COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Masconomet Regional School District, Haverhill Public Schools, and Revere Public Schools
BSEA # 2611463
RULING ON MASCONOMET REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT’S, HAVERHILL PUBLIC SCHOOLS’, AND REVERE PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF STANDING
On or about April 9, 2026,[1] Attorney Debra Dow filed a Hearing Request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) on behalf of Student and Student’s Mother against Masconomet Regional School District, Haverhill Public Schools, and Revere Public Schools (together, the Districts). The complaint alleged that Student has been “effectively” without an appropriate in-person education for several months, and that she is without “а current, appropriate [Individualized Education Program (IEP)], updated evaluations, and а safe educational environment.”
On April 21, 2026, Masconomet Regional School District, Haverhill Public Schools, and Revere Public Schools, filed Masconomet Regional School District’s, Haverhill Public Schools’, And Revere Public Schools’ Joint Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Standing (the Motion), seeking to dismiss the above-captioned case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Districts stated that both Mother and her minor child, Student, lacked standing to file for hearing in this matter and, consequently, the instant BSEA proceeding must be dismissed.
On April 22, Mother responded via email, stating that she opposes any request “to join or dismiss” the BSEA hearing for Student, arguing that the hearing was properly requested by Student and her attorney and should proceed, as dismissal or delay would undermine a fair review. While Mother acknowledged the Guardian ad Litem’s role in protecting Student’s best interests, she requested that the hearing move forward as filed.
On April 24, 2026, Attorney Debra Dow, on behalf of Student (and Mother), filed Child, [Student]’s Objection To [Masconomet’s] Response and District’s Request To Dismiss, asserting that the matter is properly before the BSEA as the Hearing Request alleges that the Districts have failed to provide Student with an appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. Attorney Dow requested, in part, that the hearing proceed as scheduled, or, alternatively, a 45-day delay be granted to allow for guardianship proceedings and further coordination with the Department of Justice.
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 Rule VI(D) of the Hearing Rules for Special Educaotin Appeals (Hearing Rules).
RELEVANT FACTS[2] AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
1. Student is sixteen years old and is eligible for special education. She is diagnosed with anxiety and depression.
2. Since August 2025, Student has not been educated in a general education setting and was instead placed at Devereux, a school, which, according to Mother, is for students with autism. A neuropsychological evaluation determined that Student is not autistic, that the placement was inappropriate and harmful, and warned that it could lead to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). While at Devereux, Student was reportedly physically attacked, worsening her mental health.
3. On December 12, 2025, Student was placed in the permanent legal custody of the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) until her eighteenth birthday, and DCF is currently Student’s Legal Guardian.
4. On January 24, 2025, the Essex County Juvenile Court appointed Attorney Susanna Chilnick as Student’s Guardian Ad Litem Education Surrogate “with signing rights.”
5. The Districts and Student’s GAL permit Mother to participate in IEP Team meetings.
6. On or about January 2026, Student was placed by DCF in kinship foster care with Student’s grandmother in Middleton, Massachusetts, which is part of the Masconomet Regional School District. DCF enrolled Student in the Masconomet Regional School District. Masconomet is, as of January 30, 2026, programmatically responsible for Student’s educational program and placement.
7. Since being placed with her grandmother, Student has not been enrolled in school. She is being provided with tutoring.
8. Haverhill and Revere share fiscal responsibility for Student’s educational services, as Student’s Mother’s last known residence before she moved to New Hampshire was Haverhill, Massachusetts, and Student’s Father resides in Revere, Massachusetts.
LEGAL STANDARDS AND APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS:
a. Legal Standards:
i. Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Hearing Rule XVI(A) and (B) and 801 CMR 1.01(7)(g)(3)[3], 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.”[4] 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.”[5] These “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”[6]
ii. 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."[7] In Massachusetts, a parent or a school district, "may request mediation and/or a hearing at any time on any matter[8] 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."[9] 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."[10]
iii. Standing
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.”[11] Pursuant to the Massachusetts Juvenile Court Department’s Guidelines for Guardians Ad Litem[12] (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.”
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 with the BSEA, 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.
b. Application of Legal Standards
Here, by virtue of her age, Student, a minor, lacks the authority to make educational decisions.[13] Moreover, as Student is in DCF custody and has a Guardian Ad Litem Education Surrogate appointed on her behalf, it is the Guardian Ad Litem Education Surrogate rather than Mother who has the authority to file for a due process hearing with the BSEA. As such, Attorney Dow, who represents Student and Mother, had no standing to initiate the instant dispute.
ORDER:
The Motion is ALLOWED. The matter is dismissed without prejudice.
By the Hearing Officer:
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Dated: April 27, 2026
Footnotes
[1] A Recalculated Notice of Hearing was issued by the BSEA on April 9, 2026, as the compliant was not served on all necessary parties when filed with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals on April 2, 2026.
[2] The following facts are derived from the pleadings and are subject to change in subsequent rulings or decision. I take those facts pled by Mother as true for purposes of the Joint 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).
[3] Hearing Officers are bound by the BSEA Hearing Rules and the Standard Rules of Adjudicatory Practice and Procedure, 801 Code Mass Regs 1.01.
[4] Iannocchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)).
[5] Blank, 420 Mass. at 407.
[6] Golchin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 460 Mass. 222, 223 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
[7] See 34 C.F.R. §300.507(a)(1).
[8] Limited exceptions exist that are not here applicable.
[9] 603 CMR 28.08(3)(a).
[10] In Re: Georgetown Pub. Sch., BSEA # 1405352 (Berman, 2014).
[11] 603 CMR 28.02(15) (“Parent shall mean father or mother. For purposes of special educational decision-making, parent shall mean 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. Legal authority of the parent shall transfer to the student when the student reaches 18 years of age”). 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).
[12] These may be found at https://www.mass.gov/info-details/guidelines-for-guardians-ad-litem.
[13] See 603 CMR 28.02(15) (“Legal authority of the parent shall transfer to the student when the student reaches 18 years of age”.)