deprived Forrest of a FAPE by failing to implement his transition services while he was placed at Tate.[34]
II. Termination of a Publicly-Funded Student from a Private Special Education School
Massachusetts law governs the termination of a publicly-funded student from a private or public special education school. To terminate a student, a special education school must adhere to specific guidelines pertaining to either a “planned termination” or an “emergency termination.”[35] In either case, the special education school is required to “try every available means to maintain the student’s placement until the local Administrator of Special Education... [has] had sufficient time to search for an alternative placement.”[36]
To initiate a planned termination, the special education school must notify the sending school district of the need to conduct an “IEP review meeting” for the student.[37] The school district must provide all relevant parties with 10 days’ notice of the meeting's intended date. At the meeting, a written termination plan is developed to reflect the “student’s specific program needs, the short and long term educational goals of the program, and recommendations for follow-up and/or transitional services.”[38] Unless the parties agree to an earlier termination date, the written termination plan must be implemented in no less than 30 days.[39] Furthermore, the special education school is required to explain its termination procedures to the student, parents, and the District’s special education administrator.[40]
Public and private special education schools also have the option to terminate a student on an emergency basis when the student “presents a clear and present threat to the health and safety of him/herself or others.”[41] Where this standard is met:
The special education school shall not terminate the enrollment of any student, even in emergency circumstances, until the enrolling public school district is informed and assumes responsibility for the student. At the request of the public school district, the special education school shall delay termination of the student for up to two calendar weeks to allow the public school the opportunity to convene an emergency Team meeting or to conduct other appropriate planning discussions prior to the student’s termination from the special education program. [42]
A. Tate Failed to Follow the Applicable Procedure for Termination of Forrest’s Placement
As Ms. Rizzo acknowledged, Forrest was not attending Tate at the time of his termination, and neither Tate nor West Springfield asserts that Forrest’s discharge from Tate was an emergency termination. I focus, therefore, on whether TLC followed the appropriate procedure for a planned termination.
There is no evidence in the record that Tate notified West Springfield of the need to conduct an IEP meeting before terminating Forrest’s placement, much less provided the District the time to schedule an IEP meeting with 10 days’ notice to the family.[43] Nor is there any evidence that Tate developed a written termination plan for Forrest before terminating his placement[44] that would be implemented in no less than 30 days,[45] or explained its termination procedures to anyone.[46] Calling it a “discharge” rather than a termination does not permit a special education school to evade state regulations.
B. Springfield Violated Forrest’s Right to a FAPE by Failing to Seek Enforcement of his Stay-Put Rights at Tate
There is no evidence that West Springfield challenged Tate’s termination of Forrest’s placement as procedurally deficient, which would likely have permitted him to return to TLC for some period of time while West Springfield sought a subsequent placement. The District did not make a formal written request that Tate delay Forrest's discharge until one month after termination of his placement, much less insist that Tate comply with state law before terminating a placement for which West Springfield had been paying.
The onus was on West Springfield, as the school district responsible for providing its students a FAPE, to ensure that the private special education school where the District had placed Forrest complied with the relevant procedure. Parents have shown that West Springfield failed to enforce Forrest’s right to remain at Tate until TLC followed the relevant state regulations. As such, the District violated his right to a FAPE.
III. Legal Standards for Relief
Having found that Forrest did not receive a FAPE from the end of September to the present while he was out of school awaiting a subsequent placement; and that this violation was compounded by West Springfield’s failures to seek enforcement of Forrest’s right to remain at Tate unless and until TLC followed required procedures, and to convene Forrest’s Team for an annual review at any point after November 20, 2024, I must determine the appropriate remedy.[47]
A. Compensatory Education
“[C]ompensatory education is not an automatic entitlement but, rather, a discretionary remedy for nonfeasance or misfeasance in connection with a school system’s obligations under the IDEA.”[48] “Such an award requires balancing of the equities and consideration of the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct by assessing the totality of the circumstances.”[49]
West Springfield argues that Forrest had a viable placement at Tate at the beginning of the 2025-2026 school year, but Parents chose not to send him. The District asserts that it did not file for a Hearing at the BSEA to challenge Tate’s termination of Forrest’s placement because the process is lengthy, and West Springfield instead focused its efforts on locating a subsequent placement. The District also contends that it has done everything in its power to locate an appropriate placement for Forrest, proposing 21 different programs, including virtual tutoring, and that, but for Parents’ lack of cooperation, Forrest may have been placed at Center School as early as October 2025. Moreover, according to the District, speech services could have been provided if Mother had supplied accurate, timely information for the provider who had previously worked with Forrest. For these reasons, in its Closing Statement, West Springfield argues that the scope of any compensatory services should be mitigated by Parents’ refusal of additional referrals, a residential placement, and virtual tutoring. The District suggests that West Springfield be ordered to provide services in a private day placement from Forrest’s twenty-second birthday in December 2027 through the end of the 2027-2028 school year, for approximately 7 months.
B. Parental Obstruction
The IDEA entails a collaborative process between school districts and parents in the provision of a FAPE.[50] Consistent with this maxim, in formulating the IDEA, Congress “expressly declared that if parents act unreasonably in the course of that [interactive] process, they may be barred from reimbursement.”[51] Like reductions in reimbursement, compensatory services constitute an equitable remedy, to which the same principle applies; “hearing officers routinely take the actions of parents into consideration when they make decisions about equitable compensation under the IDEA.”[52] As such, to determine whether Parents are entitled to reimbursement in the form of compensatory education in the present matter, and if so, the extent of such services, I must determine whether they acted unreasonably in consenting to 13 of 21 proposed programs; declining to pursue a residential program when Forrest’s IEP provided for day placement; and requesting in-person tutoring outside the home rather than accepting West Springfield’s offer of virtual tutoring.[53]
Several courts have reduced, or altogether denied, reimbursement and/or compensatory services where parents’ well-intentioned actions have interfered with school districts’ ability to provide a FAPE to their children. For example, in Hogan v. Fairfax County School Board, the school district did not provide any educational services to a student for a full school year and acknowledged its failure to provide a FAPE; the District had encountered difficulty locating an appropriate placement for the student when she exited a unilateral placement; evaluations were not completed and no IEP was finalized, as parent did not respond on a timely basis and communication between the parties broke down.[54] According to the Court, “the Parent’s actions, though they may have been well-meaning, were at times obstructive,... [and] the Parent bears some responsibility for the non-provision of a FAPE.”[55] Although the school district was ultimately responsible for the failure to provide a FAPE to the student, parent’s obstructive and uncooperative behavior, in the aggregate, justified a finding of unreasonableness and consequent reduction in reimbursement.[56]
Similar cases have come before the BSEA. Hearing Officers have limited or declined to order compensatory services in situations where a student is discharged from a program and is without a placement for a period of time, when the school district offers appropriate interim services and makes reasonable efforts to secure a new placement, yet parents reject appropriate interim services and/or hamper the placement process.[57]
C. Parents’ Actions Were Not Unreasonable in this Context, Where West Springfield Focused on a Particular Placement, Was Unable to Identify an Available Alternate Placement, and Failed to Offer Appropriate Interim Services
As discussed above, the evidence demonstrates that Forrest was deprived of a FAPE when he remained without a placement and without any tutoring or educational services from September 28, 2025 through the present. Despite being aware of Parents’ dissatisfaction with Tate and Forrest’s non-attendance for the first month of school, West Springfield did not convene a Team meeting to discuss alternative options with Parents prior to Forrest’s termination. Moreover, while seeking a subsequent placement, West Springfield failed to proactively pursue Forrest’s return to Tate subsequent to termination, up to and including filing for Hearing at the BSEA. District personnel spent significant time attempting to convince Parents to consent to a referral to the Center School. It must be acknowledged that Parents’ refusal to consider Center, based on subjective information they possessed about the school, was not objectively reasonable. None of the first batch of referrals to which Parents did consent resulted in an offer of placement for Forrest, and he remained at home for months. In addition, West Springfield personnel relied on Parents to locate a speech and language provider and, despite being aware that virtual tutoring was not appropriate for Forrest, refused to consider in-person tutoring options outside his home. Nor did the District attempt to staff a program for him within the District.
By the third day of the Hearing in February 2026, not one of the 13 programs to which full referrals were sent had accepted Forrest with an established start date. Although West Springfield contends that Forrest could have been placed at Evergreen as early as December 2025 or January 2026, Forrest’s last accepted IEP called for a day placement; as such, unless Parents agreed to a substantive change to a residential setting, Evergreen would not be considered an appropriate placement. Oak Hill appeared to be a viable program but could not provide placement for Forrest before April or May 2026 at the earliest. Rather than work with Parents on an interim solution, West Springfield continued to offer virtual tutoring (which the evidence reveals was inappropriate for Forrest, given the intensity of his needs) and urging Parents to accept residential placement or consent to full packets being sent to Center, Adelbrook, or Solterra day programs – each of which had requested additional information about Forrest. Because full packets had not been sent and Forrest had not visited the programs, none of these programs had been able to determine whether they could meet his needs. The same is true of Center, which may have been able to offer placement at an earlier time.
Unlike In Re: Benjamin and Student v. Quincy & Andover Public Schools, this is not a case where Parents insisted on one program and refused to consider others, or requested services appropriate for the student, then declined to participate when the District offered them. In both cases Hearing Officers reduced potential compensatory services awards, finding that parents’ unwillingness to cooperate with school districts’ attempts to provide interim services was unreasonable.[58]
Here, Parents consented to referrals to 13 of 21 proposed programs over a period of 5 months. They refused virtual tutoring, which – based on the evidence, would not have worked for Forrest – and requested that Forrest be permitted to return to Tate (reversing their earlier position) and/or receive services at WSHS. The District did not pursue the first option to the extent it could have and refused to even consider the second. Although Parents’ refusal to consider Center may not have been wholly reasonable, under these circumstances, where Parents provided specific reasons for their refusal and did consent to a number of other programs, I cannot say that their actions were wholly unreasonable, either.
Parents have met their burden to prove that Forrest has not been provided with a FAPE since the beginning of the 2025-2026 school year, and that the District: failed to propose an IEP for the 2025-2026 school year; failed to provide during the 2025-2026 school year any of the services to which Forrest was entitled under the 2024-2025 IEP; failed to seek timely relief from Tate’s immediate termination of Forrest’s placement on or about September 28, 2025; and failed to formally challenge that termination for approximately one month. Furthermore, West Springfield did not locate a day placement that was available to Forrest before April or May 2026, at the earliest, and even that was not guaranteed at the time the Hearing concluded. Although Parents’ actions prevented West Springfield from completing the referral process with the Center school, in the unique circumstances of this case I do not find that Parents refused to collaborate with West Springfield or acted unreasonably in the course of the interactive process, such that their conduct should prohibit or reduce an award of compensatory services.[59]
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
After reviewing the record in its entirety in the context of relevant case law, I conclude, given the totality of the circumstances, that Parents have met their burden to prove that Forrest is entitled to the equitable remedy of compensatory services from West Springfield for the time he remained, and potentially remains, out of school.
In the event that Forrest is attending Oak Hill or some other day placement acceptable to Parents and West Springfield, at the time this Decision is issued, West Springfield is hereby ordered to extend Forrest’s entitlement to services there, or in a similar program, past his twenty-second birthday for the amount of time between September 28, 2025 and his first day in the program, as compensation for the time he remained out of school. West Springfield is further ordered to provide an additional three months of placement and services to compensate for its failure to meet its obligation to propose an IEP for Forrest after the previous IEP expired in May 2025 and its failure to timely challenge Tate’s improper termination of Forrest’s placement.
In the event that Forrest is not yet attending Oak Hill or a similar placement, in addition to the remedy above, within ten days of the issuance of this decision West Springfield must begin providing all services on Forrest’s revised 2024-2025 IEP at an in-district location, with all necessary staff to ensure his safety and that of his peers and staff.
West Springfield is hereby ordered to convene an annual review meeting within ten days of the issuance of this Decision.
The matter will be referred to DESE for an investigation into Tate’s and West Springfield’s understanding of Massachusetts law regarding termination of a student’s placement at a private or public special education school, and their attendant responsibilities.
So ordered.
By the Hearing Officer:
/s/ Amy M. Reichbach
Dated: May 12, 2026
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
Footnotes
[1] “Forrest” is a pseudonym chosen by the Hearing Officer to protect the privacy of the Student in documents available to the public.
[2] Parents submitted additional documents that were marked P-B, P-C, P-F, P-G, and P-H for identification but were not admitted into evidence. Absent an objection from Parents, and with the permission of the Hearing Officer, the District submitted documents ultimately accepted into evidence as Exhibits S-4 through S-12 one week before the third day of Hearing. These documents were not available at the time Exhibits S-1 through S-3 were submitted prior to the commencement of the Hearing.
[3] Parents submitted a one page “closing argument” on May 1, 2026, which was not considered because the record had already closed.
[4] Parents’ standing to pursue this appeal is addressed infra.
[5] During the Conference Call, the undersigned Hearing Officer indicated that as Forrest is 19 years old, Parents had to provide the Hearing Officer with proof of shared or delegated educational decision-making, and/or guardianship that included educational decision-making, in order to represent Forrest at Hearing. Such documentation was received by the Hearing Officer prior to the commencement of the Hearing. (P-1)
[6] As Tate is not a party to this matter, I lack the jurisdiction to order that Tate immediately readmit Forrest and that West Springfield provide and/or fund any and all measures necessary to make that possible.
[7] I have carefully considered all evidence presented in this matter. I make findings of fact with respect to the documents and witness’ testimony, however, only as necessary to resolve the issues presented.
[8] Due to Forrest’s aggressive behavior toward others on the bus on October 21, 2024, which resulted in the bus having to pull over and call the police, per protocol, the bus company indicated to the District that it could no longer transport Forrest in the afternoons. The company continued to transport him to school in the mornings, as there were no other students on the bus at that time. By agreement, Parents transported Forrest home from school for several weeks before a new transportation company began doing so on or about November 18, 2024. (S-1)
[9] The IEP issued following the meeting held on November 20, 2024, reflects that it was an Annual Review meeting, though Forrest’s Annual Review had been held in May 2024. (P-7)
[10] The A-Grid of Forrest’s proposed revised 2024-2025 IEP provides for consultation in the following areas: OT (30 minutes/month); speech and language (60 minutes/week); special education (30 minutes/week); behavior support (60 minutes/month); family consultation (30 minutes/month, with the BCBA); and assistive technology (30 minutes/month). (S-1)
[11] This email also explained that Dr. Morris had referred Forrest to the MAIHE program on June 16, 2025, but Dr. Morris had been informed that the enrollment deadline for the 2025-2026 school year had closed in March. (S-2; Mother, I: 47-48)
[12] According to Dr. Morris, even though West Springfield did not terminate transportation for Forrest, when a transportation company sends a vehicle for a student, and the student does not show, after a period of time the transportation vendor will stop going to the house. (Morris, III: 301-02)
[13] Parent testified that she returned the signed, accepted IEP shortly after Forrest’s discharge from Tate, and the N1 generated by the District on October 2, 2025 indicates that Parent provided West Springfield with a copy of the signed IEP during her visit to the District’s Central Office on September 30, 2025. Nevertheless, the date on the signature page of the Amended 2024-2025 IEP indicating its full acceptance is dated
October 30, 2025. (S-1; Mother)
[14] Dr. Morris testified that she believed West Springfield was informed of Forrest’s discharge from Tate on September 27, 2025, though this testimony conflicts with her testimony and Ms. Dion’s testimony about West Springfield being unaware of Forrest’s termination before Mother’s visit to the District on September 30, 2025. (Morris, III: 287, 302-03)
[15] Ms. Dion testified that Oak Hill does not grant diplomas, but her testimony was contradicted by Dr. Morris’s testimony that Oak Hill does, in fact, offer a diploma track for students who – unlike Forrest – can access high-level, credit-bearing courses. (Dion, III: 222; Morris, III: 318-21)
[16] See Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 62 (2008).
[17] Although Parents did not clearly frame a claim concerning the 2024-2025 school year, Mother did allege that Tate’s delivery of the transition services proposed for Forrest was inadequate, and she offered testimony relevant to this issue. I address the implementation of Forrest’s IEP at TLC, below, for purposes of completeness. See Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997) (explaining that complaints filed by pro se litigants should be construed liberally, as courts may intuit a correct cause of action that has been imperfectly pled; this practice aligns with “[o]ur judicial system [, which] zealously guards the attempts of pro se litigants on their own behalf” while not ignoring the need for compliance with procedural and substantive law).
[18] 20 U.S.C. §1400 (d)(1)(A).
[19] See Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cty. Reg’l Sch. Dist., 580 U.S. 137, 389 (2017); D.B v. Esposito, 675 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2012).
[20] 20 U.S.C. §1400 (d)(4)(A).
[21] 580 U.S. at 391 (internal quotation marks omitted), citing 20 U.S.C. §§1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)-(III).
[22] Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 399.
[23] Id. at 402.
[24] C.G. ex rel. A.S. v. Five Town Comty. Sch. Dist., 513 F.2d 279, 285 (1st Cir. 2008); see 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(a); Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 321 (1988); Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 202-03 (1982); Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F.2d 983, 987 (1st Cir. 1990).
[25] Colón-Vazquez v. Dep’t of Educ., 46 F. Supp. 3d 132, 144 (D. P.R. 2014); see Doe v. Hampden-Wilbraham Reg’l Sch. Dist., 715 F. Supp. 2d 185, 195 (D. Mass. 2010); Ross v. Framingham Sch. Comm., 44 F. Supp. 2d 104, 116 (D. Mass. 1999)
[26] See Hampden-Wilbraham Reg’l Sch. Dist., 715 F. Supp. 2d at 198; see also Ross, 44 F. Supp. 2d at 118. (“when presented with a claim that a school district failed to implement a student’s IEP, a district court must determine whether the alleged failure to implement the IEP deprived the student of her entitlement to a ‘free appropriate public education,’ as defined under the applicable federal and state prescriptions”).
[27] See Colón-Vazquez, 46 F. Supp. 3d at 143.
[28] Id. at 143-44 (citing and quoting Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist., 502 F.3d 811, 822 (9th Cir. 2007) and Garmany v. District of Columbia, 935 F. Supp. 2d 177, 181 (D. D.C. 2013); see Van Duyn, 502 F.3d at 815 (“We hold that when a school district does not perform exactly as called for by the IEP, the district does not violate the IDEA unless it is shown to have materially failed to implement the child’s IEP”).
[29] See Doucette v. Jacobs, 2022 WL 2704482 at *13 (D. Mass 2022) (aff’d on other grounds, 106 F.4th 156 (1st Cir. 2024) (citing Colon-Vazquez with approval); In Re: Benjamin v. Brockton Public Schools, BSEA #2401643 (Reichbach, 2024); In Re: Stewart v. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District, BSEA #2101061 (Reichbach, 2021).
[30] Van Duyn, 502 F.3d at 822.
[31] See Van Duyn, 502 F.3d at 822; see also In Re: Benjamin (“Benjamin did not receive the services contained in his operative IEP while he was out of school awaiting an opening at CABI. It is evident that a material failure to implement Benjamin’s IEP occurred.”)
[32] The N1 attached to this Amendment references an IEP dated 11/20/2024 to 11/19/2025, though there is no evidence in the record of an IEP carrying that end date, particularly as the IEP signed by Parents (and subsequently sent as part of the referral packet) is the revised 2024-2025 IEP, with a May 7, 2025, end date.
[33] See 20 U.S.C. §1400 (d)(4)(A) (requiring school districts to convene a child’s Team to “review[] the child's IEP periodically, but not less frequently than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved” and revise the IEP as appropriate); see also Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 238-39 (2009) (when a child requires special-education services, a school district's failure to propose an IEP of any kind is at least as serious a violation of its responsibilities under IDEA as a failure to provide an adequate IEP”).
[34] See Schaffer, U.S. at 62 (placing burden on moving party to prove its claim).
[35] See In Re: Steve v. Worcester Public Schools and Central Massachusetts Collaborative, BSEA #1808823 (Reichbach, 2018); see also 603 C.M.R. 18.05(7) (distinguishing between planned and emergency terminations).
[36] 603 C.M.R. 18.05(7)(b) (“The school shall, at the time of admission, make a commitment to the public school district or appropriate human service agency that it will try every available means to maintain the student’s placement until the local Administrator of Special Education or officials of the appropriate human service agency have had sufficient time to search for an alternative placement”).
[37] 603 C.M.R. 18.05 (7)(c)(1).
[38] 603 C.M.R. 18.05 (7)(c)(1)-(2).
[39] 603 C.M.R. 18.05 (7)(c)(4).
[40] 603 C.M.R. 18.05 (7)(c)(3).
[41] 603 C.M.R. 18.05 (7)(d).
[42] 603 C.M.R. 18.05(7); 603 C.M.R. 28.09 (12)(b).
[43] See 603 C.M.R. 18.05 (7)(c)(1).
[44] See id. at 18.05 (7)(c)(2).
[45] See id. at 18.05 (7)(c)(4).
[46] See id. at 18.05 (7)(c)(3).
[47] See In Re: Benjamin.
[48] C.G., 513 F.2d at 290. See Hogan v. Fairfax County. Sch. Bd., 645 F. Supp. 2d 554, 571-72 (E.D. VA 2009) (citing G. v. Fort Bragg Dependent Sch., 343 F.3d 295, 309 (4th Cir. 2003) (“The remedy of compensatory education ‘involves discretionary, prospective, injunctive relief crafted by a court to remedy... an educational deficit created by an... agency’s failure over a given period of time to provide a FAPE to a student.”) See also In Re: Ross, BSEA #080880 (Oliver 2008) (“Compensatory services are basically a remedy to make up to a student what was lost as a result of not having received the requisite special education services, and is (sic) an equitable remedy involving discretion in determining what relief is appropriate after considering all aspects of the case.”)
[49] In Re: Student v. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District, BSEA #2103253 (Figueroa, 2021) [hereinafter In Action-Boxborough]; see In Re: Student v. Andover & Quincy Public Schools, BSEA #1602494 (Berman, 2017) [hereinafter Andover & Quincy].
[50] See C.G., 513 F.2d at 288 (“Congress deliberately fashioned an interactive process for the development of IEPs”); see also Sytsema v. Academy Sch. Dist., 538 F.3d 1306, 1312 (10th Cir. 2008) (“State school officials develop each IEP through a collaborative process that is a central characteristic of the IDEA framework”).
[51] C.G., 513 F.2d at 288.
[52] Hogan, 645 F. Supp. 2d at 571, 572 (equitable nature of compensatory education “demands a close look at the actions of all parties involved in the denial of a FAPE”).
[53] See Acton-Boxborough (“While hearing officers are authorized to grant compensatory relief when appropriate, compensatory relief is an equitable remedy and as such principles of equity and fairness guide the determination of whether this form of relief should be awarded”).
[54] See Hogan, 645 F. Supp. 2d at 560, 563-65.
[55] Id. at 566.
[56] See id. at 570-71.
[57] See Andover & Quincy; In Re: Ric, BSEA #1809434 (Oliver, 2018).
[58] See In Re: Benjamin; Andover & Quincy.
[59] See Hogan, 645 F. Supp. 2d at 571-72; In Re: Ross.