Ithaca City School District, Impartial Hearing Decision

Ithaca City School District SEP Ag Case No. 503884 By due process complaint notice dated May 25, 2017, the parent of a student with a disability raised procedural and substantive issues with respect to an IEP for the 2017-2018 school year developed at a CSE meeting held on May 5, 2017 and, according to the parent, subsequently finalized without the parent’s participation (Exhibit IHO-I). A prehearing conference was held on June 21, 2017. An impartial hearing was not scheduled; rather, I granted the District’s request for an extension of the compliance date to allow for a facilitated CSE meeting, to which both parties then were amenable, under a pilot program of the State Education Department (Exhibit IHO-XVI). On June 26, 2017, the parent withdrew her agreement to facilitation (Exhibit IHO-X1X) and an impartial hearing was scheduled on July 11, July 12, July 13 and July 14, 2017 (Exhibit IHO-XXII1). By letter dated July 8, 2017, after the CSE had met on June 9 and July 6, 2017, the parent amended the due process complaint notice with the District’s consent (Exhibits HHO-XXX1X, THO- XL, IHO-XLII), restarting the impartial hearing timeline in accordance with 8 NYCRR §200.5(1)(7)(i1) and necessitating the hearing dates being adjourned (Exhibit IHO-XLIII), In due course, the hearing was rescheduled on September 6, 7, and 8, 2017. (Exhibits IHO- XLVI, IHO-LIV). On August 31, 2017, the District moved to dismiss the amended due process complaint notice in tts entirety with prejudice on the ground ‘the student’s enrollment in a different school district had rendered the parent’s claims moot, in line with the reasoning of the State Review Officer in Application ofa Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 02-109 (2002) and Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 02-072 (2002). The motion was supported by an affirmation of the District’s be Ithaca City School District Case No. 503884 attorney and an affidavit of the District’s Director of Special Education. To the affirmation of the District’s attorney were attached two exhibits. The first exhibit was a copy of a letter, dated August 22, 2017, from the parent to.a New York State Supreme Court Justice in a currently pending special proceeding, in which the parent wrote that the student was no longer a student in the District and that she was currently moving and setting up household inher new home, and giving an address in-another school district under her signature. The second exhibit was a copy of an e-mail, sent on August 29, 2017, to the undersigned and the District’s attorney, in which the parent wrote, among other things indicative of change of residence, that she had leased an apartment tnthe other school district and had leased her own house in the District and that she had submitted paperwork to the other schoo! district, and again giving the same address in the other school district under her e-mail address. To the affidavit of the District’s Director of Special Education -was attached -an exhibit consisting of a copy of an Authorization for Release of Records printed under the letterhead of the other school district, signed by the parent on August 16, 2017 and addressed to the District Regtstrar, stating that the student had registered in the other school district and asking the District Registrar to fax/email ASAP the student’s most recent records, including the student’s IEP or Section 504 Plan, to the other school district’s Student Services Office. (Exhibit FHO-LXI) The parent responded to the District’s motion by e-mail sent on August 31, 2017, In addition to stating other things indicative of a change of residence, the parent acknowledged the student’s “unenrottment” from the District and his enrollment in the other school district and that he would not be attending school in the District. The parent

Ithaca City School District Case No. 503884 did not dispute that her and the student’s change of residence rendered her claims against the District moot. The parent wrote that she had “no motivation to minimize [the District’s attorney|’s inconvenience by withdrawing [her| due process complaint” and that she “would be doing a civic service by bringing the [District]’s lies and illegal machinations to the light of day in an impartial hearing.” (Exhibit [HO-LXID 8 NYCRR §200.4(e)(8)(4) provides, “In the case of a student with a disabrhity who had an IEP that was in effect in this State and who transfers from one school district and enrolls in a new school district within the same school year, the new school district shall provide such student with a free appropriate public education, including services comparable to those described in the previously held IEP, in consultation with the parents, until such time as the school district adopts the previously held IEP or develops, adopts and implements a new TEP that is consistent with Federal and State law and regulations.” Education Law §2(15) provides, ~The term ‘school year’ means the period commencing on the first day of July in each year and ending on the thirtieth day of June next following.” Since, by definttion, the student transferred from one school district to another “within the same school year,” it matters not that he transferred when school was not in session. Even were the contested IEP to be considered not “in effect” due to the parent’s challenges, Education Law §3202(1) makes the provision of education, and Education Law §4401-a and §4402(1) make the provision of special education, the responsibility of the school district in which the student resides. Based upon the foregoing, tt is hereby

Ithaca City School District Case No. 503884 ORDERED that the amended due process complaint notice, including the due process complaint notice amended thereby, is dismissed, with prejudice, for the reasons stated by the District. Dated: September 6, 2017! Peal - ” " “ or 2" we a é 5 penentet steueone “AARON TURETSRY Impartial Hearing Officer PLEASE TAKE NOTICE The parents and the board of education are hereby advised of the right of any party involved in the hearing to obtain a review of this decision by the State review officer in accordance with subdivision k of section 200.5 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. ' The parties were notified that the District’s motion was to be granted by e-mail sent on September 5, 2017 at 6:19 ALM.

Ithaca City School District Case No. 503884 [HO-] {HO-II THO-HI THO-IV [HO-V [HO-VI IHO-VIl THO-VIT THO-IX [HO-X [HO-X] [HO-XII {HO-XHI {HO-XIV IHO-XV THO-XVI1 THO-XVII [HO-XVIII [HO-XIX [HO-XX Due Process Complaint Notice Response to Due Process Complaint Emails from [HO and District’s attorney Letter from IHO E-mails from parent, District’s attorney and [HO Letter from [HO Letter from District’s attorney E-mail and letter from parent E-mails from parent and IHO Letter from parent Letter from District’s attorney E-mail from parent E-mails from parent E-mail from parent E-mail from parent Letter from IHO E-mails from parent and District’s attorney E-mails from [HO and parent E-mail from parent E-mail from IHO EXHIBITS ENTERED INTO RECORD SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 5/25/17 6/5/17 various 6/6/17 Various 6/17/17 6/18/17 6/19/17 6/19/17 6/20/17 6/20/17 6/22/17 6/22/17 6/22/17 6/22/17 6/24/17 6/26/17 6/26/17 6/26/17 6/26/17 59 pp. 114 pp. 3 pp. lp. 9 pp. 2 pp. 4 pp. 5 pp. lp. 6 pp. 2 pp. 17 pp. lp. Ip.

Ithaca City School District Case No. 503884 6 IHO-XX1 E-mails from District’s attorney and [HO THO-XXII E-mails from parent {HO-XXIT «E-mails from District’s attorney and [HO IHO-XXIV_ E-mails from parent and IHO JHO-XXV E-mail from IHO THO-XXVI E-mail from District’s attorney IHO-XXVIL E-mail from parent IHO-XXVIH E-mails from parent and District’s attorney IHO-XXIX — E-mails from [HO and District’s attorney IHO-XXX Letter from THO JHO-XXXI __—District’s motion in limine fHO-XXXII E-mails from parent and [HO [HO-XXXIHI E-mails from parent and District’s attorney IHO-XXIV_ E-mails from THO, parent and District’s attorney IHO-XXXV___ Letter from parent IHO-XXXVI_ E-mails from parent and [HO IHO-XXXVU_ Letter from District’s attorney IHO-XXXVII Letter from IHO IHO-SIX_ Letter from parent THO-XL E-mails from District’s attorney and IHO IHO-XLI E-mails from parent, District’s attorney and IHO THO-XLII E-mails from parent and [HO 9/26/17 6/26/17 626/17 6/26/17 6/26/17 6/27/17 6/27/17 6/28/17 6/29/17 6/29/17 6/30/17 various TANT TANT TANT WINT TBAT 7/8/17 7/8/17 7/8/17 TBAT 7/8/17 22 pp. 3 pp. 40 pp. 4 pp. 6 pp. 2 pp. 7 pp. 3 pp.

Ithaca City School District Case No. 503884 {HO-XLII THO-XLIV [HO-XLV IHO-XLVI THO-XLVH [HO-XLVII THO-IL THO-L {HO-LI {HO-LI THO-LI0 THO-LIV THO-LV IHO-LVI IHO-LVI IHO-LVIII THO-LIX THO-LX [HO-LXI THO-LXT THO-LXIT Letter from [HO Response to Amended Due Process Complaint Materials pertaining to District’s subpoenas Letter from [HO E-mails from [HO and parent E-mail from parent E-mails from parent and [HO E-mails from District’s attorney and [HO E-mails from District’s attorney and [HO E-mails from [HO and parent E-mails from [HO and parent Letter from [HO E-mails from [HO and District’s attorney E-mails from THO and parent E-mails from [HO and parent E-mails from IHO and parent E-mails from District’s attorney and parent E-mail from parent Motion to Dismiss Due Process Complaint E-mail from Parent E-mail from [HO TBAT TAGAT various 8/10/17 various 8/11/17 8/15/17 8/15/17 8/15/17 various various 8/18/17 various 8/29/17 8/29/17 8/3117 various 8/31/17 8/31/17 8/31/17 DI/17