Impartial Hearing Decision

In the Matter of the Impartial Hearing on Behalf of XX Petitioner, And

North Syracuse Central School District,

Respondent.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Impartial Hearing Officer James McKeever, Esq.

Dated: July 12, 2017

Decision

On December 6, 2016, the parent filed a Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) alleging that the North Syracuse Central School District (“District”) failed to offer XX a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2016-2017 school year, inter alia.

On December 9, 2016, the parent filed a second DPC against the District asserting additional claims regarding the District’s alleged failure to provide FAPE for the 2016-2017 school year. The parent also requested an award of compensatory educational services.

A status conference was held on December 9, 2016. At said time, the undersigned strongly encouraged the parties to agree to an Interim Service Plan (“ISP”) wherein the student would be provided with academic and related services during the pendency of the hearing process.

Thereafter, by letter dated December 23, 2016, the District’s counsel offered to provide the student with two hours per day of academic tutoring at the District’s “TTTT” program located within the District’s Junior High School, as well as related services of occupational therapy services (“OT”) and speech and language services (“Speech”) (Exhibit 13). The parent rejected the TTTT program.

Subsequently, the District agreed to provide the student with home instruction for two hours per day along with the student’s related services.

In January 2017, the parties advised that the District’s Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) was preparing to convene a meeting to develop a new Individualized Education Plan (“IEP”) for the Student. Subsequently, by way of electronic mail and multiple telephone conferences, the parent’s counsel advised that a third DPC would be filed following the anticipated CSE meeting. In the interim, several hearing dates were scheduled and then cancelled per the joint request of the parties in order to complete the CSE process and to consolidate the various DPCs (See record of electronic correspondence).

On or about February 3, 2017, the CSE held a meeting and developed a new IEP, which recommended placement in an 8:1:1 classroom at a BOCES site with related services of OT and speech.

By letter dated February 21, 2017, the parent filed a request for pendency and asserted that pendency was placement in a private school of the parent’s choice, with the related services that were referenced on the student’s IEP during the 2015-2016 school year.

By letter dated February 28, 2017, the District filed its opposition to the parent’s request for pendency and asserted that the parent’s request for pendency was improper because the parent was trying to enforce the terms of a prior settlement agreement by way of a pendency order. The District also noted that the parent failed to identify what private school she sought to enroll the student. Nevertheless, the District advised that although the settlement agreement did not constitute a pendency placement, the District was willing to fund the student’s placement at any private school in New York State that accepted the student.

By letter dated March 3, 2017, the parent submitted her reply to the District’s opposition on pendency and reiterated that the student’s pendency placement was in a private school as referenced in the parties’ stipulation of settlement.1 However, because the parent could not identify a private school that would accept the student, the parent requested that the undersigned reserve decision on her request for pendency.

By letter, dated March 27, 2017, the parent filed her third DPC alleging various claims with respect to a denial of FAPE and requested placement in a 6:1:1 class with a 1:1 aide, among other relief. This complaint was deemed an “Amended” complaint, which was accepted by the District and restarted the resolution period.

By letter dated April 10, 2017, the District submitted its “Response” to the parent’s third DPC and denied the parent’s claims with respect to a denial of FAPE. The District also advised that they were prepared to implement the BOCES placement with additional speech services that were requested by the parent.

By decision and Order dated April 17, 2017, the parent’s request for pendency was denied.

Thereafter, the hearing commenced on May 1st and May 2nd 2017.

During the course of the hearing, YYY, who is the District’s Assistant Director of Special Education, testified that the student’s last agreed upon placement was the Private School School pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement

The parent also stated that she was not seeking to enforce the 2015-2016 IEP as the Student’s pendency placement, but requested that the related services on that IEP be provided. (Tr. 156). Subsequently, and prior to the closing of the record, the parent requested another pendency order and a finding that the student’s pendency placement was the Private School School or any private school that the parent selected for a period of three years (Tr. 160). The parent also suggested that “private tutoring” services could constitute pendency because private tutoring services were analogous to a private placement (Tr. 161).

The District objected. However, the District reiterated its request that the parent identify a private school (Tr. 160).

On or about May 4, 2017, the parent’s request for a new pendency order was denied.

On or about May 16, 2017, via email, the parent advised that student was scheduled to be evaluated by the District during the week of May 15, 2017. The parent also advised that the District denied her request to video record the evaluations with her cellphone. The parent submits that District did not object to this practice previously and requested an order directing the District to grant her request. The parent also submits that due to the acrimonious relationship with the District, she needed to record all of her interactions with the District in order to rebut any false claims made against her by the District.

By email dated, May 17, 2017, the District confirmed that the student was scheduled to be evaluated by the District and that the parent was not permitted to video record the evaluations because the District’s policy prohibits videoing recordings on school property without permission. The District also advised that the evaluators would not consent to the parent recording their evaluations.

On May 25, 2017, the parties submitted written statements regarding their respective positions on the parent’s ability to video record the student’s evaluations at the District.

On May 26, 2017, the parties were heard on the record with respect to this issue.

By Order dated June 5, 2017, the parent’s request to video record the student’s evaluations over the objection of the District and the District’s evaluators was denied.

Thereafter, on or about June 6, 2017, the parent requested an order with respect to the ruling on reconsideration of pendency because of a pending SRO appeal.

On or about June 12, 2017, the undersigned issued a Decision and Order with respect to the parent’s second request for pendency. Specifically, the undersigned found that because the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement did not reference the issue of pendency, the Private School was not the Student’s pendency placement. Additionally, although Ms. YYYYY testified that she believed that the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement was the student’s “last agreed upon” placement, the undersigned found no authority to support this assertion. Thus, to the extent the parent requested a pendency order for the Student’s placement in a private school and/or the provision of private tutoring services under pendency, that request was denied.

Throughout the hearing process, the parties made multiple requests to extend the compliance date due to witness availability, preparation for due process and preparation of post-hearing briefs. The Orders of extension were served on all parties as per the Commissioner’s Regulations and are part of the hearing record.

The Record Close date was July 3, 2017.

The current compliance date is July 12, 2017.

Findings of Fact:

The student is a 15-year-old student classified as at student with “autism” under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) (“student”). Classification is not at issue (Exhibit 24).

The student presents with global cognitive deficits. However, his “Verbal Ability” is a relative strength and he is able to read (Tr. 5-51, 85). The student also meets the criteria for Specific Learning Disorder with impairments in reading, writing and math, in addition to the Autism Spectrum Disorder (Exhibit 2, Tr. 48). Academically, the student is performing significantly below grade level across all major domains.

The student requires a small class and therapeutic environment with intensive academic interventions in order to obtain an educational benefit from academic instruction (Exhibit 4, Tr. 55).

During the 2015-2016 school year, the student attended the Private School School, which is a private school located on Long Island, pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement that resolved a DPC that challenged the District’ proposed 12:1:1 class for that school year (“Stipulation”). According to the Stipulation, the student was to be placed at the Private School School through the 2017-2018 school year. However, at the end of the 2015-2016 school year, the student was discharged from the Private School School because the school determined that the student required a more therapeutic placement (Tr. 130).

On or about July 2016, the parent’s counsel advised that District that the student had been discharged from the Private School School and that the parent was searching for a residential school (Exhibit T).

On or about September 15, 2016, the parent advised the District that the student required a more restrictive setting and was without a placement (Exhibit V). The parent also requested that the District make a referral to a private residential school for the student (Exhibit V).

The District advised the parent that the student had to be reenrolled in order for the CSE to convene a meeting and develop a new IEP for the student’s placement. The District also requested that the parent provide the District with the student’s records from the Private School School (Exhibit 9).

The parent did not provide the District with any records from the Private School School and did not reenroll the student in the District (Tr. 128).

On December 31, 2016, the student was admitted to Hutchings Psychiatric Center after threatening to commit suicide by putting a plastic bag over his head (Exhibit Y). Subsequently, the student was discharged to the parent on January 9, 2017. “No medication was ordered” (Exhibit Y).

The District did not attempt to reconvene the CSE to offer the student a new placement until January 2017. During the entire process, the parent remained a resident of the District (Tr. 204-205).

From September 2016 until January 2017, the parent was not be able to locate a placement for the student (Tr. 205).

The initial CSE meeting scheduled for January 17, 2017, was adjourned at the request for the parent (Exhibit 15, Tr. 125).

Thereafter, the CSE held a meeting on February 3, 2017. The parent participated by telephone (Tr. 127).

The CSE meeting participants included two School Psychologists, a special education teacher and a general education teacher, as well an a speech pathologist, a speech therapist and an occupational therapist. The committee also included a BOCES representative, the Director of Special Education and a physician (Exhibit D, 113-114).

At the time of the meeting, the CSE reviewed the results of the cognitive and academic testing conducted by the District in 2015, as well as their OT and speech evaluation conducted in 2015 (Exhibit 2, Tr. 44, 113).2

The District requested that the parent provide consent for the District to conducted new evaluations, which the parent initially failed to do. However, subsequent to the hearing, the parent

At the conclusion of the CSE meeting on February 3, 2017, the CSE recommended that the student be placed in a 8:1:1 special class at the XXXX- BOCES (“XXX BOCES”) with OT and speech services provided in a small group twice a week for thirty minutes each. The CSE also recommended a full-time, 1:1, Teaching Assistant to help with the student’s transitioning issues, as well as parent counseling and training once a month for one hour on a individual basis (Exhibit 24, Tr. 125, 134).

The School Psychologist assigned to the CSE team developed the academic goals on the IEP, and the OT and speech providers developed the related services goals for OT and speech (Tr. 133). The speech services on this IEP were reduced to two times per week for thirty minutes from 3 times per week for thirty minutes from the previous IEP (Tr. 132). However, after the parent objected, the District agreed to provide speech services three time per week for thirty minutes (Tr. 134).

The proposed BOCES class was a therapeutic placement, which included the support of a psychologist as well as a social worker (Tr. 81, 95). The students in the proposed class were classified as either Learning Disabled (“LD”), Emotional Disturbed (“ED”) or on the Autism Spectrum (Tr. 83, 97). The student was considered “too high” functioning for the BOCES autism classes because the students in those classes were non-verbal (Tr. 84-85).

provided consent, but then objected to the evaluation process because the parent was not permitted to video the evaluations (Tr. 124).

The parent rejected the BOCES placement because she believed that the facility was not secure enough to prevent the student from eloping (Tr. 136). The parent also rejected the placement because she did not believe that the student should be place with “ED” students because she believed that the student would be subjected to bullying (Tr. 227, 273).

There have been instances of other students eloping from their classroom at the proposed BOCES placement. However, it is quite rare, and students have not eloped from the facility (Tr. 95 ). Additionally, although there have been some disputes among the students, there is no evidence of bullying or physical altercations (Tr. 94).

During this time, the District continued to search for a residential placement at the parent’s request. However, the parent rejected the one school that was willing to accept the student (Tr. 117-118, 120).3

During the pendency of the hearing, the District agreed to provide the student with home instruction and related services under an “Interim Service Plan.” Sometime after the services began, the parent objected to the home tutoring services and alleged that the home tutor had viewed sexually inappropriate material on the parent’s “Kindle” (Exhibit 33, 224). Thereafter, the District reported the parent’s allegations to the police. Following an investigation, the police determined that that parent’s claims were unfounded (Tr. 122-123).

FAPE:

The District continued to search for a residential placement even though the CSE team believed that the BOCES placement was sufficient to meet the student’s needs (Tr. 117).

Two purposes of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; and (2) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]-[B]; see generally Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484, 2491 [2009]; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982]).

A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits 8 (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). While school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (A.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 553 F.3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]; Perricelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 465211, at *10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007]). Under the IDEA, if a procedural violation is alleged, an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the student's right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C. §1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 CFR 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 525-26 [2007]; A.H. v. Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3242234, at *2 [2d Cir. Aug. 16, 2010]; E.H. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008]; Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007] aff'd, 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008]).

The IDEA directs that, in general, an IHO's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][i]). A school district offers a FAPE "by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction" (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203). However, the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP" (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 [2d Cir. 1998]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189). The statute ensures an "appropriate" education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 [2d Cir. 1989] [citations omitted]; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379). Additionally, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). Nonetheless, a school district must provide "an IEP that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and . . . affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement'" (Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir. 2008]; Perricelli, 2007 WL 465211, at *15). Additionally, to meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances: Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 137 S. Ct. 29 (2016). The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit" (Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). The student's recommended program must also be provided in the LRE (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 CFR 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; see Newington, 546 F.3d at 114; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir. 2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132; E.G. v. City Sch. Dist. of New Rochelle, 606 F. Supp. 2d 384, 388 [S.D.N.Y. 2009]; Patskin v. Bd. of Educ., 583 F. Supp. 2d 422, 428 [W.D.N.Y. 2008]).

September 2016 to January 2017:

Here, it is undisputed that the student did not receive any services after he was discharged from the Private School School in June 2016. The evidence also shows that although the District was aware that the student did not have a placement for the fall of 2016, and that the parent had requested that the District assist in locating a placement for the student, the District did not attempt to convene a CSE meeting until January 2017. Although the District submits that the student had to be “reenrolled” in the District before the CSE could reconvene and offer another placement, I find that once the student was referred to the District for placement in September 2016, the District was obligated to convene the CSE and develop an IEP. Significantly, the evidence shows that the parent remained a resident of the District during the relevant time period and that the student was no longer privately placed at the Private School School. Thus, I find that the District’s failure to reconvene the CSE after the parent explicitly requested assistance in finding a placement for the student in September 2016, resulted in a denial of FAPE. February 3, 2017 IEP:

Here, the evidence shows that the District’s CSE developed an IEP for the student on February 3, 2017, which recommended that the student be placed in a 8:1:1 special class at the OCM BOCES with OT and speech services provided in a small group twice a week for thirty minutes each. The CSE also recommended a full-time, 1:1, Teaching Assistant to help with the student’s transitioning issues, as well as parent counseling and training once a month for one hour on a individual basis (Exhibit 24, Tr. 125, 134). Additionally, the evidence shows that after the parent objected to the amount of speech services, the CSE agreed to increased the student’s speech services to three times per week for thirty minutes. Further, the evidence shows that the BOCES placement was a therapeutic setting, which included the support of a psychologist and a social worker. Thus, because the evidence shows that the BOCES was a small, structured, therapeutic setting, where the student would received one to one assistance, I find that the BOCES placement was reasonably calculated to provide the student with an educational benefit and that the an IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the student to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances: Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 137 S. Ct. 29 (2016). I note that although the parent rejected the program because she was concerned that the student would either elope from the facility or be bullied by other students in the program, there is no evidence in this record to support the parent’s assertions. Accordingly, I find that the OCM BOCES placement with the aforementioned services provided the student with FAPE .

Compensatory Educational Services:

Within the Second Circuit, compensatory education for a student after he or she is no longer eligible because of age or graduation to receive IDEA services has been awarded if there has been a gross violation of the IDEA resulting in the denial of, or exclusion from, educational services for a substantial period of time (see Somoza v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 538 F.3d 106, 109 [2d Cir. 2008]; Mrs. C. v. Wheaton, 916 F.2d 69 [2d Cir. 1990]; Burr v. Ambach, 863 F.2d 1071 [2d Cir. 1988]; see also Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 03-078 [awarding two years of instruction after expiration of IDEA eligibility as compensatory education]). In New York State, a student with a disability is eligible for services under the IDEA until he or she receives either a local or Regents high school diploma (8 NYCRR 100.5[b][7][iii], [vi-vii]; see 34 C.F.R. § 300.122[a][3][i]; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 05-084; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 05-037), or until the conclusion of the school year in which he or she turns twenty-one (Educ. Law §§ 3202[1], 4401[1], 4402[5][b]; see 8 NYCRR 200.1[zz]; see also 8 NYCRR 100.9[e]; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-100). Compensatory education is an equitable remedy that is tailored to meet the circumstances of the case (Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp.

147 [N.D.N.Y. 1997]).

Here, the evidence shows that the District failed to provide the student with the appropriate educational services from September 2016 until on or about the January of 2017, when the District first attempted to convene a CSE meeting to develop an IEP. Thus, I find that an award of compensatory education services is warranted. Additionally, although the parent’s DPC list various demands for relief, the parent offered very little evidence to support her request for a “comp ed” award, other than the evaluation conducted by Linda-Mood-Bell. Nevertheless, based on the denial of FAPE from September 2016 to January 2017, which is approximately 16 school weeks, I find that that an order directing the District to provide compensatory tutoring services, equal to the amount of instruction the student would have received during this time, is appropriate. I also find that an order directing the District to provide compensatory OT, Speech and counseling services, equal to the amount of related services the student would have received during this time, is appropriate. Accordingly, to that end, the District shall fund 400 hours of private tutoring services at a rate of $125.00 per hour to be provided by Linda- Mood-Bell, or other qualified provider selected by the parent. The District shall also fund 48, thirty minute sessions, of OT, Speech and counseling services to be provided by a qualified provider at a rate of $40.00 per session to be selected by the parent.

Finally, I have considered all of the parent’s other claims for relief and find that they are unwarranted.

ORDERED

The District shall fund 400 hours of private tutoring services at a rate of $125.00 per hour to be provided by Linda-Mood-Bell or other qualified provider selected by the parent. The District shall also fund 48, thirty minute sessions, of OT, Speech and counseling services to be provided by a qualified provider to be selected by the parent at a rate of $40.00 per session.

Dated: Suffolk, New York

July 12, 2017 James McKeever James McKeever, Esq.

Impartial Hearing Officer

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

Within 40 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Public School District has a right to appeal the decision to a State Review Officer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

If either party plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shall be personally served upon the opposing party no later than 25 days after the date of the decision sought to be reviewed.

An appealing party's request for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party within 40 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. An appealing party shall file the notice of intention to seek review, notice of request for review, request for review, and proof of service with the Office of State Review of the State Education Department within two days after service of the request for review is complete. The rules of procedure for appeals before an SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. A copy of the rules in Part 279 and model forms are available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov.

Directions and sample forms can be found in the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm.

District’s Exhibits:

Tab No. Date Description

1. 02/10/15 Occupation Therapy Evaluation (5)

2. 03/30/15 Confidential Psychological Services Report (5)

3. 04/16/15 Confidential Speech Evaluation Report: CCC/SLP (3)

4. 08/18/15 Confidential Psychological Report: (3)

5. 11/10/15 Resolution Agreement (7)

6. 2015- Confidential Report to NSCSD (1) 2016 7. 2015- Copies of NSCSD Payments to Private School School

2016 (05/20/16 - $12,187.50; 02/12/16 - $12,187.50; 12/04/15

- $12,187.5) & Marisa Parent (12/04/15 - $750.00;

02/12/16 - $750.00, 05/20/16 - $750) (6) 8. 09/15/16 Correspondence from A.A. Attorney to NSCSD Office for Diverse Learning & Student Support (1) 9. 09/29/16 Correspondence from K. Attorney to A.A. Attorney (2) 10. 11/07/16 Affirmation of A.A. Attorney in Support of Plaintiffs’

Motion for Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint (4) 11. 11/07/16 Affidavit of parent in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint (6) 12. 12/16/16 Second Amended Due Process Complaint (8) 13. 12/23/16 Correspondence from Attorney to A.A. Attorney re: TTTT program (1) 14. 12/27/16 Correspondence from A.A. Attorney to Attorney re: TTTT program (1) 15. 12/28/16 CSE Meeting Notice (4) 16. 12/30/16 Correspondence from A.A. Attorney to Attorney re: TTTT program (2) 17. 01/11/17 NSCSD Correspondence to Residential Placement

Programs: Education Center (5)

18. 01/12/17 Email from K. Attorney to IHO McKeever, w/cc A.A.

Attorney & Attorney (1) 19. 01/25/17 Email from Attonrey Attorney to A. Attorney (1) 20. 01/26/17 Email from Attonrey Attorney to A. Attorney (1) 21. 01/26/17 Email from Attonrey Attorney to A. Attorney (3) 22. 01/30/17 Letter Motion for Summary Judgment by A. Attorney (7) 23. 02/03/17 Prior written notice of new IEP (2) 24. 02/03/17 IEP developed at meeting on 2/3/17 (24) 25. 02/03/17 Letter from JBF to James McKeever opposing summary judgment (102) 26. 02/06/17 Letter from Angel Attorney to James McKeever re:

Parent’s Summary Judgment Motion (6)

27. 02/15/17 Email from Attonrey Attorney to A. Attorney forwarding IEP and prior written notice (1)

28. 02/21/17 Email from A. Attorney rejecting IEP (3)

29. 02/21/17 Letter from A. Attorney re: pendency (31)

30. 02/28/17 Letter from Attonrey B. Attorney to James McKeever re: pendency placement (24)

31. 03/03/17 Letter from A. Attorney to James McKeever re:

pendency placement (3)

32. 03/13/17 Emails from A. Attorney re: alleged misconduct by tutor (2)

33. 03/19/17 Police reports re: investigation of tutor (9)

34. 03/23/17 Emails re: tutor (3)

35. 03/27/17 Third Amended Request for due process hearing (43)

36. 03/28/17 Letter from James McKeever (2)

37. 03/2817 Letter from A. Attorney to James McKeever (26)

38. 03/28/17 Email from Attonrey B. Attorney to James McKeever (2)

39. 03/29/17 Email from James McKeever (1)

40. 03/29/17 Email from Attonrey B. Attorney tendering proposed amended IEP adding speech services (15)

41. 04/05/17 Prior written notice and request for consent for updated evaluation (4)

42. 04/10/17 District answer to due process complaint (5)

43. 04/17/17 Decision re: pendency (7)

44. 04/10/17 Rejection of certified mail delivery by Parent (1)

45. Residential placement rejection letters (27)

Parent’s Exhibits:

A Due Process Complaint Notice 2014 ……………………………………………………...1 B ADHD & Associates Outside Independent Evaluation ………………...…………….….26 C Hearing Transcript 8-31- 15\………………………………………………………………34 D Hearing Transcript 9-1-15 …………………………………………………………..…..358 F Hearing Transcript 9-2-15 ……………………………………….……………………...633 G Hearing Transcript 9-3-15 ………………………………………………………………831 I Hearing Transcript 9-28-15 ..……………………………………………………...…..1006 J Hearing Transcript 9-29-15 ………………………………………………….………...1180 K Hearing Transcript 9-30-15 ……………………………………………………………1460

L Hearing Transcript 10-1-15 ………………………….…………………………...……1709 M Hearing Transcript 10-5-15 ………………………….…………………………...……2105 N Hearing Transcript 11-9-15 ………………………….…………………………...……2242 O Hearing Transcript 11-10-15 ………………………….………………………...……..2483 P Resolution Agreement of 2014 DP Complaint… …….………………....……...……..2643 Q Private School School Tuition Statement …………….………………………...……..2650 R Progress Report From Private School School …….………………………...………....2651 S Letter Regarding Bullying at Private School School…………………...………..…....2685 T Email Regarding Change of Schools…….………………………...…………….…....2686 U Email and Letter From Private School School ...….………………………...………....2687 V Letter to District Regarding Placement ……..…….………………………...………....2690 X Letter From District Refusing To Assist With Placement ………………...………......2691 Y Records From Emergency Psychological Placement ……………………...……….....2693 Z Linda-mood Bell Independent Evaluation …….………………………...……….........2795 AA Draft IEP 2017 …….…………………………………………………...…...………....2801 BB Video of Tutor Reading to Student

...............................................................DIGITAL FILE

CC Video of Attempted arrest of Parent at NSCSD

.........................................DIGITAL FIL