STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Student v. Woodbridge Board of Education - CT SDE Case No. 17-0333
Case No. 17-0333
Student v. Woodbridge Board of Education[1]
Appearing on behalf of Student: Attorney Jillian Griswold Feinstein Education Law Group LLC 945 Main Street, Suite 304 Manchester, CT 06040
Appearing on behalf of the Board of Education: Attorney Christine Sullivan Berchem, Moses & Devlin, P.C. 75 Broad Street Milford, Connecticut 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 February 1, 2017.[2] It was received by Board of Education (“BOE”) on February 1. The thirty day resolution period ended March 2. The original deadline to mail the final decision and order was April 16. A telephonic pre-hearing conference was held on February 13. Attorney Griswold appeared on behalf of Student and Attorney Sullivan appeared on behalf of BOE.
ISSUES were identified as follows:
1. Did the Board of Education provide Student with a free appropriate public education during the 2016-17 school year?
2. If the answer to Issue One is in the negative, is placement of Student at Villa Maria appropriate?
3. If the answer to Issue Two is in the affirmative, is Student entitled to reimbursement from Board of Education for tuition, transportation, and related services at Villa Maria?
4. Is Student entitled to reimbursement for a privately obtained evaluation?
Via email dated March 20, Student’s Attorney requested a 30-day extension of the deadline to mail the final decision and order to allow the parties time to participate in mediation. After fully considering the positions of the parties, the request was granted and the deadline to mail the final decision and order was extended until May 16. The parties participated in mediation on April 7. Via email dated April 17, Student’s Attorney requested a 30-day extension of the deadline to mail the final decision and order to accommodate scheduling a hearing on May 11. After fully considering the positions of the parties, the request was granted and the deadline to mail the final decision and order was extended until June 15.
Hearing was scheduled for May 11. Via letter dated May 4, Student’s Attorney indicated that the parties have a written agreement that was not yet executed and that Student’s Parents withdraw their request for a due process hearing without prejudice.
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,” “Parents,” and titles of certain school staff members and witnesses in place of names and other personally-identifiable information.
[2] All dates are 2017 unless otherwise indicated.