COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Peabody Public Schools BSEA # 2607428
RULING ON PEABODY PUBLIC SCHOOLS' MOTION TO DISMISS HEARING REQUEST
On February 9, 2026, Peabody Public Schools (Peabody or the District) filed Peabody Public Schools' Motion to Dismiss Hearing Request (the Motion) with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals ("BSEA"), asserting that Parent's Hearing Request be dismissed with prejudice in its entirety "because it was filed beyond the two-year statute of limitations."[1]
On February 10, 2026, Parent, appearing pro se, responded via email, opposing the Motion on the grounds that her claims were timely under IDEA's two-year statute of limitations because she had filed on January 10, 2026 and that all alleged violations had occurred between September 2024 and January 2026. She contended that the District mischaracterized her claims as relating to a 2023 Behavior Intervention Plan/ Student Support Plan (BIP/SSP), when in fact her allegations concerned unauthorized behavior-plan changes discovered in December 2024, failure to implement behavior supports in the fall of 2024, and ongoing violations during the 2024–2025 school year. Parent asserted that these were continuing violations, which were not time-barred, and further that a motion to dismiss could not rely on disputed facts. She also argued that a 2023 BSEA Order[2] was irrelevant because she was not seeking its enforcement, and that her Hearing Request properly alleged IDEA violations including denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and procedural errors.
Because neither party requested a hearing on the Motion, and neither testimony nor oral argument would advance the Hearing Officer's understanding of the issues involved, this Ruling is issued without a hearing, pursuant to Bureau of Special Education Appeals Hearing Rule VI(D).
RELEVANT FACTS[3] AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Student presents with documented behavioral disabilities that interfere with his ability to access education and require specialized supports. Student is eligible for special education services and has an Individualized Education Program (IEP) through Peabody Public Schools.
On January 4, 2023, in a Decision issued by Hearing Officer Sara Berman in BSEA Matter No. 23-04801 (involving the parties herein), Peabody was ordered to conduct a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) of Student including input from Parent regarding Student's presentation at home, to conduct such assessment upon receipt of parental consent, to convene a Team meeting to consider the results of the assessment, and, if appropriate, to offer a new or amended IEP that incorporates the results of the FBA.
Laura Bowman completed an FBA in January and February 2023. The Team convened to review the FBA on March 9, 2023, and an IEP was proposed for the period 3/9/2023 to 6/14/2023. Parent fully accepted the IEP on March 20, 2023.
A Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) was developed in March 2023.
In September 2023, Student began attending 9th grade at Peabody Veterans Memorial High School (PVMHS) with an active IEP, FBA, and BIP.
According to Parent, the BIP was not being implemented, and Student accumulated multiple behavior-related disciplinary infractions. On October 26, 2023, Parent contacted the Special Education Chair and Director of Special Services and requested the BIP.
On October 27, 2023, the District responded (via email) that the BIP was not necessary but provided to Parent the March 2023 BIP (revised 4/12/23).
On December 12, 2023, during an IEP Progress Meeting, the Parent noted that "the BIP was not attached to the IEP. Teachers indicated they had no knowledge of the BIP." A new BIP dated 12/12/23, which Parent had not seen or consented to, was distributed at the IEP meeting. According to Parent, she was told that the BIP was not part of the IEP and did not require parental consent.
Parent filed a Hearing Request on January 12, 2026[4] alleging that the District violated IDEA by "creating and implementing a new BIP without parental participation and consent"; that the District denied Student a FAPE by failing to provide appropriate behavioral supports; and that the District failed to comply with the January 4, 2023 BSEA Order "requiring IEP and behavioral intervention implementation." She requested that the BSEA order the District to implement the March 9, 2023 BIP across all settings at PVMHS; find that December 12, 2023 BIP was developed without parental participation or consent, in violation of IDEA procedural safeguards, and order that it be rescinded; order "staff training and implementation monitoring"; order the District "to review and amend or expunge disciplinary records related to behaviors that should have been addressed via the BIP"; and require the District to ensure future compliance with IDEA, including "maintaining the BIP as part of the IEP, ensuring parent participation in behavioral planning, and refraining from disciplinary removals without implementing behavioral supports".
LEGAL STANDARDS AND APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS:
In applying the legal standards set out infra to the instant matter, I bear in mind that complaints filed by pro se parties, as in the instant matter, are to be construed liberally.[5] As explained by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, "[t]he policy behind affording pro se plaintiffs liberal interpretation is that if they present sufficient facts [to state a claim], the Court may intuit the correct cause of action, even if it was imperfectly pled."[6] This principle 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.[7]
Legal Standards:
Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Hearing Rule XVI(A) and (B) and 801 CMR 1.01(7)(g)(3)[8], a hearing officer may allow a motion to dismiss if the party requesting the hearing fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. These rules are analogous to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As such, hearing officers have generally used the same standards as the courts in deciding motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. To survive a motion to dismiss, there must exist "factual 'allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)' an entitlement to relief."[9] The hearing officer must take as true "the allegations of the complaint, as well as such inferences as may be drawn therefrom in the plaintiff's favor."[10] These "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level."[11]
Jurisdiction of the BSEA
20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6) grants the BSEA jurisdiction over timely complaints filed by a parent/guardian or a school district "with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child."[12] In Massachusetts, a parent or a school district, "may request mediation and/or a hearing at any time on any matter[13] concerning the eligibility, evaluation, placement, IEP, provision of special education in accordance with state and federal law, or procedural protections of state and federal law for students with disabilities."[14] Nevertheless, it is well established that matters that come before the BSEA must involve a live or current dispute between the Parties.[15] In addition, the BSEA "can only grant relief that is authorized by these statutes and regulations, which generally encompasses orders for changed or additional services, specific placements, additional evaluations, reimbursement for services obtained privately by parents or compensatory services."[16]
Statute of Limitations:
The IDEA's statute of limitations states,
"(C) Timeline for requesting hearing
A parent or agency shall request an impartial due process hearing within 2 years of the date the parent or agency knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint, or, if the State has an explicit time limitation for requesting such a hearing under this subchapter, in such time as the State law allows.
(D) Exceptions to the timeline
The timeline described in subparagraph (C) shall not apply to a parent if the parent was prevented from requesting the hearing due to–
(i) specific misrepresentations by the local educational agency that it had resolved the problem forming the basis of the complaint; or
(ii) the local educational agency's withholding of information from the parent that was required under this subchapter to be provided to the parent."[17]
With regard to the second exception to the two-year statute of limitations, above, the "required" information includes a notice of procedural safeguards that the school district must provide to parents at least once each year pursuant to 20 USC § 1415(d), as well as upon initial referral or parental request for evaluation, upon receipt of the first state complaint in the school year, upon receipt of the first due process complaint in the school year, in accordance with disciplinary procedures, and upon parental request.[18] The procedural safeguards notice must include a full explanation of IDEA procedural safeguards, including, but not limited to, the opportunity to present and resolve complaints through the due process complaint and state complaint procedures.[19] With regard to the statute of limitations,
"when a local educational agency delivers a copy of IDEA procedural safeguards to parents, the statute of limitations for IDEA violations commence without disturbance. Regardless of whether parents later examine the text of these safeguards to acquire actual knowledge, that simple act suffices to impute upon them constructive knowledge of their various rights under the IDEA. Conversely, in the absence of some other source of IDEA information, a local educational agency's withholding of procedural safeguards would act to prevent parents from requesting a due process hearing to administratively contest IDEA violations until such time as an intervening source apprised them of their rights."[20]
Application of Legal Standards
In applying the IDEA's statute of limitations to the claims asserted in Parent's Hearing Request, I must determine when Parent knew or should have known of the alleged actions forming the basis of each claim and whether any statutory exception applies.[21]
Parent's Hearing Request was filed on January 12, 2026. Accordingly, absent a statutory exception, only claims based on alleged actions occurring on or after January 12, 2024, or actions for which Parent first knew or should have known on or after that date, are timely. Any claims based on earlier conduct are time-barred and cannot be adjudicated.
Parent has not alleged facts sufficient to invoke either statutory exception to the IDEA limitations period. Specifically, Parent does not allege that the District made specific misrepresentations that it had resolved the problem forming the basis of the complaint, nor does Parent allege that the District withheld information that it was required to provide under the IDEA in a manner that prevented her from timely requesting a hearing. Absent such allegations, the statutory exceptions do not apply.
To the extent that Parent challenges actions relating to the development, revision, or implementation of behavioral plans in 2023, including the March 2023 BIP, any alleged failure to implement that plan during the 2023 school year, or the December 12, 2023 BIP, those matters were known, or reasonably should have been known, to Parent at the time they occurred. As such, any claims arising from those actions accrued no later than 2023 and fall outside the two-year limitations period. These claims are therefore time-barred and must be dismissed.
Parent argues that certain violations were "continuing." However, the IDEA's statute of limitations is triggered when Parent knew or should have known of the alleged action, even if the effects of that action persisted thereafter. Accordingly, allegations concerning the ongoing consequences of decisions or actions that occurred, and were known, prior to January 12, 2024 do not render those earlier claims timely.
All claims based on conduct occurring, or known to Parent, prior to January 12, 2024 are dismissed with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations.
To the extent that Parent alleges distinct violations occurring within the 2024–2025 school year or thereafter (i.e., alleged failures to implement behavioral supports or other actions first occurring or discovered within the limitations period), those claims are not dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds and may proceed.
ORDER:
The District's Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED, IN PART, to the extent that all claims arising from alleged conduct occurring, or known to Parent, prior to January 12, 2024, are dismissed with prejudice as untimely. Only those claims based on alleged actions within the applicable statute of limitations remain for further consideration. That is, the only remaining issue for hearing is whether the District denied Student a FAPE by failing to provide appropriate behavioral supports since January 12, 2024.
By the Hearing Officer:
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Dated: February 18, 2026
Footnotes
[1] In support of its Motion, the District filed 4 exhibits: Exhibit A – N1 for Team meeting on 3/9/23; Exhibit B – IEP dated 3/9/23 to 6/14/23; Exhibit C – Student Support Plan developed on 3/9/23; and Exhibit D – Decision by Hearing Officer Sara Berman on BSEA No. 23-04801. However, I did not rely on said exhibits in my ruling.
[2] Reference is to BSEA Decision in BSEA # 23-04801.
[3] The following facts are derived from the pleadings and are subject to change in subsequent rulings or decision. I take those facts pled by Parents as true for purposes of Peabody's Motion to Dismiss, as well as any inferences that may be drawn therefrom. See Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404, 407 (1995).
[4] The BSEA's time stamp incorrectly marked the date as January 12, 2025, not 2026.
[5] See Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997).
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Hearing Officers are bound by the BSEA Hearing Rules and the Standard Rules of Adjudicatory Practice and Procedure, 801 Code Mass Regs 1.01.
[9] Iannocchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)).
[10] Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404, 407 (1995).
[11] Golchin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 460 Mass. 222, 223 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
[12] See 34 C.F.R. §300.507(a)(1).
[13] Limited exceptions exist that are not here applicable.
[14] CMR 28.08(3)(a).
[15] See In Re: Student v. Bay Path Reg'l Vocational Tech. High Sch., BSEA #1805746 (Figueroa, 2018).
[16] In Re: Georgetown Pub. Sch., BSEA # 1405352 (Berman, 2014).
[17] USC § 1415(f)(3) (emphasis added).
[18] See 34 CFR 300.504(a); see also Administrative Advisory SPED 2001-4: Finding of No Eligibility for Special Education which may be found at https://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/advisories/01_4.html.
[19] See 34 CFR 300.504(c); see also Administrative Advisory SPED 2001-4 ("Forms N 1 and N 2 must be mailed with a Parents' Rights Brochure to meet federal requirements. The Parents' Rights Brochure contains contact information for both the BSEA and the PRS").
[20] El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Richard R., 567 F. Supp. 2d 918, 945 (W.D. Tex. 2008).
[21] See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C)–(D).