COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Worcester Public Schools v. DESE, Quabbin Regional School District,
Framingham Public Schools & Lowell Public Schools
BSEA #2607483
RULING ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS FILED BY
THE MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AND FRAMINGHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS
This matter comes before the Hearing Officer on Motions to Dismissfiled by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE, or the Department) and Framingham Public Schools (Framingham, or FPS), in response to a LEA (Local Educational Agency) Assignment Hearing Request (Hearing Request) filed by Worcester Public Schools (Worcester, or WPS) on January 13, 2026. A Motion Hearing was held on February 27, 2026, to permit the parties to supplement their written submissions with oral argument. For the reasons below, Framingham's Motion is hereby ALLOWED, and the Department's Motion is hereby ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 13, 2026, Worcester filed a Hearing Request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) against DESE, Quabbin Regional School District (Quabbin, or QRSD), Springfield Public Schools (Springfield, or SPS), Framingham, Acton Public Schools (Acton, or APS),[1] and Lowell Public Schools (Lowell, or LPS). The Hearing Request seeks a determination that DESE erred in assigning programmatic and financial responsibility for Student's special education program to WPS and an order that Worcester is not fiscally or programmatically responsible for his education. Worcester contends that Springfield, Quabbin, or another school district should be assigned programmatic responsibility for Student and asserts that the district where Student's parent or legal guardian resides or last resided should be assigned fiscal responsibility for him; WPS does not identify which school district this is but maintains that it is not Worcester. According to WPS, DESE assigned programmatic and fiscal responsibility to Worcester, where – according to the available evidence – Parents never resided, after determining that its own regulations are inapplicable to Student's circumstances. Worcester contends that, in fact, 603 CMR 28.10(5)(b)(3) does apply and that pursuant to this provision, Springfield retains programmatic responsibility as the school that was programmatically responsible for Student prior to a Department of Children and Families (DCF) relocation. Furthermore, either Springfield or another school district, but not Worcester, should be assigned fiscal responsibility for Student. Worcester requests that the BSEA overturn DESE's LEA Assignment and order that Springfield, Quabbin, Framingham, Acton, Lowell, or some combination thereof, bear responsibility for Student and that one or more of these Districts should reimburse WPS for funds already expended on the current residential school placement, including but not limited to transportation and instruction-related costs.
The Hearing was scheduled for February 2, 2026.
On January 20, 2026, Quabbin filed a request to postpone the Hearing for three months to permit the parties to conduct discovery. Springfield, Framingham, Acton, and Lowell assented to the request. On the same date, Worcester agreed to postpone the Hearing, but objected to a postponement of that length. All parties agreed to a seven-week postponement, which was allowed for good cause, and the Hearing was scheduled for March 24, 2026.
On January 26, 2026, the Department filed a Motion to Dismiss and Response to Hearing Request (DESE Motion), arguing that Worcester's Hearing Request should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. According to DESE, pursuant to 603 CMR 28.10(9)(b)(3), a school district contesting a LEA Assignment before the BSEA must, in its request for appeal, "identify the district that the appealing district claims should have been assigned responsibility," but Worcester's Hearing Request fails to do so. Instead, WPS names several school districts "with varied and limited connections" to Student, without definitively identifying which district(s) should have been assigned responsibility. Moreover, Worcester does not allege a specific misinterpretation of fact or misapplication of a regulation by DESE that leads to an alternative assignment. As the Hearing Request inappropriately seeks substitution of the BSEA's judgment for that of DESE, it should be dismissed.[2]
On January 28, 2026, Lowell filed a Response to Worcester's Hearing Request and Support of DESE's Motion to Dismiss. Like DESE, LPS asserts that WPS's Hearing Request must be dismissed for failure to state a claim as a result of Worcester's failure to identify the specific district or districts that should be named in its stead, and because Worcester failed to allege a specific misinterpretation of fact or misapplication of a regulation by the Department that would lead to an alternative assignment of district responsibility.[3]
Also on January 28, 2026, Framingham filed its Support of DESE's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Dismiss, asserting that should the Hearing Officer allow the Department's Motion to Dismiss, the Hearing Request must also be dismissed as to Framingham for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as Worcester does not have a separate cause of action against Framingham.
On January 30, 2026, Springfield filed its Response to Worcester's Hearing Request.[4] On February 4, 2026, SPS filed its Support of DESE's Motion to Dismiss and Supplemental Response, asserting that Worcester's appeal of DESE's LEA Assignment should be dismissed for the reasons advanced by the Department and supported by Lowell.[5]
Worcester filed its Opposition to DESE's Motion to Dismiss (Opposition to DESE) and its Opposition to Framingham's Motion to Dismiss (Opposition to FPS) on February 26, 2026.[6] In its Opposition to DESE, Worcester contends that because Lowell is the District where Parents "last lived," pursuant to 603 CMR 28.10(8)(c)(4), LPS is fiscally and programmatically responsible for Student.[7] Alternatively, Worcester asserts that to the extent that these responsibilities do not lie with Lowell, Framingham should be deemed fiscally responsible, as this is where Student's DCF Adoption Social Worker is based and where his foster parent and educational surrogate parent (ESP) reside. In any event, Worcester is not fiscally responsible for Student under any regulation, as Parents never lived in Worcester and Student's only connection thereto was "temporary residency" in a group home funded by DCF for approximately six months during 2025. According to Worcester, it is also possible that Quabbin, Springfield, and/or Acton may bear programmatic responsibility for Student if neither Framingham nor Lowell does so, particularly as DESE's investigation of Student's and Parents' residential history was "so opaque and inadequate as to require discovery here in order to determine with certainty the last Massachusetts school district in which [Student]'s Parents last lived and/or resided."
Worcester argues that a full adjudication of the matter is necessary, with the benefit of discovery, and that to the extent WPS may not have pled sufficient facts to overcome dismissal regarding the identification of the district(s) that is/are programmatically and fiscally responsible for Student in its Hearing Request, it cures such defects in its Opposition to DESE. Specifically, Worcester points to Parents' address in Lowell between October 3, 2019 and November 15 or 25, 2019,[8] which WPS asserts is an apartment operated through the Lowell Housing Authority, as the necessary factual basis to overcome dismissal as to Lowell, and indicates that the Framingham addresses of Student's ESP, foster parent, and DCF Adoption Social Worker's main office, provide the same as to Framingham. In the alternative, Worcester asserts, WPS may bear programmatic responsibility for Student, because at the time DCF relocated Student to a residential school, Worcester was programmatically responsible for him, but "Framingham or another district should bear fiscal responsibility," as the district where Student's legal guardian resides. Finally, according to Worcester, there is statutory authority and persuasive case law for the assignment of fiscal responsibility to state educational agencies (SEAs) when state law does not squarely apply to an individual student's circumstances, such that the BSEA could exercise its discretionary authority to fashion equitable relief, making DESE responsible for Student in the unique circumstances of this case.
In its Opposition to FPS, Worcester argues that because DESE's investigation of Student's and Parents' residential history was inadequate, discovery is required in order to determine the last Massachusetts school district in which Parents lived or resided. In its Opposition to FPS, WPS takes the position that Worcester should remain programmatically responsible for Student, but that Framingham should be fiscally responsible because DCF is his "current legal guardian" and his case is managed from DCF's Framingham office, where his Adoption Social Worker is based, and because both his foster parent and his ESP reside in Framingham. In the alternative, Lowell may be found fiscally responsible because it is the district within which Parents last lived. As such, WPS has pled sufficient facts in its Hearing Request to avoid dismissal.[9]
On February 13, 2026, Worcester filed a request for shortened discovery timelines. Framingham filed an opposition to this request on February 18, 2026, and Quabbin and Springfield filed similar oppositions on February 19, 2026. Worcester's request was denied on February 23, 2026.
On February 26, 2026, the parties jointly requested that the matter be continued to April 17, 2026 and that a decision be rendered without a Hearing, based solely on written material submitted by the parties on or before that date. This request was allowed on February 27, 2026.
For the reasons set forth below, Framingham's Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED. DESE's Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND[10]
Student, who is currently nine years old, was removed from his biological parents' custody by DCF in or around September 2019, when he was three. Prior to his removal, Parents struggled with homelessness. DCF reported addresses for Parents between 2018 and 2020 in Springfield, Acton, Lowell, and Ashland, Massachusetts. Specifically, DCF reported, as the dates the agency has "of the parents in that time range:"[11]
[street address][12] Ashland, MA 0272111/15/2019-1/27/2020
Unknown, New Britain, CT | 11/26/2019 - 11/26/2019
[street address] Lowell, MA | 10/3/2019 - 11/25/2019
[street address] Acton, MA 01720 | 9/9/2019 - 10/2/2019
Unknown, Springfield, MA | 7/12/2018 - 9/8/2019
DESE indicated that Mother's last known Massachusetts address was in Ashland (11/15/2019-1/27/2020), but Ashland Public Schools reported that Student was never enrolled therein and that the address provided is a homeless shelter. Father's last Massachusetts address is unknown.
DESE concluded that Parents never had a permanent address in Massachusetts.
Between January 2020 and July 2025, Student lived in various foster homes with placement facilitated by his DCF Adoption Social Worker.
From January 10, 2020 to October 20, 2021, Student resided in foster care in Framingham. Student attended an elementary school within FPS during the 2019-2020, 2020-2021, and 2021-2022 school years.
Father's parental rights were terminated on or about May 12, 2021. Mother's parental rights were terminated on or about July 1, 2021. There is no information in the record about where either Parent was living at the time parental rights were terminated. Mother's last known address is in Connecticut. Father's last known address is in Georgia.
On or about August 19, 2021, the Cambridge Juvenile Court issued a Care and Protection Order. At this time, Student was residing at a Motel in Acton, Massachusetts. It is unclear with whom he was living.
Student completed the 2021-2022 school year in Framingham.
There is no information in the pleadings about where Student began the 2022-2023 school year, or when he was first found eligible for special education. It appears that Student was placed residentially by DCF at St. Ann's in Methuen on or about October 26, 2022, and attended the associated school there, until on or about April 4, 2023.[13]
DCF placed Student in a group home through Helix Human Services (Helix) on or about April 5, 2023. Helix's main address is in Springfield, Massachusetts. According to SPS, RS[14] is a program manager at Helix. Student attended an elementary school in Springfield from April 5, 2023 to February 4, 2025.
SPS issued a comparable individualized education program (IEP) for Student, dated 6/8/2022 to 6/7/2023. This IEP incorrectly lists RS as Student's parent, with the street address for Helix in Springfield.[15] It lists SM as Student's ESP and WA as his foster parent; both are listed with the same street address in Framingham.
Student's Team convened for an annual review on June 21, 2023 and developed an IEP for Student dated 6/21/2023 to 6/20/2024, with a corresponding placement in a substantially separate program. This IEP, which was accepted in full (as was the placement), incorrectly lists RS as Student's Parent and WA as his foster parent. It lists SM as Student's ESP, though it also references her as his foster parent.
In the fall of 2023, Springfield reconvened Student's Team to review reevaluation testing and update his IEP. The resulting IEP, dated 10/4/2023 to 10/3/2024, again incorrectly lists RS as a parent and lists SM as the ESP while also referencing her as Student's foster parent. This IEP does not include WA. The IEP and substantially separate placement were accepted in full on October 20, 2023.
Following the annual Team meeting, Springfield issued an IEP dated 10/1/2024 to 9/30/2025 (2024-2025 IEP) and a corresponding substantially separate placement. The IEP lists SM as Student's ESP, foster parent, and pre-adoptive foster parent. It also lists WA as Student's foster parent. The address on the IEP for SM, WA, and Student is the same street address in Framingham, though under "Additional Information," the IEP states that Student resides at Helix.
Springfield's 2024-2025 IEP was accepted in full on November 12, 2024. According to Worcester, the signature of the person who accepted this IEP is illegible and it is therefore unclear who actually signed. Springfield reported to Worcester that SM signed the IEP and placement pages through the parent portal.
On or about February 4, 2025, DCF placed Student in a foster home in Worcester, Massachusetts.
On or about February 7, 2025, DCF facilitated Student's enrollment in WPS.
According to Worcester, Student was enrolled "for the sole purpose of conducting an extended evaluation." Other than the extended evaluation, Student has never regularly attended classes or participated in other District activities in Worcester. The other parties to this appeal contend that there is no such thing as enrollment limited solely to an evaluation.
On February 24, 2025, Worcester began conducting Student's extended evaluation.
In or around March 2025, DCF requested LEA assignment assistance from DESE. On March 27, 2025, DESE issued Assignment Alerts to Worcester and Ashland.
In May 2025, DCF relocated Student to an emergency residential placement at Devereaux in Webster, Massachusetts.
On or about July 21, 2025, following the conclusion of Student's extended evaluation, DCF removed Student from the foster home in Worcester and relocated him to "reside in and attend an approved special education school." Student now attends a Chapter 766-approved out-of-district residential school (residential school) located within the geographic boundaries of Quabbin Regional School District.[16]
On September 18, 2025, DESE issued a second Assignment Alert to Worcester.
On November 14, 2025, the Department issued its Assignment Notice (LEA Assignment), assigning both fiscal and programmatic responsibility for Student to Worcester, where Student is presently enrolled in school. The LEA Assignment specified that Worcester remains responsible until Student is adopted "or until a legal guardian for him is appointed."
In its LEA Assignment, the Department noted that Student's situation is complicated, because the Department's regulations provide that for LEA Assignments of students who are in foster care and without a parent or guardian residing in Massachusetts, the assignment of responsibility depends upon where parents last resided in Massachusetts, but in this case, Student's legal guardian is DCF and Parents have never resided in Massachusetts.
DISCUSSION
Evaluating the Motions to Dismiss filed in this caserequires an examination of the relevant substantive law and procedural standards, and application of these laws and standards to the facts outlined above.
Legal Standards
Motions to Dismiss
Pursuant to the Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure, 801 CMR 1.01(7)(g)(3) and Rule XVI(B) of the BSEA Hearing Rules, a hearing officer may allow a motion to dismiss if the party requesting the appeal fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. This rule is analogous to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and as such hearing officers have generally used the same standards as the courts in deciding motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Specifically, what is required to survive a motion to dismiss "are factual 'allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)' an entitlement to relief."[17] In evaluating the complaint, 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."[18] These "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . [based] on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact). . . ."[19]
BSEA Jurisdiction
The IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., provides parents the right to pursue a formal due process complaint 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."[20] In Massachusetts, the BSEA is the administrative agency before which any impartial due process hearing regarding these issues takes place. The BSEA is an agency of limited jurisdiction; it has jurisdiction over requests for hearing filed by:
a parent or school district . . . on any matter 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. A parent of a student with a disability may also request a hearing on any issue involving the denial of the free appropriate public education guaranteed by Section 504 . . . .[21]
"BSEA jurisdiction specifically includes appeals of the Department's assignments of school district responsibility for children with disabilities,[22] as each LEA assignment necessarily concerns 'a matter relating to the . . . education program or educational placement of a child with a disability or the provision of a free appropriate public education to the child.'"[23]
DESE's Assignment of School District Responsibility for Children with Disabilities
In a recent Decision involving a separate LEA Assignment, I outlined the applicable Massachusetts law regarding school district responsibility for children with disabilities.[24] Generally, a student has the right to enroll in the school district where he resides,[25] and that school district is responsible for his special education programming.[26] Where a student's legal residence is unclear, DESE has the authority to adopt regulations to assist in resolving the issue.[27] Pursuant to this authority, the Department promulgated regulations concerning assignment of special education responsibility, which are set forth at 603 CMR 28.10.
In accordance with 603 CMR 28.10, DESE assigns school district responsibility for a particular student based on whether the student lives with one or both parents; is over 18 years old and has established her own residence as an adult; lives in an institutional facility operated by one of several enumerated state agencies; lives with relatives; is placed in foster care; is homeless; or is in another living situation as described. In most cases, the assignment of school responsibility depends on the residence of the student's parent(s) or guardian(s). For example, where a student who requires an out-of-district placement lives with two different parents during the school year, the school districts where those parents reside are equally responsible for the student's special education.[28] When a student whose IEP requires an out-of-district placement is placed by his Team at a special education residential school where he lives and receives special education services, the school district(s) where the student's parents(s) or legal guardian resides maintains both programmatic and financial responsibility.[29]
603 CMR 28.10(5)(b) delineates school district responsibility for students in foster care (defined to include 24-hour substitute care for children placed away from their parents or guardians and for whom DCF has placement and care responsibility, such as placements in foster family and pre-adoptive homes, group homes, emergency shelter, and residential facilities, among others). For students who change schools at the time their foster care setting changes (such that they enroll in the district in which their foster care setting is located), programmatic responsibility is with the district in which the student is enrolled; financial responsibility is with the district where the parent(s) or legal guardian resides.[30] When DCF "relocates a student to reside in and attend an approved residential school, the school district that was programmatically responsible prior to this relocation shall remain programmatically responsible and the district where the parent(s) or legal guardian resides shall be financially responsible."[31]
For a student who is in the care or custody of a state agency and has no parent or legal guardian residing in Massachusetts, the Department may assign, or a school district or agency may request DESE's assistance in assigning, a city, town, or school district to be responsible for the student.[32] In such a case, the school district or agency requesting the assignment "shall be responsible for providing to the Department all required documentation to ascertain the legal status or residence(s) of the student or the student's parent(s) or legal guardian."[33] Where a child has been voluntarily surrendered or freed for adoption by the Juvenile Court, "the school district(s) where the parent(s) lived at the time that the child was surrendered or freed for adoption or when parental rights were terminated shall be responsible."[34] For a minor student whose parents' rights have been terminated and the Juvenile Court has appointed a legal guardian, the school district where the legal guardian resides is responsible for the student,[35] except that "where the legal guardian is an agency or organization or the legal guardian has been appointed on a limited basis such as a guardian ad litem, or a guardian appointed solely to monitor medications or finances, the school district where the parent(s) lives or last lived shall be responsible."[36] If the student's parent(s) or legal guardians do not reside in Massachusetts and their whereabouts are unknown, "the school district of the last known Massachusetts residence of the student's parent(s) or legal guardian who lived in Massachusetts shall be responsible."[37]
Once DESE has made a determination of school district responsibility for a particular student, based on the criteria outlined above, and notified the assigned school district(s) of its decision, the assigned school district must immediately assume responsibility for the student; until such notification, the school district that had been responsible for providing special education to the student continues to be responsible.[38] When lack of assignment of school district responsibility "threatens [a] student's placement or program," DESE may make a temporary assignment of school district responsibility, based on the information available to the Department.[39] In the event that a different district is later assigned responsibility for the period of time during which the temporary district assumed responsibility for the student, the temporary district may bill the assigned district for all special education costs it accrued.[40]
Should a school district become aware of information that was not available to the Department at the time the assignment of school district responsibility was made, that school district may seek review of the Department's assignment.[41] If the assigned school district lacks new information but disagrees with DESE's application of the regulation to the facts, it may appeal to the BSEA.
Appeals of LEA Assignments
The process for appealing an assignment of school district responsibility is set forth in 603 CMR 29.10(9)(b). The appealing school district must base its request for appeal "only on the information provided to the Department under 603 CMR 28.10(8)(b) and 603 CMR 28.10(8)(f)."[42] The LEA Assignment Hearing Request "shall state the basis of the appeal," and "identify the district(s) that the appealing district claims should have been assigned responsibility."[43] The appealing school district must "include such district(s) as a party to the appeal."[44]
Application of these standards requires partial dismissal of Worcester's Hearing Request
The parties seeking dismissal assert that Worcester's Hearing Request does not sufficiently "identify the district(s) that [WPS] claims should have been assigned responsibility" for Student and that, as such, the Hearing Request must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Worcester contends that WPS "already pled sufficient facts to overcome dismissal" in its Hearing Request but that, to the extent it has not, its Oppositions "cure[] any defects."
The standard for a Motion to Dismiss, reviewed above, requires me to examine only the allegations contained in the Hearing Request, take them as true, and draw any inferences that may reasonably be drawn therefrom in Worcester's favor.[45] If these allegations plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, the motion to dismiss will be denied.[46] In accordance with these standards, to the extent WPS presents allegations for the first time in its Oppositions, I do not consider them for purposes of evaluating DESE's and Framingham's Motions to Dismiss.
In its assignment of school district responsibility, DESE determined that its regulations "do not squarely apply to the question of residency facing this Student." The Department concluded that the absence of an assignment of special education responsibility threatens Student's continued access to the substantially separate classroom placement described in his IEP. As such, DESE relied on 603 CMR 28.10(7) in assigning programmatic and financial responsibility for Student to Worcester, until such time as Student is adopted or until a legal guardian for him is appointed.[47] WPS argues that such reliance is inappropriate, as 603 CMR 28.10(5)(b)(3) provides for assignment of school district responsibility to one of the other districts Worcester named, and, moreover, neither Parents nor a legal guardian for Student ever resided in Worcester.
Taking as true the allegations made by Worcester and the inferences in Worcester's favor that may be drawn therefrom, it appears Student was voluntarily surrendered or freed for adoption by the Massachusetts Juvenile Court on or about August 19, 2021, after Father's parental rights were terminated on or about May 12, 2021 and Mother's parental rights were terminated on or about July 1, 2021. Student is currently in the legal custody of DCF. Although it is unclear who signed Student's 2024-2025 IEP (the most recent IEP referenced in the pleadings), Student has an ESP who lives or works in Framingham, who may also be his pre-adoptive foster parent; a former foster parent who lives in Framingham; and an Adoption Social Worker who works out of a DCF office located in Framingham. Student's most recent foster placement was in Worcester, and WPS is the last school district in which he was enrolled. In July 2025, DCF relocated Student from Worcester to a town within Quabbin's geographic boundaries, to reside in and attend an approved special education school.
Under 603 CMR 28.10(8)(c)(1), at the time Student was surrendered or freed for adoption, or when Parents' rights were terminated, the school district(s) governing the towns where Mother and Father lived were responsible for his education. Due to the subsequent appointment of DCF, an agency, as Student's legal guardian, the school district where Parents live or last lived became responsible.[48] Even taking as true Worcester's argument that Student's DCF Adoption Social Worker and ESP (who is also possibly Student's pre-adoptive foster parent) are associated with Framingham,[49] I could not find that Framingham is responsible for Student's education on this basis. By its terms, 603 CMR 28.10(8)(c)(4) provides that school district responsibility does not attach to the location of an agency legal guardian, such as DCF, or the residence of an individual who has been appointed to represent a student on a limited basis, such as a guardian appointed solely to monitor medications or finances. An ESP who acts as an educational decision-maker for a student without a parent or guardian is limited in similar ways. Moreover, 603 CMR 28.10(5)(b)(2) differentiates between a student's parent or legal guardian and a foster parent for purposes of assignment of school district fiscal responsibility.[50] As such, fiscal responsibility does not attach based on the residence of a foster parent. WPS acknowledges that Student's last foster placement was in Worcester, and that DCF enrolled Student in WPS. Worcester has not alleged that Parents ever resided in Framingham. As such, even taken as true, Worcester's factual allegations do not "raise a right to relief above the speculative level," in that I could not overturn DESE's finding that Framingham is neither programmatically nor fiscally responsible for Student's education.[51]
In accordance with the regulations outlined above, where a student changes schools when his foster care setting changes, such that he enrolls in the district where his foster care setting is located, the school district where he is enrolled bears programmatic responsibility. Although Worcester emphasizes that Student was in "temporary foster care" in Worcester, WPS offers nothing to support its contention that Student's foster placement in Worcester is different from any other foster placement; similarly, although Worcester argues that Student did not have a school placement in Worcester and was enrolled for the limited purpose of an extended evaluation, WPS cites no legal basis for its assertion that this is somehow different from enrollment corresponding to a change in foster care setting. Taking Worcester's factual allegations as true, as well as any inferences that may reasonably be drawn therefrom in its favor, these allegations do not plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief in the form of a decision overturning DESE's assignment of programmatic responsibility to WPS.[52]
The last remaining issue is the assignment of fiscal responsibility for Student and whether Worcester has pled sufficient factual allegations to raise a right to relief above the speculative level – that is, whether its factual allegations plausibly suggest an entitlement to a decision from the BSEA overturning DESE's assignment of financial responsibility to Worcester, and whether WPS has sufficiently identified the school district(s) that may be responsible in its stead.[53] As discussed above, for a student in Student's situation, fiscal responsibility would generally be with the school district of Parents' "last known Massachusetts residence."[54] Based on the list of addresses and other history regarding Parents provided to DESE in connection with its LEA Assignment, the Department concluded that Parents had "never resided in Massachusetts." By arguing that 603 CMR 28.10(5)(B)(3) applies, Worcester challenges this conclusion.
Taking Worcester's allegations as true, the last Massachusetts address associated with Parents was in Ashland, Massachusetts. The dates listed for the Ashland address (11/15/2019-1/27/2020) overlap in time with an address in Lowell, Massachusetts (10/3/2019-11/25/2019). It is unclear whether either address is associated with Mother, Father, or both. WPS elected not to include Ashland as a party in the Hearing Request, however, because according to the information Worcester received, the Ashland street address is that of a shelter. For Worcester to succeed in its appeal of DESE's assignment of financial responsibility to WPS, Worcester would have to prove that the Department erred in applying 603 CMR 28.10(7), in that it should have concluded that Parents did, in fact, have a "last known Massachusetts residence" and applied 603 CMR 28.10(5)(b)(3) to find one of the school districts WPS named responsible for Student. In the alternative, Worcester may also succeed in its appeal by demonstrating that in the unique circumstances of this case, because DESE's regulations do not squarely apply to resolve the issue of fiscal responsibility for Student, the BSEA should conclude that such responsibility lies with the Department.
In accordance with this reasoning, Quabbin and Springfield, like Framingham, could not be assigned responsibility for Student, as WPS has not alleged that Parents ever lived there. As I can consider only the information provided to the Department in connection with the assignment of school district responsibility,[55] I take as true that Parents were associated with an address in Lowell, Massachusetts from October 3, 2019 to November 15 or 25, 2019. DESE's determination that none of its regulations applied squarely to Student's situation suggests that the Department did not view this association as sufficient to establish a last known Massachusetts residence for Parents in Lowell. At this stage in the case, I cannot say with certainty that the factual allegations set forth by Worcester, taken as true, along with the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom in Worcester's favor, do not plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief,[56] as WPS may be able to prove that Lowell was, in fact, Parents' last known Massachusetts residence such that Lowell should be assigned fiscal responsibility for Student under 603 CMR 28.10(5)(b), or 28.10(8)(c), or that DESE should be assigned fiscal responsibility in this case. Should Worcester or Lowell become aware of additional information regarding Parents' association with the Lowell address that was not before the Department at the time the assignment of school district responsibility was made, whether through discovery or some other avenue, the appropriate course of action would be to present this information to DESE and seek review of the LEA Assignment underlying this appeal.[57]
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of DESE's Motion, FPS's Motion, and Worcester's Oppositions thereto, I find that Framingham has met its burden to demonstrate that any claims against FPS do not plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief. I find, further, that DESE has met its burden to demonstrate that Worcester's Hearing Request does not plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief regarding the Department's assignment of programmatic responsibility to Worcester. The Department has not, however, met its burden with regard to its assignment of financial responsibility for Student to Worcester.[58]
ORDER
Framingham's Motion to Dismiss is hereby ALLOWED. Framingham is hereby dismissed as a party.
DESE's Motion to Dismiss is hereby ALLOWED as to programmatic responsibility but DENIED as to fiscal responsibility.
Quabbin and Springfield are hereby dismissed as parties to Worcester's Hearing Request.
By the Hearing Officer:
/s/ Amy Reichbach
Amy M. Reichbach
Dated: March 2, 2026
Footnotes
[1] Worcester withdrew all claims against Acton on February 13, 2026, and APS was subsequently dismissed as a party. As such, I need not address Acton Public Schools' Support of DESE's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Dismiss, filed on February 5, 2026.
[2] The remainder of DESE's pleading, which defends the Department's LEA Assignment, serves as its Response to Worcester's Hearing Request.
[3] In the remainder of LPS's pleading, which serves as its Response to Worcester's Hearing Request, Lowell asserts that Worcester failed to make any assertions against Lowell and/or make any offers of evidence beyond referencing a suspected address "plucked" from email correspondence between Worcester and a DCF social worker.
[4] In its Response to Worcester's Hearing Request, Springfield contends that its responsibility for Student terminated in February 2025, when DCF placed him in foster care in Worcester, Massachusetts and chose to enroll him in WPS.
[5] In the Supplemental Response section of its pleading, Springfield clarifies the role of an individual listed incorrectly as "Parent" on several individualized education programs (IEPs) developed by SPS for Student.
[6] Worcester requested an extension to file its Opposition to the parties' Motions to Dismiss, which was allowed with the assent of all parties.
[7] In this Opposition to DESE, Worcester asserts that the Lowell address with which Parents were associated from 10/3/2019 to 11/25/2019 is an apartment through the Lowell Housing Authority, and WPS distinguishes this from the address in Ashland with which Parents were associated from 11/15/2019 to 1/27/20, which was reported in the Exhibits submitted with the Hearing Request to be a homeless shelter.
[8] The email from a DCF social worker listing addresses associated with Parents contains overlapping dates for Lowell and Ashland. See note 11, infra.
[9] Worcester also suggests that the BSEA "should consider exercising its discretionary authority to order a cost-sharing agreement between Framingham and Quabbin," because the residential school Student attends is located within the geographic boundaries of Quabbin.
[10] The following facts are drawn from the pleadings. They may be subject to change in further proceedings.
[11] These addresses are taken from an email sent by a DCF social worker to Worcester in or about September 2025, which was submitted with the Hearing Request as Exhibit 4.
[12] Street addresses are redacted to preserve the confidentiality of Student and Parents.
[13] Springfield's Response to Worcester's Hearing Request suggests that Student came to SPS on an IEP developed by FPS.
[14] I use initials in place of names and omit street addresses to protect the confidentiality of Student and other individuals who were, or may have been, involved in his case. None of the initials used are the initials of either biological parent.
[15] To the best of SPS's knowledge, RS was mistakenly entered into Springfield's data system as a parent when he enrolled Student in school in Springfield.
[16] The name of the school and the town in which it is located are withheld to preserve Student's confidentiality.
[17] Iannocchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
[18] Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404, 407 (1995).
[19] Golchin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 460 Mass. 222, 223 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011).
[20] 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6).
[21] 603 CMR 28.08(3)(a). Sections 3(c) and 3(d) of 603 CMR 28.08 contain certain exceptions that do not apply here.
[22] See 603 CMR 28.10(9).
[23] In Re: Foxborough Public Schools, Norwood Public Schools, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, & Student, BSEA # 2600283 (Reichbach, 2026 (quoting M.G.L. c. 71B, § 2A (establishing the BSEA))).
[24] See id.
[25] See M.G.L. c. 76, § 5 ("Every person shall have a right to attend the public schools of the town where he actually resides . . . . No school committee is required to enroll a person who does not actually reside in the town unless said enrollment is authorized by law or by the school committee").
[26] See Salem v. Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, 444 Mass. 476, 482 (2005); Walker Home for Children, Inc. v. Franklin, 416 Mass. 291, 295 (1993).
[27] See Massachusetts Hosp. Assoc. v. Dep't of Med. Sec., 412 Mass. 340, 342 (1992); Walker Home, 416 Mass. at 296.
[28] See 603 CMR 28.10(2)(a)(2).
[29] See 603 CMR 28.10(3)(b).
[30] See 603 CMR 28.10(5)(b)(2).
[31] 603 CMR 28.10(5)(b)(3).
[32] See 603 CMR 28.10(8)(a)(1).
[33] 603 CMR 28.10(8)(b).
[34] 603 CMR 28.10(8)(c)(1).
[35] See 603 CMR 28.10(8)(c)(3).
[36] 603 CMR 28.10(8)(c)(4).
[37] 603 CMR 28.10(8)(c)(7).
[38] See 603 CMR 28.10(8)(d).
[39] 603 CMR 28.10(7).
[40] See id.
[41] 603 CMR 28.10(8)(f).
[42] 603 CMR 28.10(9)(b)(1).
[43] 603 CMR 28.10(9)(b)(2)-(3).
[44] 603 CMR 28.10(9)(b)(4).
[45] See Blank, 420 Mass. at 407.
[46] See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557.
[47] This statement, contained in DESE's Assignment of School District Responsibility, supports my conclusion, above, that when a student is in DCF's custody, DCF may be considered his guardian for some purposes, but this does not provide a basis for assignment of school district responsibility associated with the location of a DCF office or social worker.
[48] See 603 CMR 28.10(8)(c)(4).
[49] Worcester does not specify whether the Framingham address provided for Student's ESP, SM, and for WA, is residential or professional.
[50] See 603 CMR 28.10(5)(b)(2) (providing that where a student changes schools when his foster care setting changes, such that he enrolls in the district where his foster care setting is located, the school district where he is enrolled bears programmatic responsibility, while fiscal responsibility is with the district where his parent(s) or legal guardian resides).
[51] See Golchin, 460 Mass. at 223; see Ocasio-Hernandez, 640 F.3d at 12.
[52] See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557; Iannocchino, 451 Mass. at 623; Blank, 420 Mass. at 407.
[53] See Iannocchino, 451 Mass. at 623; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (plaintiff must plead "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable"); 603 CMR 28.19(9)(b)(3) ("request for appeal shall identify the district(s) that the appealing district claims should have been assigned responsibility").
[54] See 603 CMR 28.10(5)(b)(3).
[55] See 603 CMR 28.10(9)(b)(1).
[56] See Iannocchino, 451 Mass. at 636; Blank, 420 Mass. at 407.
[57] See 603 CMR 28.10(8)(f). I note that in the circumstances of this case, where Parents' parental rights were terminated almost five years ago and Student has been in DCF custody for even longer; where Parents' whereabouts are unknown and it is difficult, if not impossible, for the school districts that may be found responsible for Student's special education to obtain information regarding Parents' former residences, it may be advisable for DESE and DCF to share pertinent information while respecting the important privacy interests at stake.
[58] As discussed above, Worcester did identify Lowell as a district that may be fiscally responsible for Student's special education. I need not address, therefore, the argument made by multiple parties that the Hearing Request should be dismissed for failure to identify the school district(s) that should have been assigned responsibility for Student.