STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Student v. Enfield Board of Education - CT SDE Case No. 09-0430
Case No. 09-0430
Student v. Enfield Board of Education
Appearing on behalf of the Parent: Attorney Jennifer D. Laviano Law Office of Jennifer Laviano LLC 76 Route 37 South Sherman, CT 06784
Appearing on behalf of the Board: Attorney Anne H. Littlefield Shipman & Goodwin LLP One Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT 06103
Appearing before: Attorney Janis C. Jerman, Hearing Officer
A special education hearing in the above-captioned matter was requested by the Student via Request for Impartial Special Education Hearing dated April 17, 2009. The Request was received by the Board of Education on April 21, 2009. The 30-day resolution period ran through May 21, 2009. The original deadline for mailing the final decision and order was July 5, 2009. A pre-hearing conference was held on May 14, 2009. Attorney Jennifer Laviano appeared on behalf of the Student and Attorney Anne Littlefield appeared on behalf of the Board of Education. The following issues were identified:
1. Whether the Board of Education has an appropriate autism program available to Student within the District;
2. If the Board of Education does not have an appropriate autism program available to Student within the District, must the Student be placed out of the district at the Board of Education’s expense in order to provide a free, appropriate public education?
The parties waived the resolution hearing and agreed to participate in mediation. The parties requested an extension of the deadline for mailing the final decision in order to allow them to pursue mediation. The request was granted after full consideration of the positions of the parties and the deadline for mailing the final decision and order was extended until August 4, 2009.
Via facsimile dated July 7, 2009, Attorney Laviano indicated that the parties were finalizing a settlement agreement and requested that the Parents be allowed to withdraw their request for due process hearing without prejudice.
In light of the above facts, the above-captioned case is hereby dismissed without prejudice.