STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Student v. Wilton Board of Education - CT SDE Case No. 16-0379
Case No. 16-0379
Student v. Wilton Board of Education[1]
Appearing on behalf of Student: Attorney Gerry McMahon Law Office of Gerry McMahon LLC 98 Mill Plain Road Suite 3B Danbury, CT 06811
Appearing on behalf of the Board of Education: Attorney Christopher Tracey Shipman & Goodwin LLP 300 Atlantic Street Stamford, CT 06901-3522
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 February 26, 2016.[2] It was received by the Board of Education (“BOE”) on February 26. The 30-day resolution period ended March 27 and the deadline to mail the final decision and order is May 11. A telephonic pre-hearing conference was held on March 14. Attorney McMahon appeared on behalf of Student and Attorney Tracey appeared on behalf of BOE.
ISSUES:
1. Did the Board of Education fail to timely and appropriately evaluate Student during the 2013-14 school year?
2. Did the Board of Education violate Student’s Parent’s procedural safeguards?
3. Did the Board of Education fail to provide Student with a free appropriate public education during the 2014-15 school year?
4. Did the Board of Education fail to provide Student with a free appropriate public education during the 2015 extended school year?
5. Did the Board of Education fail to provide Student with a free appropriate public education during the 2015-16 school year?
6. If the answer to any of the above issues is in the affirmative, what shall be the remedy?
7. If the answer to Issues Three, F our, and/or Five are in the affirmative, is Student’s private placement appropriate?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
The parties participated in a resolution session on March 7. The matter was not resolved at that time but the parties continued to discuss settlement. A hearing was scheduled for April 19. The parties did not file witness lists or exhibits five days in advance of the hearing date.
After inquiry from the undersigned Hearing Officer, Student’s Attorney indicated that the settlement agreement was not yet fully executed and withdrew the request for due process without prejudice, In light of the above facts, the above-captioned case is dismissed without prejudice.
Footnotes
[1] In order to comply with the confidentiality requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (“FERPA”) and related regulations at 34 CFR § 99, this decision uses “Student” and “Student’s Mother” in place of names and other personally identifiable information.
[2] All dates are 2016 unless otherwise indicated.