COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Peabody Public Schools
BSEA # 26-07428
RULING
ON PARENT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE HEARING OFFICER’S ORDER FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL
On January 12, 2026[1], Parent, appearing pro se, filed a Hearing Request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) alleging that the District violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by “creating and implementing а new BIP [(behavior intervention plan)] without parental participation and consent”; that the District denied Student а free appropriate public education (FAPE) by failing to provide appropriate behavioral supports; and that the District failed to comply with the January 4, 2023 BSEA Order “requiring IEP [(Individualized Education Program)] and behavioral intervention implementation.” She requested that the BSEA order the District to implement the March 9, 2023 BIP across all settings at Peabody Veteran’s Memorial High School (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developed without parental participation or consent, in violation of IDEA procedural safeguards, and order that it be rescinded; order “staff training and implementation monitoring”; order the District “to review and amend or expunge disciplinary records related to behaviors that should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.”
On February 9, 2026, Peabody Public Schools (Peabody or the District) filed Peabody Public Schools’ Motion to Dismiss Hearing Request, asserting that Parent’s Hearing Request must be dismissed with prejudice in its entirety “because it was filed beyond the two-year statute of limitations.”[2]
On February 10, 2026, Parent responded via email, opposing the Motion to Dismiss 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[3] was irrelevant because she was not seeking its enforcement, and that her Hearing Request properly alleged IDEA violations including denial of a FAPE and procedural errors.
On February 18, 2026, I issued the Ruling on Peabody Public Schools Motion to Dismiss Hearing Request (February 18, 2026, Ruling). In my February 18, 2026, Ruling, I noted that 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, were timely. Any claims based on earlier conduct were time-barred and could not be adjudicated. I also noted that Parent had not alleged facts sufficient to invoke either statutory exception to the IDEA limitations period. Specifically, Parent did not allege that the District made specific misrepresentations that it had resolved the problem forming the basis of the complaint, nor did 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 did not apply. As such, I allowed, in part, the District’s Motion to Dismiss. Specifically, I dismissed with prejudice all claims arising from alleged conduct occurring, or known or should have been known to Parent, prior to January 12, 2024. Only those claims based on alleged actions within the applicable statute of limitations remained for further consideration (i.e., whether the District denied Student а FAPE by failing to provide appropriate behavioral supports since January 12, 2024).
On March 24, 2026, Parent filed the underlying Motion for Reconsideration of the Hearing Officer's Order [for] Partial Dismissal (Motion for Reconsideration)[4], asserting that the February 18, 2026 Ruling “dismisse[d] claims as time-barred but faile[d] to apply - or meaningfully analyze - the misrepresentation exception under the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (f) (3) (D).” According to Parent, the District made affirmative misrepresentations regarding the nature and status of behavioral supports. The District implemented an SSP that functioned as a BIP, while repeatedly asserting that it was not part of the IEP process and did not require parental consent. Parent further alleges the District misrepresented Student’s progress and created confusion, which was subsequently reinforced by findings of DESE about whether IDEA procedural safeguards applied. These misrepresentations were not mere omissions but created a false impression that services were appropriate and compliant. As a result, Parent reasonably relied on the District’s statements, believed Student’s needs were being addressed, and delayed filing for due process.
On March 31, 2026, Peabody filed an opposition to Parent’s Motion For Reconsideration, stating that the exception to the two-year statute of limitations for filing a Hearing Request only applies in circumstances where the Parent was prevented from filing her Hearing Request within two years. According to the District,
“[n]one of the allegations in Parent’s motion show or even suggest that she was prevented from filing her Hearing Request within the two-year limitations period. Furthermore, none of the e-mails and documents Parent attached to her motion show or suggest that she was prevented from filing the Hearing Request within the two-year limitation period. The District had already submitted these e-mails to PRS as part of its response to PRS Complaint No. 14761 …[and] PRS found no basis for any of Parent’s complaints.”
On the same day, via email, Parent filed Parent’s Reply To District’s Opposition To Motion For Reconsideration, asserting that the District’s opposition is legally flawed and fails to address key evidence. Specifically, the District misstated the IDEA misrepresentation exception by claiming it applies only when a parent is physically or practically prevented from filing, whereas the correct standard is whether the District’s misleading statements reasonably caused delay. Parent contended that the District created such delay through affirmative misrepresentations, including treating the SSP as part of the IEP when convenient while simultaneously denying it was subject to IDEA procedural safeguards like parental consent. Parent further asserted that the SSP functioned as a Behavior Intervention Plan without required procedures and that the District misrepresented Student’s progress and adequacy of supports. These actions created a false impression that Student’s needs were being appropriately addressed, leading to a reasonable delay in filing for due process. According to Parent, the PRS outcome is irrelevant, and the Hearing Officer erred by failing to analyze the misrepresentation exception and treating the statute of limitations as an absolute bar.
RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY[5]
1. Student is eligible for special education services and has an IEP through Peabody Public Schools. He presents with documented behavioral disabilities that interfere with his ability to access education, thus requiring specialized supports.
2. 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, upon receipt of parental consent, a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) of Student, including input from Parent, regarding Student’s presentation at home, to convene a Team meeting to consider the results of such assessment, and, if appropriate, to offer a new or amended IEP that incorporates the results of the FBA.
3. Laura Bowman completed an FBA in January and February 2023. The Team convened on March 9, 2023, to review the FBA, and an IEP was proposed for the period 3/9/2023 to 6/14/2023. Parent fully accepted the IEP on March 20, 2023.
4. A BIP was developed in March 2023.
5. In September 2023, Student began attending 9th grade at PVMHS with an active IEP, FBA, and BIP.
6. According to Parent, Peabody did not implement Student’s BIP, and Student accumulated multiple behavior-related disciplinary infractions. On October 26, 2023, Parent contacted the Special Education Chair and Director of Special Education Services and requested a copy of the BIP.
7. On October 27, 2023, the District responded (via email) that the BIP was not necessary (was not necessary to provide BIP to parent or not necessary to implement?) but provided to Parent the March 2023 BIP (revised 4/12/23).
8. 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 а 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.
9. In an email from the Director of Special Education (presumably to Parent regarding Student), she states that a BIP “was not necessary but a [SSP] was created to assist with his needs.”
LEGAL STANDARDS
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
Parent alleges that the February 18, 2026, Ruling failed to consider whether “the misrepresentation exception under the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (f) (3) (D)” applied in the instant matter[7]. As a threshold issue, however, Parent did not allege in the initial Hearing Request that she was prevented from filing a due process complaint due to any “[s]pecific misrepresentations by the local educational agency that it had resolved the problem forming the basis of the due process complaint” or that the District “with[eld] information from the parent that was required under [the IDEA] to be provided to the parent.”[8] Absent such allegations, reconsideration is not appropriate. Moreover, the information Parent now submits in support of her Motion for Reconsideration was available at the time she filed her opposition to the District’s Motion to Dismiss, thus it cannot be considered as newly discovered evidence that may otherwise warrant reconsideration. As Parent has not made a showing of “errors of law or fact, new information, or an intervening change in law that warrants reconsideration”, Parent’s Motion for Reconsideration must be DENIED.
Moreover, even were I to re-consider Parent’s argument on substantive grounds, the argument and submissions in her Motion for Reconsideration provide no basis to toll the statute of limitations in this matter. Parent contends the District’s conduct involved affirmative misrepresentations; however, the record reflects, at most, a disagreement over characterization rather than knowingly false statements intended to prevent Parent from asserting her rights. The District’s description of the SSP as distinct from a BIP does not, without more, constitute an affirmative misrepresentation. Likewise, statements regarding Student’s progress or the appropriateness of behavioral supports are not actionable absent evidence that they were knowingly false when made. Further, it is clear from the record that in the fall of 2023, Parent was aware of the SSP, its implementation, and Student’s ongoing challenges, and could have challenged the District’s actions within the statutory period. Accordingly, the misrepresentation exception to the statute of limitations does not apply to these claims.
ORDER
Parent’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
By the Hearing Officer:
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Dated: April 1, 2026
Footnotes
[1] The BSEA’s time stamp incorrectly marked the date as January 12, 2025.
[2] In support of its Motion to Dismiss, Peabody 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 February 18, 2026 Ruling, for the reasons explained therein.
[3] Reference is to BSEA Decision in BSEA # 23-04801.
[4] In support of her Motion for Reconsideration, Parent submitted 8 exhibits consisting of seven images of email communications (most of which are undated) and one Letter of Closure dated January 6, 2026 from the Problem Resolution System (PRS) Office of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).
[5] The following facts are derived from the pleadings and are subject to change in subsequent rulings or decision.
[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] That statutory provision of the IDEA provides that “[t]he 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.”
[8] 34 CFR 300.511(f)(1).