COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Taunton Public Schools
BSEA #2614663
RULING ON PARENT’S MOTION FOR INTERIM SERVICES
On June 1, 2026, Parent, who is pro se, filed a Hearing Request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA). In it, she alleges, in part, that Student’s placement at South Coast Educational Collaborative, Gallishaw High School, is inappropriate and seeks, in part, an order that Taunton send out referral packets to prospective placements and provide Student with “immediate interim services” at a neutral location.
On June 22, 2026, Taunton filed the Taunton Public Schools’ Objection to the Parent’s Motion for Interim Services[1] (Objection), asserting, in part, that “the issue in dispute is placement, which is in part predicated on the Parent’s incorrect assertion that when a Parent refuses placement and further refuses to participate in the referral process for a successor placement, the District is required to provide interim services.” According to Taunton, at all times during the relevant period, Student’s “stay-put” placement has been a public day placement at Southcoast Educational Collaborative, and Parent was offered, but has obstructed, the District’s ability to place Student in another Department of Elementary and Secondary (DESE)-approved day program. As such, the District has no legal obligation to offer interim services.
RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY[2]
Student is a sixteen-year-old student eligible for special education services.
On June 20, 2024, Parent accepted in full the Individualized Education Program (IEP) dated June 13, 2024 to June 12, 2025 with placement in a public day school, specifically at Gallishaw/Southcoast Educational Collaborative (June 2024 IEP).
On February 27, 2025, the District proposed an IEP dated February 27, 2025 to February 26, 2026 with placement at public day placement at Gallishaw/Southcoast Educational Collaborative (February 2025 IEP).
On May 11, 2025, Parent responded to the proposed February 2025 IEP, rejecting placement at Southcoast Collaborative and requesting interim services while the dispute was pending. The District declined this request.
DISCUSSION
Legal Standards
Stay-Put
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA) stay-put provision provides that during the pendency of any proceeding conducted pursuant to section 1415, as here, unless the State or local educational agency and the parents or guardians otherwise agree, the child shall remain in the then-current educational placement of such child.[3]
Exception to Stay-Put
Massachusetts allows a temporary change in placement to be ordered by a hearing officer in certain situations consistent with federal law, for example, when maintaining the student’s placement would result in a substantial likelihood of injury to the student or others.[4]
Interim Orders
Interim orders for services are rare at the BSEA, because “there is a risk of prejudice to the non-moving party if such an order is entered prior to a full hearing on the merits, [and,] in most cases, both prospective and compensatory services are appropriate remedies for any past denials of FAPE to a student who prevails on the merits.”[5] In In Re: Quincy Public Schools (Ruling on Motion for Interim Services), BSEA #03-4007 (2003), the Hearing Officer granted an interim order but indicated that she “reach[ed] the conclusion that interim services [were] warranted, [because the] this case involve[d] a highly unusual set of circumstances that are unlikely to recur frequently.”[6]
B. Application of Legal Standards
After reviewing the facts in this matter and the legal standards described supra, I find that Parent’s Motion for Immediate Interim Services must be DENIED.
Here, Parents’ request for an interim order would have the effect of circumventing state and federal law regarding stay put. Nor does the case at bar meet the exception criteria embodied in 603 CMR 28.08(7)(c). It is furthermore factually distinct from and not analogous to In Re: Quincy Public Schools (Ruling on Motion for Interim Services).
Student’s stay put is the last accepted IEP and placement, that is, the June 2024 IEP calling for placement at Gallishaw/Southcoast Educational Collaborative, or a comparable public day program, with supports and services delineated in the IEP last accepted by Parent on June 20, 2024.[7] Because such placement continues to be available to Student, no interim services are currently indicated.
ORDER
Parent’s Motion for Immediate Interim Services is DENIED.
So ordered,
By the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Date: June 24, 2026
Footnotes
[1] This was filed together with the District’s Response to the Hearing Request.
[2] The following facts are derived from the pleadings and are subject to change in subsequent rulings or decision.
[3] See 20 U.S.C. sec. 1415(j); 603 CMR 28.08 (7).
[4] 603 CMR 28.08 (7)(c).
[5] In Re: Quincy Public Schools (Ruling on Motion for Interim Services), BSEA # 03-4007 (2003); see In Re: Student v. Springfield Public Schools (Ruling On Emergency Request For Interim Order For Door-To-Door Transportation), BSEA # 26-05261 (Kantor Nir, 2026) (declining to order interim relief in this matter because “Transportation decisions must be made by the Team. Here, the Team has not had an opportunity to assess whether such a related service is necessary”); In Re: Student v. Lincoln Public Schools District and Lincoln Sudbury Public Schools District (Ruling On The Parents’ Motion For Interim Order For Placement Of The Student And The School Districts’ Opposition To Said Motion And To Convene The Hearing During The Week Of August 19, 2002), BSEA # 03-0357 (Figueroa, 2002) (“while I can understand the Parents, [sic] concerns for their daughter, their request for Interim Order placing the child at Riverview would have the effect of circumventing State and Federal Law regarding Stay Put”).
[6] In that case, during the pendency of the dispute, Student began undergoing an experimental steroid treatment for a short and finite period of time, and Parents sought an interim order requiring the school district to provide Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) and speech and language services for the duration of the treatment, arguing that by the time a decision on the merits was issued, the treatment would have ended. Following a hearing on the motion, which included the presentation of testimony and evidence, the Hearing Officer found that “Parents [had] shown, by a preponderance of evidence, that Student [would] be irreparably harmed unless he receive[d] a significant amount of one-to-one behavioral [and speech and language] therapy” because “any window of opportunity for language acquisition that [might] be ope[n] by steroid treatment necessarily [would] be closed when the treatment end[ed], and any harm from denial of ABA services during that period [would] not likely be remedied by prospective or compensatory relief if the Student prevail[ed] on the merits.” She ordered that “[s]uch therapy should continue until Student finishes steroid treatment or until a full decision on the merits, whichever is earlier.”
[7] Whether or not placement at Gallishaw/Southcoast Educational Collaborative is appropriate and able to provide Student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) is indeed one of the issues upon which this matter is predicated, but it is irrelevant to the issue of stay put. See In Re: Student and Quincy Public Schools and League School of Greater Boston, BSEA #22-02940 (Mitchell 2021) (finding that despite a student’s significant aggressive and assaultive behaviors, no emergency constituting a threat to the health and safety of others existed justifying termination and a change in “stay-put”).