NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number: 167135
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: July 18, 2017
March 12, 2018
Actual Record Closed Date: April 17, 2019
Hearing Officer: James P. Walsh, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JULY 18, 2017
Name Description On Behalf of
Advocate Associated with Educational — Parents
Advocacy Service, Advocates for — Parents
District and Department of Education Representative — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MARCH 12, 2018
Advocate Associated with Educational — Parents
Advocacy Service, Advocates for — Parents
District and Department of Education Representative — DOE
A Due Process Complaint Notice was filed on behalf of the Parent of ,
(hereafter referred to as “Student”), by the , dated July 3, 2017 and received by the New York City Department of Education’s Impartial Hearing Office on that date. The Due Process Complaint alleged that District failed to offer an appropriate program for Student for the 2017-2018 school year (Exhibit A). Parent sought to have “the Department of Education provide Student with thirty-five hours of SEIT (Special Education Itinerant Teacher) services and the related services of occupational and physical therapy three times per week, for thirty minutes for the 2017- 2018 school year: (Exhibit A).
The undersigned had been appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer authorized to preside over this matter by notice dated July 10, 2017.
Parent, in her Due Process Complaint (Exhibit A), also sought the issuance of an interim pendency order that Student should receive the same SEIT services as stated above, as well as Occupational Therapy services in a timely manner and Speech therapy three times per week for thirty minutes. In accordance with such request, a Pendency Hearing was conducted on July 18, 2017. On July 19, 2017, I issued an Interim Order Regarding Pendency (I.H.O. Exhibit I), ordering the District and the New York City Department of Education to provide Student with “…the Related Services of Speech/Language Therapy, three times per week, thirty minutes per session, individually, in ; Occupational Therapy three times per week, thirty minutes per session, individually, in English; as well as thirty-five (35) hours per week of Special Education Itinerant Teacher (SEIT) services, in , all based upon a twelve-month basis.”
Such Order was made retroactive to July 3, 2017, that date Parent’s Complaint was filed
(I.H.O. Exhibit I)
A Hearing to consider the merits of Parent’s Complaint was scheduled to be conducted on November 2, 2017. However, such hearing date was cancelled at the specific request of Parent’s Advocate, as witnesses were unavailable. The hearing was then rescheduled for March 12, 2018. On that date, again at the request of Parent’s Advocate, the hearing was converted into a Status Conference. No further hearings were thereafter scheduled.
The 2017-2018 school year has long concluded. This matter remains open.
Whatever optimism the parties had at the Status Conference of March 12, 2018, when it was indicated that settlement was near, has not been realized. However, I find, at this time, that there is no purpose in conducting a hearing as there is no relief that I could afford to Parent in a Decision that Parent has not long ago achieved. Parent had sought to compel the Department of Education to provide Student with certain services during the 2017-2018 school year. The Department of Education has, albeit pursuant to my Interim Order Regarding Pendency (I.H.O. Exhibit I), has provided all that Parent had sought.
It is my finding and determination that such issue as raised by Parents in her Due Process Complaint is now moot. Mootness can only successfully be avoided where retrospective relief is sought (Board o Education o the City o New York, 26 IDELR
1326; Neshaminy School District v. Karla B., 25 IDELR 725 [E.D. Pa 1997]. To paraphrase the State Review Officer who decided Application o a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 94-9:
“An appeal may be found to be moot, if no meaningful relief could be provided and there is no basis for believing that the dispute between the parties will continue.”
It is, therefore, my Determination and Conclusion of Law that the issue presented in this proceeding is moot and that there is no valid reason to continue this matter.
ORDER
Based upon the above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Parent’s Due Process Complaint be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED.
Dated: April 25, 2019
JAMES P. WALSH, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer
P EASE TAKE NOTICE
The parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to obtain a review of this decision by a State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Part 200.5(k) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, Section 4404 of the Education aw, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Department of Education has designated the New York City aw Department to accept service of papers on its behalf, including appeals of decisions of Impartial Hearing Officers. Such service is made at 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007 at the Messenger Center.
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD JULY 18, 2017
A. Parent’s Due Process Complaint Notice, dated 7-3-17 (4 pages; Parents)
B. Student’s I.E.P. as Prepared by District’s C.P.S.E. on 2-6-13 (12 pages; Parents)