STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Student v. Cheshire Board of Education - CT SDE Case No. 13-0036
Case No. 13-0036
Student v. Cheshire Board of Education
Appearing on behalf of Student: Attorney Phillip Cohn Goldman Gruder & Woods LLC 200 Connecticut Avenue Norwalk, CT 06854-7964
Appearing on behalf of the Board of Education: Attorney Marsha Belman Moses Berchem Moses & Devlin 75 Broad Street Milford, CT 06460
Appearing before: Janis C. Jerman Hearing Officer
- A special education hearing in the above-captioned matter was requested by Student’s Attorney via letter dated August 14, 2012.[1] It was received by Board of Education (“BOE”) on August 14. The thirty-day resolution period ended September 13. The deadline to mail the final decision and order is October 28. A telephonic pre-hearing conference was held on August 30. Attorney Cohn appeared on behalf of Student and Attorney Moses appeared on behalf of BOE. The following issues were identified: I. Whether the Board of Education failed to offer Student an appropriate educational program for the 2012-13 school year?
2. Whether the Board of Education failed to offer Student an appropriate educational program for the extended school year during summer 2012?
3. Whether the Board of Education failed to offer Student an appropriate educational program for the 2011-12 school year?
4. Whether the Board of Education failed to offer Student an appropriate educational program for the extended school year during summer 2011?
5. Whether BOE should be required to reimburse Student’s Parents for private programs?
6. Whether Student requires a residential program for educational purposes?
The parties participated in mediation on August 20 and arrived at an agreement in principal but did not come to a final agreement. Hearing was scheduled for October 9. Via letter dated October 1, Student’s Attorney indicated that the parties settled the matter and requested to withdraw the case 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 2012 unless otherwise indicated.