COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Springfield Public Schools & Department of Children and Families
BSEA # 2605261
RULING ON GUARDIAN AD LITEM’S
MOTIONS
On March 13, 2026, I issued Ruling on Motion To Quash Subpoenas To The Springfield School Committee Members And Superintendent And Assistant Superintendent Of Springfield Public Schools And Chief Of Support And Student Services For The Springfield Empowerment Zone And All Subpoena[s] Duces Tecum filed on February 19, 2026 (the March 13 Ruling), in which I allowed, in part, Springfield’s Motion to Quash relative to subpoenas for Springfield Public Schools’ School Committee Members requested by the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL).
On April 2, 2026, GAL filed Motion To Exclude Or Disqualify Dr. Marisa McCarthy From Testifying At the BSEA Hearing (Motion to Exclude Dr. McCarthy), in which she asked to exclude and disqualify Dr. McCarthy from participating in the hearing in this matter because she had not been involved in the events at issue and therefore lacks personal knowledge to provide testimony.
On April 6, 2026, GAL filed Motion to Compel, seeking sanctions against Springfield for failing to comply with discovery obligations by the April 3, 2026 deadline. According to GAL, this failure violated the BSEA’s rules, undermined the integrity of the proceedings, and significantly impaired her ability to prepare for the hearing. As such, GAL requested sanctions, including immediate production of all materials, exclusion of any undisclosed evidence or related testimony, and adverse inferences against the District.
Also on April 6, 2026, GAL filed Motion For Reconsideration Of Ruling On Motions To Quash Subpoenas (Motion for Reconsideration) seeking reconsideration of the March 13 Ruling on the grounds that, based on recently received discovery, the record now showed that three of the current school committee members had served on the School Committee during the development of the Student of Concern (SOC) Policy and its approval, giving them relevant knowledge. GAL contended that the testimony of said school committee members was critical to key issues in the case, including the “Student of Concern” process, policy implementation, and potential IDEA violations, such as decisions made outside the IEP Team and possible denial of a free, appropriate public education (FAPE).
On April 7, 2026, GAL filed a Motion for Clarification, Corrective Action, and Sanctions, asserting that the District had misrepresented both the law under IDEA and the role of GAL by improperly claiming that it would only participate in a resolution meeting if DCF were involved. According to GAL, this condition was impermissible since IDEA obligations cannot be conditioned on the presence of any particular party. The District’s Counsel had inappropriately attempted to limit or redefine GAL’s role, despite GAL being court-appointed and authorized to advocate for and protect Student’s rights. GAL requested corrective action and sanctions, including formal clarification of GAL’s authority, correction of the District’s statements, and confirmation that IDEA compliance was not contingent on DCF involvement.
On April, 9, 2026, Springfield filed Springfield's Opposition tо Motion For Clarification, Corrective Action, And Sanctions, Motion For Reconsideration of Ruling On Motions tо Quash Subpoenas, Motion tо Exclude And Disqualify Dr. McCarthy, And Motion tо Compel (Opposition). Springfield opposed the Motion to Exclude Dr. McCarthy, asserting that Dr. McCarthy is the District’s Supervisor of Special Education and has been properly designated as both a fact and expert witness for the May 11, 2026, hearing. The District argued that, in her statutory role overseeing student programming and ensuring FAPE, Dr. McCarthy is qualified to testify about Student’s case history, available District programming, and the comparability of services with South Hadley Public Schools, an issue central to the matter.
Springfield also opposed GAL’s Motion to Compel, stating that although it produced responsive documents beyond the deadline, Springfield nonetheless complied by providing the requested materials, including emails pertaining to Student and relevant policy memoranda. In response to claims of missing documents, Springfield argued that GAL already possessed the emails with the School Committee, including those initiated by GAL. Springfield further contended that internal School Committee communications were not available due to Open Meeting Law restrictions. The District maintained that it had fulfilled its discovery obligations and that it could not respond to vague allegations of withholding documents. It was, however, willing to continue working in good faith to ensure GAL receives any specific requested information.
In addition, Springfield opposed the Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the validity of the 2017 School Assignment Policy was irrelevant to the issues at hearing, which focused on Student’s FAPE and program comparability. The District contended that GAL failed to present any valid legal basis or new evidence to justify reconsideration of the March 13 Ruling, that she mischaracterized the March 13 Ruling, and that she improperly focused on the involvement of school committee members from 2017, which the Hearing Officer had already deemed irrelevant.
Finally, Springfield opposed GAL’s Motion For Clarification, Corrective Action, and Sanctions, arguing that GAL misconstrued the District’s suggestion of a resolution meeting in connection with the involvement of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) as an attempt to exclude GAL or override her authority. According to the District, Springfield previously offered GAL two dates for a resolution meeting, though outside the required 15-day timeline, and GAL declined those dates.
The GAL requested a hearing on the Motion to Exclude Dr. McCarthy, the Motion to Compel, the Motion for Reconsideration, the Motion For Clarification, Corrective Action, and Sanctions (together with Motion to Exclude Dr. McCarthy, Motion to Compel, and Motion for Reconsideration (together, the Motions). Said hearing was held on April 16, 2026 in the presence of a court stenographer.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The factual background and procedural history of this matter are extensive and have been described in detail in my previous Rulings. I need not repeat them here, except to note that the issues in this hearing include whether Springfield failed to consult with GAL when providing a comparable setting for Student, whether Student’s program at Springfield High Schoolis comparable to Student’s last accepted placement, and whether Student’s current placement offers him a FAPE in the least restrictive environment (including whether Student requires door-to-door transportation).
LEGAL STANDARDS
1. Discovery
Rule V of the BSEA Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules) governs the discovery process before the BSEA. Rule V(A) advises that “the parties are encouraged to exchange information cooperatively and by agreement prior to the hearing.” According to Rule V(B), unless the case has been granted expedited status, formal requests for information may be made at any time after a request for hearing is filed and the resolution meeting, when required, has been held or waived. Parties can request of other parties that they produce documents or answer up to 25 interrogatories within thirty (30) calendar days of being served such requests, unless a Hearing Officer orders otherwise.[1] Objections to any discovery requests can be made within ten (10) calendar days of service of the request, or parties can move for a protective order within that timeframe as well.[2]
Furthermore, 801 CMR 1.01(8)(i)[3] authorizes parties who do not receive some or all of the requested discovery responses or answers to file a Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery. 801 CMR 1.01(8)(i) further authorizes a Hearing Officer to issue orders regarding such failure,
“… as are just, including one or more of the following:
1. An order that designated facts shall be established adversely to the Party failing to comply with the order; or
2. An order refusing to allow the disobedient Party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting him or her from introducing evidence on designated matters.”
2. The BSEA’s Authority to Issue and Quash Subpoenas
Both the Hearing Rules and the Formal Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure allow Hearing Officers to issue, vacate or modify subpoenas.[4] Pursuant to BSEA Hearing Rule VII B:
“Upon the written request of a party, the BSEA shall issue a subpoena to require a person to appear and testify and, if requested, to produce documents at the hearing. A party may also request that the subpoena duces tecum direct the documents subpoenaed from a non-party be delivered to the office of the party requesting the documents prior to the hearing date.”
According to BSEA Hearing Rule VII C:
“A person receiving a subpoena may request that a Hearing Officer vacate or modify the subpoena. A Hearing Officer may do so upon a finding that the testimony or documents sought are not relevant to any matter in question or that the time or place specified for compliance or the breadth of the material sought imposes an undue burden on the person subpoenaed.”[5]
3. Reconsideration
A motion for reconsideration of a ruling may be allowed where a party alleges any manifest errors of law or fact, new information, or an intervening change in law that warrants reconsideration.[6]
APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS
1. Motion to Exclude Dr. McCarthy is DENIED.
I note at the outset that on February 18, 2026, GAL affirmatively sought to subpoena Dr. McCarthy to testify at the hearing, although at the April 16 motion hearing, she noted that she did so in response to the District’s inclusion of Dr. McCarthy on its Witness List, to allow her more “rights” in questioning Dr. McCarthy. GAL’s argument that Dr. McCarthy has no probative information to offer focuses on her lack of direct involvement in Student’s Team meetings, and she dismisses her possible expertise and potentially relevant testimony that could arise as a result of her supervisory capacity.
Although Dr. McCarthy may not have participated in Student’s Team meetings, I find the District’s argument persuasive that Dr. McCarthy, in her capacity as the District’s Supervisor of Special Education, has knowledge of Student’s case history, the District’s available services, and the decision-making frameworks that inform placement and service delivery, and that such knowledge is sufficiently grounded in her professional responsibilities, all of which are relevant to the issues in this matter. GAL’s argument that the same could be said of the Superintendent or School Committee members, who likewise lack direct participation in Student’s Team, is unpersuasive. Unlike the Superintendent, who might have more generalized and attenuated knowledge, Dr. McCarthy, by virtue of her position, has direct oversight of special education programming and responsibility for implementing and supervising the very processes at issue in this appeal. Her anticipated testimony, therefore, bears a direct and particularized connection to Student and the matters in dispute. School Committee Members, on the other hand, are governance officials who, as explained infra, have no probative testimony to offer in this proceeding regarding Student’s IDEA rights.
Any concerns regarding the weight to be afforded her testimony, including the extent of her personal involvement, go to Dr. McCarthy’s credibility and may be addressed through cross-examination. As such, the Motion to Exclude Dr. McCarthy is DENIED.
2. Motion to Compel is DENIED, in part, and ALLOWED, in part.
In the instant matter, Springfield acknowledged that it was late in providing the requested discovery to the GAL. Although, had the matter continued on the initial hearing date of April 21, 2026, such delay would have prejudiced GAL’s ability to prepare for hearing, the Hearing has been postponed until May 11, 2026. As such, the District’s delay in discovery production does not prejudice GAL, and I do not find that sanctions are appropriate at this time. To the extent that there are any documents that GAL believes should have been produced and to date have not been, she is instructed to provide the Hearing Officer and Springfield with a list of same within two business days of receipt of this Ruling. As such, the Motion to Compel is ALLOWED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
3. Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
Whether reconsideration is appropriate depends on whether GAL has demonstrated that the Ruling manifested errors of law or fact, or whethernew information,or an intervening change in lawwarrantsreconsideration.[7] Here, I find reconsideration inappropriate.GAL continues to assert that she must be allowed to question School Committee members about their intent for and interpretation of the SOC Policy. As I stated in my March 13 Ruling, there is no caselaw supporting GAL’s proposition that, where a governmental entity relies on policy to justify its actions, testimony concerning that policy and its implementation is appropriate. Although it has now come to light that three of the subpoenaed school committee members had served on the School Committee during the development of the SOC Policy (and its approval), it remains unclear why such involvement confers upon them relevant knowledge in this matter. As such, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
4. Motion For Clarification, Corrective Action, And Sanctions is DENIED.
Massachusetts regulations recognize that the term “Parent” refers to a child’s mother or father, but further define the term “for purposes of special educational decision-making,” in pertinent part, as “father, mother, legal guardian, person acting as a parent of the child, foster parent, or an educational surrogate parent appointed in accordance with federal law.”[8] Pursuant to the Massachusetts Juvenile Court Department’s Guidelines for Guardians Ad Litem[9] (the Guidelines), which set forth the role and the duties and responsibilities for each category of Guardian Ad Litem appointment, a Guardian Ad Litem Education Surrogate
“is appointed to stand in the place of the parent(s) to make all special education decisions on behalf of the child, including but not limited to assessment of the Individualized Educational Plan (‘IEP’), participation in all Team meetings, acceptance or rejection of the proposed IEP (in whole or in part), and filing complaints with Department of Elementary and Secondary Education when necessary in accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004), Federal Regulation 34 CFR 300 and Massachusetts Regulation 603 CMR 28. A [Guardian Ad Litem] in this category must satisfy the criteria set forth in Federal Regulation 34 CFR 300.519, to act as Special Education Surrogate Parent.
A [Guardian Ad Litem] appointment under this section does not include the authority to litigate educational issues in federal or state courts.”
I note that the Guidelines authorize a Guardian Ad Litem Education Surrogate to file complaints with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, as necessary, in accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004), 34 C.F.R. Part 300, and 603 CMR 28, while expressly prohibiting her from litigating educational issues in federal or state court. Although the Guidelines do not explicitly address whether a Guardian Ad Litem Education Surrogate may initiate a due process complaint, they provide that a Guardian Ad Litem may “[s]tand in the place of parent(s) in all matters relating to the identification, evaluation, education program and educational placement of the child and the provision of a free and appropriate public education.” In light of this broad grant of authority, I find that a Guardian Ad Litem Education Surrogate’s duties encompass the initiation of a due process hearing when she determines such action to be appropriate. Further, because the IDEA grants parents the right to open the hearing to the public,[10] in the instant matter, where GAL has requested a “public hearing,” GAL has the authority to make such request.
I note that, in the April 6 Ruling, I found, in relevant part, that the deadline for convening the resolution meeting was March 31, 2026; that on March 30, 2026, the District invited GAL to participate in a resolution meeting for the Student, proposing April 6 and April 10, 2026 as potential dates; and that, by offering dates outside the required 15-day period, the District failed to convene a resolution meeting within the timeline mandated by IDEA. The April 6 Ruling also joined DCF as a necessary party in this matter.
Despite GAL’s arguments during the motion session that the District’s communications suggest an attempt to “go behind her back” and exclude her from the process and that the BSEA has “historically” sought to limit the role of Guardian Ad Litem Education Surrogates, the record does not support such assertions. Although the District used the terminology of a “resolution meeting,” its communication is more accurately understood as an effort to initiate informal discussions toward resolution. Nor has GAL offered any evidence to support her claim that the BSEA, in the instant matter, has sought to limit her role or her ability to fulfill her duties and responsibilities as Guardian Ad Litem Education Surrogate for Student.
As such, the Motion For Clarification, Corrective Action, and Sanctions is DENIED.
ORDER
GAL’s Motion to Exclude Dr. McCarthy is DENIED.
GAL’s Motion to Compel is ALLOWED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Specifically, to the extent that GAL believes there are documents that Springfield should have produced, she is instructed to provide the Hearing Officer and Springfield with a list of these documents within two business days of receipt of this Ruling.
GAL’s Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
GAL’s Motion For Clarification, Corrective Action, and Sanctions is DENIED
So ordered,
By the Hearing Officer,
s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Date: April 20, 2026
Footnotes
[1] See BSEA Hearing Rule V(B)(1) and (2).
[2] See BSEA Hearing Rule V(C).
[3] Pursuant to the Scope of the Rules section introductory to the BSEA Hearing Rules, “Unless modified explicitly by these Rules, hearings are conducted under the Formal Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure, 801 CMR 1.01 et seq.”
[4] See 801 CMR 1.01(10)(g) and BSEA Hearing Rules VII B and C.
[5] See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (d)(3).
[6] See In Re: Student & Braintree Public Schools (Ruling on Parent’s Requests), BSEA# 25-11326 (Mitchell, 2025) (citing to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 and to Villanueva-Mendez v. Nieves Vazquez, 360 F.Supp.2d 320, 323 (D. Mass. 2005) (internal citations omitted) (“… a motion for reconsideration cannot be used as a vehicle to relitigate and/or rehash matters already litigated and decided by the Court. These motions are entertained by Courts if they seek to correct manifest errors of law or fact, present newly discovered evidence, or when there is an intervening change in law”)).
[7] See In Re: Student & Braintree Public Schools (Ruling on Parent’s Requests), BSEA# 25-11326 (Mitchell, 2025).
[8] 603 CMR 28.02(15). Although for children with special needs in DCF care or custody, DCF regulations allow for educational decision-making authority to lie with an educational advocate appointed by an authorized educational advocacy program (a SESP), a foster parent, or the child’s parent or legal guardian (see 110 CMR 7.402(1), as clarified by DCF Policy # 97-002, Education Policy for Children Birth through 22, Appendix B, Guidance on Appointment of Special Education Surrogate Parents (rev. Jan. 2013). Here, GAL was appointed by the Trial Court of Massachusetts Juvenile Court Department, Hampden County Division, as Student’s Education Surrogate, and, her June 12, 2025 appointment states: “SCOPE OF APPOINTMENT: See Juvenile Court Guardian Ad Litem Guidelines.” As such, to determine the scope of GAL’s duties and responsibilities, I refer to Massachusetts Juvenile Court Department’s Guidelines for Guardians Ad Litem (Effective 7/6/2015) in this Ruling.
[9] These may be found at https://www.mass.gov/info-details/guidelines-for-guardians-ad-litem.
[10] See 34 CFR 300.512 (c).