Skip to main content
Special Education Law
DECISIONDismissedCT SDE Case No. 11-0062

Student v. Fairfield Board of Education

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Student v. Fairfield Board of Education

Appearing on behalf of the Student: Attorney David C. Shaw Law Office of David C. Shaw, LLC 34 Jerome Avenue, Suite 210 Bloomfield, CT 06002

Appearing on behalf of the Board: Attorney Michelle C. Laubin Berchem Moses & Devlin 75 Broad Street Milford, CT 06460

Appearing before: Attorney Janis C. Jerman, Hearing Officer

FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

A special education hearing in the above-captioned matter was requested by Student’s Attorney via Letter dated July 29, 2010.[1] It was received by the Board of Education on August 9. The thirty-day resolution period ran through September 8 and the deadline for mailing the final decision and order is October 23, 2010.

A pre-hearing conference was held on August 10. Attorney Shaw appeared on behalf of Student and Attorney Laubin appeared on behalf of the Board of Education. The following issues were identified:

1. Did the Board of Education propose an appropriate placement for Student for the 2010-11 school year?

2. If the answer to issue one is in the negative, is Connecticut Center for Child Development an appropriate placement for Student?

3. If the answer to issue two is in the positive, should the Board of Education reimburse Student’s Parents for costs incurred in connection with the placement at Connecticut Center for Child Development?

4. Did the Board of Education violate Student’s Parents’ procedural rights?

5. If the answer to question four is in the positive, what shall be the remedy?

The parties participated in mediation on September 10. The hearing was scheduled to convene on September 27.

On September 14, Student’s Attorney indicated that the parties reached a settlement and signed a mediation agreement. Pursuant to the terms of that agreement, Student’s Parents withdraw the due process request with prejudice.

FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

In light of the above facts, the above-captioned case is hereby dismissed with prejudice.


Footnotes

[1] All dates are 2010 unless otherwise indicated.