New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 173727

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: October 4, 2018

October 15, 2018

Actual Record Closed Date: January 4, 2019

Hearing Officer: Jeffrey Schiro, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

OCTOBER 4, 2018

For the Student:

ESQ., Attorney

ESQ., Attorney

Parents

Director

For the Department of Education:

Impartial Hearing Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

OCTOBER 15, 2018

For the Student:

ESQ., Attorney

(via telephone) Parent

For the Department of Education:

Impartial Hearing Representative

I]. JURISDICTION - OVERVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

This impartial due process proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482, and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law. This hearing was requested by the attorneys for the student and the parent in a due process complaint notice dated June 14, 2018. The primary issue to be determined at this hearing is whether the Department of Education (the “DOE”’) offered the student a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19 school years (Ex. P-A).^[1]

When a student in New York is eligible for services, the IDEA calls for the creation of an individualized education program (“JEP”), which is delegated to a local committee on that includes, but is not limited to, See N.Y. Educ. Law § 4402; see also 20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(d)(1)(a)-(b); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320, 300.321; 8 NYCRR 8§ 200.3, 200.4(d)(2). If disputes occur between parents and school districts, incorporated among the procedural protections is the opportunity to engage in mediation, present state complaints, and initiate an impartial due process hearing. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1221e-3, 1415(e)-(f); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151 - 300.152, 300.506, 300.511; N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1); 8 NYCRR §§ 200.5(h)-(1).

New York State has implemented a two-tiered system of administrative review to address disputed matters between parents and school districts regarding “any matter relating to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of a student with a disability, or a student suspected of having a disability, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such student.” See 8 NYCRR § 200.5(1)(1); see also 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(b)(6)-(7); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.503(a)(1)-(2), 300.507(a)(1). An impartial hearing officer (“IHO”) typically conducts a trial-type hearing regarding the matters in dispute in which the parties have the right to be accompanied and advised by counsel and certain other individuals with special knowledge or training; present evidence and as “Ex.” confront, cross-examine and compel the attendance of witnesses; prohibit the introduction of any evidence at the hearing that has not been disclosed before the hearing; and obtain a verbatim record of the proceeding. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(f)(2)(a), (hC1)-(3); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.521(a)(1)-(4); 8 NYCRR §§ 200.5(j)(3)(¥), (vil), (x11).

The IHO must render and transmit a final written decision in the matter to the parties not later than - (45) days after the expiration period or adjusted period for the resolution process. See 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.510(b)(2), (c), 300.515(a); 8 NYCRR § 200.5(q)(5). A party may seek a specific extension of time of the , which the IHO may grant in accordance with state and federal regulations. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c); 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(5). The decision of the [HO is binding upon both parties unless appealed. See N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1). A party aggrieved by the decision of an IHO may appeal that decision to a State Review Officer (“SRO”). See N.Y. Educ. Law § 4402(2); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1415(g)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.514(b)(1); 8 NYCRR§ 200.5(k).

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The DOE appointed me to hear this matter on June 19, 2018. See 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(3)G). In a due process response dated June 21, 2018, the DOE denied each and every allegation contained in the complaint (Ex. SD-2). See 8 NYCRR § 200.5(4)(4). The parties participated in a resolution session meeting on July 11, 2018, which was unsuccessful (Ex. SD-3). See 8 NYCRR § 200.54j)(2)G). On July 12, 2018, the parent moved for interim orders on pendency and for independent educational evaluations (IEEs) (Exs. THO-I, IHO-I]). The DOE opposed the parents’ motions (Ex. IHO-V). Prehearing conferences with the parties were held on August 1, 2018 and August 15, 2018 to discuss subpoena objections and the applications for interim relief, to clarify the hearing issues and to set dates for the hearing (R. 1-64). See 8 NYCRR § 200.5(G)(3)(x1). In an Interim Order dated August 3, 2018, I directed the DOE to authorize the student’s receipt of at public expense (Ex. ITHO-IV). See 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(3)(viii). Following my receipt of an August 30, 2018

Hearings on the merits of the matter were thereafter held on October 4, 2018 and October 15, 2018.^[2] Appended to this decision are: a statement of appeal rights; a list of the persons in attendance at the hearings; and a list of the documents received into evidence. See 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(5)(v).

Il. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

At the time of the June 14, 2018 amended due process complaint, With regard to educational history, "Following my appointment to this case, the parties moved to extend the case compliance date in this matter several times in order to accommodate the availability of the parties’ witnesses and to allow for adequate time for my review of the hearing record taken on the extensive issues raised in the parents’ due process complaint. In considering those requests, I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the stated reasons for the extensions justified the delay in the resolution of the matter and were in accordance with the requirements of due process. Accordingly, requests for extensions of the case compliance date were granted (R. 345-346; Exs. IHO-X - IHO-XIV). See 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c); 8 NYCRR § 200.5()(5). Student with a disability means a student with a disability as defined in section 4401(1) of the Education Law, who has not attained the age of 21 prior to September 1* and who is entitled to attend public schools pursuant to section 3202 of the Education Law and who, because ; has been identified as having a disability and who requires approved by the department. 8 NYCRR § 200.1(zz).

Also in early November 2017, Also in January of 2018, was whereby the student would be able to immediately earn a point or sticker

The student underwent a in May of 2018 with The parent testified that in spite of having both the student has still consistently

IV. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. The DOE

The DOE declined to offer any evidence at the hearing that it developed appropriate IEPs for the student for the 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19 school years (R. 139). While the DOE acknowledges that the student is entitled to some it asserts that the matter should be remanded back to the for further

B. The Parents

The DOE denied the student a FAPE for the 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19 school years. The failed to timely and the student; failed to develop appropriate annual educational goals for the student;

V. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Applicable Legal Standards

Two purposes of the IDEA, see 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482, are: (a) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; and (b) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected, see 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A)-(B); see generally Forest Grove v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 239 (2009); Board of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 (1982).^[6]

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 through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; H.C. v. Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free Sch. Dist., 2013 WL 3155869 (2d Cir. June 24, 2013); R.E. v. New York City Dep't. of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 (2d Cir. 2012), cert. denied 2013 WL 1418840 (U.S. June 10, 2013); MH. v. New York City ep't of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 245 (2d Cir. 2012); Cerra

v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 (2d Cir. 2005). "[A]dequate compliance with the procedures prescribed would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP."". Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 129 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206); see T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 253 (2d Cir. 2009). While the Second Circuit has emphasized that school districts must comply with the checklist of procedures for developing a student's IEP and has indicated that "[m]ultiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not," see R.E., 694 F.3d at 190-91, the Court has also explained that not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA, M.H., 685 F.3d at 245; 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 IDEA, if procedural violations are 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. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(N(3)(E)Gi; 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(2); 8 NYCRR § 200.5G)(4)(1); Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 525-26 (2007); R.E., 694 F.3d at 190; M.H., 685 F.3d at 245; 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), aff'd, 2009 WL 3326627 (2d Cir. Oct. 16, 2009); Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), affd, 2008 WL 3852180 (2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008).

The IDEA directs that, in general, an [HO's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)G). A school district offers a FAPE "by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction." See 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, 142 F.3d at 130; see owley, 458 U.S. at 189. The statute ensures an |

"appropriate" education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents." See Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132 (quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 (2d Cir. 1989); see also Grim, 346 F.3d at 379. Additionally, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities. See 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." See Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195 (quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130); see also T.P., 554 F.3d at 254; P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 (2d Cir. 2008); Perricelli, 2007 WL 465211, at *15. The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some ‘meaningful’ benefit" See Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 (2d Cir. 1997); see also Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192. The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”). See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a)(2)(G), 300.116(a)(2); 8 NYCRR §§ 200.1(cc), 200.6(a)(1); see also 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; G.B. v. Tuxedo Union Free Sch. Dist., 751 F. Supp. 2d 552, 573-80 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), aff'd, 2012 WL 4946429 (2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2012); E.G. v. City Sch. Dist. of New Rochelle, 606 F. Supp. 2d 384, 388 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Patskin v. Board of Educ., 583 F. Supp. 2d 422, 428 (W.D.N.Y. 2008).

An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that includes a statement of the student's present levels of see 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(1); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(d)(2)(i); Tarlowe v. Dep't of Educ., 2008 WL 2736027, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2008), establishes annual goals designed to meet the student's needs resulting from the student's disability and see 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320(a)(2)(), (2)()(A); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(d)(2)(Gi1), and provides for the use of appropriate services, see 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(d)(2)(v).

A board of education may be required to obtained for a student by his or her parents, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents’ claim. See Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993); School Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 (1985).

rendered where Burlington/Carter factors are satisfied. Mr. A. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 769 F. Supp. 2d 403, 427-28 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); SW. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 646 F. Supp. 2d 346, 358-60 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Connors v. Mills, 34 F. Supp. 2d 795, 805-06 (N.D.N.Y. 1998).

The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that for a unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement. See N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c); see also R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85; M.P.G. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3398256, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010).

B. Additional Services

Within the Second Circuit, generally has been viewed as instruction provided to a student after he or she is no longer eligible because of age or graduation to receive instruction. It 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); but see P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2008) (upholding an award of for a school aged student without finding a gross violation of the IDEA). is an equitable remedy that is tailored to meet the circumstances of the case. See Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp. 147 (N.D.N.Y. 1997).

State Review Officers also have awarded compensatory "additional services" to students who remain eligible to attend school and have been denied appropriate services, if such deprivation of instruction could be remedied through the provision of additional services before the student becomes ineligible for instruction by reason of age or graduation. See Newington, 546 F.3d at 123 (stating "[t]he IDEA allows a hearing officer to fashion an appropriate remedy, and we have held is an available option under the Act to make up for denial of a free and appropriate public education"); Student X v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2008 WL 4890440, at *23 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2008) (finding that compensatory education may be awarded to students under the age of -one); Board of Educ. v. Munoz, 16 A.D.3d 1142 (4th Dep't 2005) (finding it proper for a State Review Officer to order a to a student upon the school district's failure to provide those educational services to the student during instruction); Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-072 (awarding after school and summer instruction as to remedy a denial of a FAPE). awards can be crafted pursuant to two distinct theories: a quantitative approach and a qualitative approach. Under the quantitative approach, courts examine the amount of time during which a child has been deprived of a FAPE, and award with an eye towards making up that time. See, e.g., M.C. v. Central Reg’! Sch. Dist., 81 F.3d 389, 297 (3d Cir. 1996) (holding that a “child is entitled to for a period equal to the period of deprivation, excluding only the time reasonably required for the school district to rectify the problem”). Under the qualitative approach, the examination should focus on the child’s needs; “some students may require only short, intensive targeted at specific problems or deficiencies” while “[o]thers may need extended programs, perhaps even exceeding hour-for-hour replacement of the time spent without FAPE.” See Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Pursuant to this approach, there must be evidence regarding the child’s “specific educational deficits” resulting from the failure to provide FAPE and designed to “correct those deficits. /d. at 526.

At the hearing, the DOE declined to offer any evidence that it developed appropriate IEPs for the student, or otherwise offered the student a FAPE, for the 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19 school years (R. 139). Accordingly, I find that the DOE failed to provide the student with a FAPE for those school years and that the student is entitled to compensatory additional services to remedy the denial of FAPE. Using the credible testimony of I will apply a qualitative approach in fashioning an award of

1. Academic credibly testified that the student instruction using the , as well as The DOE will be directed to credibly testified regarding the student’s need for compensatory the student with calculated that the student The DOE will be directed to The failed to recommend or provide an The DOE failed to fully implement

The DOE will be directed to fund 240 psychotherapy sessions, for forty-five

4.

The DOE failed to fully implement the student’s group The DOE will be directed to As the student would be unable to access the additional services without , and given the student’s inability to take

C. Referral for Nonpublic School Placement

The parent seeks an Order directing the to recommend a non-public school setting for the student (Ex. P-A at 18).

A school district is not obligated to consider removal from the public school to a nonpublic placement if it is able to provide the student with an appropriate educational program within the public education system. See 7.G. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2013 WL 5178300, at *19 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2013); A.D. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2013 WL 1155570, at *7-*8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2013); W.S. v. Rye City Sch. Dist., 454 F. Supp. 2d 134, 148 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ("IDEA views ); see also R.H. v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist., 607 F.3d 1003, 1014-15 (Sth Cir. 2010) (noting that under the IDEA, "removal to a private school placement [is] the exception, not the default .. . [t]he statute was designed primarily to bring disabled students into the public educational system and ensure them a free appropriate public education"); S.W. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 646 F. Supp. 2d 346, 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Patskin, 583 F. Supp. 2d at 430-31; see also 8 NYCRR § 200.6()(1)(iii) (State funding for private schools is only available if the determines that the student cannot be appropriately educated in a public facility). "'[I]f the district can supply the needed services, then the public school is the preferred venue for educating the childTM 7.G., 2013 WL 5178300 at *19, quoting W.S., 454 F. Supp. 2d at 138.

Consistent with the October 2018 recommendation of Dr. , I find that the student requires placement in a New York State-approved nonpublic school in order to learn (R. 293-295; Ex. P-UU at 14). The evidence contained in the hearing record demonstrates that the DOE was unable to provide the student with an appropriate classroom placement over multiple school years. The hearing record also contains substantial evidence that the student failed to make in

An order directing a school district to place the student in a nonpublic school must also consider the IDEA's requirement that a student's recommended program be provided in the LRE. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a)(2)(), 300.116(a)(2); 8 NYCRR §§ 200.1(cc), 200.6(a)(1); Newington, 546 F.3d at 111; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 105; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132; Patskin, 583 F. Supp. 2d at 428. The Second Circuit applies a two-pronged test for determining whether an IEP places a student in the LRE, considering: (1) whether education in the general classroom, with the use of supplemental aids and services, can be achieved satisfactorily for a given student, and, if not, (2) whether the school has the student to the maximum extent appropriate. See Newington, 546 F.3d at 119-20; see also J.S v. N. Colonie, 586 F. Supp. 2d 74, 82 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); Patskin, 583 F. Supp. 2d at 430.

A review of the hearing record reflects that the student was unable to be educated satisfactorily in The has the student to the maximum extent appropriate, but he is in need of greater academic and individualized support, and would The will be directed to reconvene to review the results of to develop an appropriate IEP in accordance with the recommendations of the independent evaluators, and recommend placement of the student in a New York State-approved nonpublic school by deferral to the

VI. ORDER

NOW, THEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF FACT,

ITIS

HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The parent’s claim that the student was denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19 school years is SUSTAINED;

Within the will reconvene to review the results of to develop an appropriate IEP in accordance with the recommendations of the and recommend placement of the student in a New York State-approved nonpublic school by deferral to the and Within (30) days of the date of this Order, the DOE will authorize the student’s receipt of the following

All other claims for relief are denied.

Dated: January 23, 2019

Jeffrey J. Schiro, Esq.

Impartial Hearing Officer

PLEASE 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 Law, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Department of Education has designated the New York City Law 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 THE RECORD

PARENTS

Due Process Complaint Notice/Impartial Hearing Request, 6/14/18, 21 pgs.

Oae

Individualized Education Program (IEP), 3/28/13, 13 pgs.

Individualized Education Program (IEP), 8/7/13, 14 pgs.

Individualized Education Program (IEP), 6/13/14, 25 pgs.

Attendance Page, 11/26/14, 1 pg.

Individualized Education Program (IEP), 11/16/15, 21 pgs.

Individualized Education Program (IEP), 11/9/16, 16 pgs.

Individualized Education Program (IEP), 11/10/17, 19 pgs.

Individualized Education Program (IEP), 2/2/18, 19 pgs.

12/17/12, 12 pgs.

12/20/12, 8 pgs.

12/27/12, 6 pgs.

12/27/12, 8 pgs.

11/10/14, 1 pg.

11/12/14, 4 pgs. [Reserved]

11/1/17, 9 pgs.

11/10/17, 7 pgs.

1/2/18, 8 pgs. [Reserved]

1/12/18, 7 pgs.

Teacher Report, 11/10/14, 2 pgs. , 11/14/17, 5 pgs. various dates, 11 pgs.

Letter to (requesting IEEs), 2/27/17, 1 pg.

Letter from 5/3/18, 1 pg.

Individual Plan, 10/17/17, 3 pgs.

BB. Individual Plan, 12/19/17, 3 pgs.

CC. [Reserved]

DD. 1/18/18-3/2/18, 10 pgs.

EE. [Reserved]

FF. Student Dashboard, 3/7/18, 9 pgs.

GG. [Reserved]

HH. [Reserved]

II. [Reserved]

JJ. 2016/17, 14 pgs.

KK. 2016/17, 64 pgs.

LL. 2017/18, 50 pgs.

MM. 2017/18, 61 pgs.

NN. [Reserved]

OO. Curriculum Vitae, ; undated, 13 pgs.

PP. Curriculum Vitae, , undated, 2 pgs.

QQ. Curriculum Vitae, , undated, 9 pgs.

RR. Curriculum Vitae, undated, 3 pgs.

SS. , 9/23/18, 10 pgs.

TT. 8/14/18, 7 pgs.

UU. , 10/2/18, 24 pgs.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Reserved]

Due Process Response, 6/21/18, 3 pgs.

YeSatve

7/11/18, 2 pgs.

Individualized Education Program (IEP), 11/16/15, 16 pgs.

Notice of Committee on Meeting, 11/2/16, 3 pgs.

11/10/16, 2 pgs.

Individualized Education Program (IEP), 11/9/16, 15 pgs.

11/23/16, 4 pgs.

9. 9/7/17, 1 pg.

10. 9/26/17, 1 pg.

11 . [Reserved]

12. 10/23/17, 4 pgs.

13 . Student Dashboard, 10/31/17, 3 pgs.

14 . [Reserved]

15 . [Reserved]

16 . Individualized Education Program (IEP), 11/10/17, 15 pgs.

17. 11/10/17, 4 pgs.

18 . Consent for 12/12/17, 1 pg.

19 . [Reserved]

20 . [Reserved]

21. 1/6/18, 11 pg.

22 . [Reserved]

23. Meeting, 1/19/18, 3 pgs.

24 . Individualized Education Program (IEP), 2/2/18, 17 pgs.

25 . Prior Written Notice (Notice of Recommendation), 2/2/18, 7 pgs.

26 . Letter from parent, 3/14/17, 1 pg.

27. 5/22/18, 5 pgs.

28 . School Location Letter, 6/8/18, 2 pg.

29 . [Reserved]

IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER

[. Parent’s Motion for Pendency Order w/ attachments, 7/12/18, 28 pgs.

I. Parent’s Motion for IEE Interim Order w/ attachment, 7/12/18, 10 pgs.

Il. Signed 8/1/18, 1 pg.

IV. Interim Order (IEEs), 8/3/18, 5 pgs. DOE’s Objections to Parent’s Motion for Pendency Order, 9/5/18, 2 pgs.

VI. 8/30/18, 1 pg.

VIL. Interim Order (Pendency), 9/7/18, 4 pgs.

VIL. (Second) Interim Order (Pendency), 10/5/18, 4 pgs.

IX. (Third) Interim Order (Pendency), 11/23/18, 4 pg.

X. Confirmation of Extension, 8/26/18, 1 pg.

XI. Confirmation of Extension, 9/25/18, 1 pg.

XI. Confirmation of Extension, 10/25/18, 1 pg.

XU. Confirmation of Extension, 11/24/18, 1 pg.

XIV. Confirmation of Extension, 12/24/18, 1 pg.

---

Footnotes

[1] "References to the hearing transcript are noted as “R.” References to exhibits admitted into evidence are noted

[2] Following my appointment to this case, the parties moved to extend the case compliance date in this matter several times in order to accommodate the availability of the parties’ witnesses and to allow for adequate time for my review of the hearing record taken on the extensive issues raised in the parents’ due process complaint. In considering those requests, I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the stated reasons for the extensions justified the delay in the resolution of the matter and were in accordance with the requirements of due process. Accordingly, requests for extensions of the case compliance date were granted (R. 345-346; Exs. IHO-X - IHO-XIV). See 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c); 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(5).

[6] The term “free appropriate public education” means that — (A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; (B) meet the standards of the State educational agency; (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and (D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required under section 1414(d) of this title. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17.