Skip to main content
Special Education Law
DECISIONDismissedCT SDE Case No. 25-0373

Enfield Board of Education v. Student

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Enfield Board of Education v. Student - CT SDE Case No. 25-0373

Case No. 25-0373

Enfield Board of Education vs Student

Appearing on behalf of the Parent: Jennifer Laviano, Esq Laviano & Gagne, LLC 76 Route 37 South Sherman, CT 06784

Appearing on behalf of the District: Christine Chinni, Esq Chinni & Associates 14 Station Street Simsbury, CT 06070

Appearing before: Patrick L. Kennedy, Esq. Hearing Officer

ISSUES:

1. Was the District’s psychoeducational evaluation appropriate?

2. Was the District’s speech and language evaluation appropriate?

3. Was the District’s OT/sensory evaluation appropriate?

SUMMARY AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

Case 25-0373 was commenced by the District on January 24, 2025. A prehearing conference was held on February 7, 2025. At the prehearing conference, a hearing date was set for April 8, 2025 and the decision date was determined to be March 10, 2025. The decision date was later extended to April 9, 2025.

On March 11, 2025, the undersigned hearing officer was advised by the attorney for the Parents that she had been requesting materials from the District that the Parents were entitled to pursuant to FERPA and which were needed in the case and had not received them. The attorney for the District did not respond. On March 12, 2025, the undersigned sent an email asking if the District’s attorney had a response to the email from the Parents’ attorney. The attorney for the District did not respond. On March 21, 2025, the Parents’ attorney sent another email stating that the materials still had not been received. The undersigned thereafter sent an email stating that if the District did not provide the requested materials within one week (3/28/25) the case would be subject to dismissal. The attorney for the District did not respond. On March 31, 2025, the attorney for the Parents sent an email advising that the requested materials still had not been received. The attorney for the District did not respond.

FINAL DECISION AND ORDER:

The matter is dismissed with prejudice.