New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 174433

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Dates of Hearing: August 14, 2018

March 11, 2019

April 15, 2019

Actual Record Close Date: June 14, 2019

Hearing Officer: Linda Agoston

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

AUGUST 14, 2018

Attorney Parent

Representative of CSE Department of Education

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

MARCH 11, 2019

Attorney Parent

Representative of CSE Department of Education

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

APRIL 30, 2019

Attorney Parent

Parents

f Speech and Language Therapist (via telephone) Parent

Chairperson Designee, CSE District Department of Education

On July 5, 2019, I was designated by the New York City Department of Education ("DOE") as impartial hearing officer, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, ("IDEA") 20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(2) and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York in the matter of and the Parent through her attorney who initiated this hearing on July 2, 2018. The hearings were held on August 14, 2018, March 11, 2019 and April 15, 2019. The Parent seeks an Order that the Department of Education ("DOE") fund the following: (1) as of July 1, 2018, .'S placement at , (" "), a New York State Education Department approved nonpublic school for the 2018-2019 school; (2) direct funding for 10 hours per week of 1:1 after-school Applied Behavior Analysis ("ABA") services at the rate of $115 per hour from (" "); (3) direct funding for 3 individual after-school speech language therapy ("SLT") sessions for 45 minutes per session at the rate of $95 per 45 minutes from (" "). The Parent submitted an invoice from indicating that received a discounted rate for ABA for $115 per hour (Exh. L). The Parent submitted an invoice from (Exh. M) indicating that received individual SLT 3 times per week for 45 minutes per session at the rate of $95 per a 45-minute session from July 1, 2018 until the conclusion of the 2018-2019 school year (Exh. M).

On August 14, 2018, I ordered that the DOE fund the placement for at for the 2018-2019 and fund 10 hours of outside of school 1:1 ABA and fund outside of school hours 1:1 SLT 3 times per week for 45 minutes per session for the 12-month school year from July 1, 2018 until the conclusion of these proceedings.

The Parent alleged that the DOE failed to provide a free and appropriate public education ("FAPE") for the 2018-2019 school year. The parties moved to extend the compliance dates during the course of the hearing. In considering the requests I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the need of the parties for additional time to prepare and to present their positions in accordance with the requirements of due process was greater than any delay in the resolution of the matter. Accordingly the joint requests for extensions of the compliance dates were granted (Tr. at 17;88-99; Exh. /-IX). The last compliance date was extended as a result of the request for post-hearing submissions. The Parent's representative submitted her post-hearing brief on June 14, 2019 and the District's Representative declined to submit a post-hearing statement. Accordingly, the decision due date is June 28, 2019. Appended to the record are the names of the persons who appeared at the hearing and the documents admitted into evidence.

BACKGROUND

is a -year old student currently attending for the 2018-2019 school year, in a self-contained class with a student to staff ratio of 8:1:3 and receiving related services of STL, occupational therapy and physical therapy and working at vocational jobs under teacher supervision at " , and " "and "

" and receiving at-home ABA for 10 hours per week (Exh. N at 15).

On March 20, 2017 a Developmental-Behavioral Assessment was conducted by a Developmental Pediatrician, who noted 's history and stressed that required "constant adult supervision to complete tasks given to him" and that he displayed "stimming behaviors, like talking to himself" (Exh. N at 16). The DevelopmentalBehavioral Pediatrician diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and Mixed receptive-expressive language disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD") (Exh. N at 17). The Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrician recommended that continue in his placement at recommended that continue to receive ABA 10 hours per week to work on vocational skills and continue to receive SLT 3 times per week for 45 minutes per session to address 's "significant weaknesses in communication and pragmatic skills" (Id.), and that "presented as a variable related boy, whose social interaction was awkward and not sustained" (Exh. N at 16).

On May 1, 2018, the SLT provider's Student Progress Report indicated that received SLT through and that he was able to follow "simple one step directions containing spatial, qualitative concepts independently"( Exh. N at 2). The SLT provider reported that 's expressive language was limited to "2-3 word short utterances to communicate wants and needs" (Id.). The SLT provider stressed that his pragmatic language were inappropriate responses (Id.). The SLT provider noted that demonstrated improved ability to respond to "wh" questions and was able to maintain conversations with staff "30% of the time given minimal assistance (Exh. N at 3). The SLT provider recommended receive individual SLT 3 times per week for 45 minutes per session (Exh. N at 3).

On May 5, 2018, the Assistant Regional Director and Clinical Supervisor from indicated in the 2018 Annual Report that received 10 weekly hours of ABA services within the home and that exhibited "a variety of maladaptive behaviors including ... Delayed echolalia ... Stomping ... Physical aggression towards himself and /or others ... Noncompliance and escape" ( h. N at 18). The Director and Clinical Supervisor noted that had progressed in reading, but was "still at a grade level" and that was able to "read faster and with much more improved accuracy" (Exh. N at 22). The Director and Supervisor stressed that maladaptive behaviors had decreased significantly so that used "his words instead of his hands, in order to convey how he is feeling" (Id.). The Director and Supervisor indicated that cards were used to help to distinguish his feelings and that a break card and a help me card allowed to convey his feelings and decrease his "aggression towards himself and others" (Id.).

On February 19, 2019, the SLT provider indicated in a Student Annual Progress Report that received SLT at and concluded that 's receptive language skills included the ability to answer "wh" questions; his expressive language skills were limited to "rote and short utterances (i.e., 3-4 words) to communicate his needs or wants" (Exh. P at 1). The SLT provider noted that 's pragmatic language ability was limited to the ability "to greet other familiar people in his environment" (Id.). The SLT provider recommended that continue to receive SLT 3 times per week for 45 minutes per session to address his delays and provide the support he needed (Exh. P at 3).

For the 2016-2017 school year, was placed in and received after school services of 10 hours per week of special education teacher support services ("SETSS") ABA by at the rate of $115 per hour and 3 sessions of SLT for 45 minutes per session per a prior hearing officer's decision (Exh. E at 9). For the 2017-2018 school year, continued to receive the after-school SETSS ABA and SLT program (Exh. A at 3).

For the 2018-2019 school year, by letter the Parent informed the CSE Chairperson on June 27, 2018, that she was in agreement with the recommendation of the May 17, 2018, District 's Individualized Education Plan ("IEP") that recommended that be placed at for the 2018-2019 school year, and recommended extended year services. The Parent wrote to CSE to express her concerns that required the home program of 3 sessions of 45 minutes per session of SLT per week and 10 hours ABA per week and requested that the DOE fund the home program of individual SLT 3 times per week for 45 minutes and 10 hours of ABA per week so that could generalize skills learned in school (Exh. I at 1). She stated that no DOE staff member ever explained why it was the DOE policy that "a student placed in a New York State Education Departmentapproved Non Public School - Day program just cannot have extra services" (Id.). She further stated that the IEP team was provided with the reports from the home SLT and ABA providers who recommended that "continue to receive the outside speech and ABA " (Exh. I at 2). The Parent stated in her letter that required after-school speech and ABA as they were "essential components" and that if the DOE did not restore the outside speech and ABA, then she would request an impartial hearing to have the outside speech and ABA restored to 's 12-month program for the 2018-2019 school year (Id.). The Parent challenged the May 17, 2018 IEP review and program and disagreed with CSE’s decision to remove the 3-weekly 45-minute sessions of SLT afterschool and to remove 10 hours per week of SETSS after school. The Parent stated that the recommended program without the after-school program was insufficient to meet 's needs for the 2018-2019 school year (Exh. A at 3). The Parent stressed that the CSE had placed in and funded the after-school SLT and SETSS from 2007 through 2016 (Exh. A at 3 to 10). The Parent maintained that District failed to provide a FAPE for the 2018-2019 school year as the DOE failed to recommend an afterschool program of 10-weekly hours of SETSS ABA at the rate of $115 per hour provided by and 3-weekly 45-minute sessions of SLT at the rate of $95 from (Tr. at 87; Exh. A at 16).

THE DOE'S CASE

The District's Representative presented no witness or evidence and did not contest any allegation contained in the Due Process Request (Tr. at 48; 85). The District Representative did not object to funding 's placement at for the 2018-2019 school year (Tr. at 87) and did not object to correcting the Impartial Hearing Request to add the amount of $95 per a 45-minute session of SLT (Id.).

THE PARENT'S CASE

The Parent's case was presented in the testimony of the Parent and the SLT provider. The SLT provider testified that she was providing SLT to at and after school 3 times per week for 45 minutes per session and that she was working on helping understanding complex "wh" questions and following directions (Tr. at 59). She stated that receptive language skills were at a to grade level and his expressive language ability was limited to 2 or 3-word sentences and rote phrases that he had already learned (Tr. at 60). She stated that due to the diagnosis of autism disorder that required a lot of support and treatment and opined that he made steady progress (Id.). She stressed that required a lot of verbal prompting, and visuals to help him comprehend that without visual that he had difficulty with listening comprehension (Tr. at 61). She recalled that she had been providing with SLT from 2016 to date and opined that progressed in his ability to comprehend and to use longer sentences so that he could sustain a conversation with minimal prompting (Tr. at 63). The SLT provider stated by Affidavit that had received SLT from since 2013 and that he presented "with moderate receptive, expressive, and pragmatic language deficits" (Exh. X at 1) and recommended that he continue to need individual SLT 3 times per week for 45 minutes per session in addition to the SLT that he received at (Exh. X at 3). The SLT provider's Curriculum Vitae indicated that she held a NYS license and registration and held a Certificate of Clinical Competence in Speech-language pathology and held a Speech and Language Disabilities, Initial Certificate (Exh. X a at 5).

The Parent testified that she was in agreement with the recommendation to place her son at for the 2018-2019 school year and that her son had attended since (Tr. at 66). She stated he had been receiving the after-school program of ABA and SLT since (Tr. at 67). She recalled that she had attended the CSE IEP meeting on May 17, 2018, and that she had presented team with the Progress report from , dated May 5, 2018, the pediatric developmental behavioral assessment form dated May 8, 2018, and the ABA report from , dated May 11, 2018 (Exh. N). She recollected that she requested that the CSE members consider the report and the report and recalled that both reports recommended that her son continue to receive after-school ABA and SLT and that the team told her that her son could not receive the after-school program of ABA and SLT because her son attended (Tr. at 70). She opined that her son required afterschool ABA from and after-school SLT sessions from (Tr. at 71). She explained that she wanted her son to be independent so that he could go to a restaurant and order food or go to a shopping center to buy something if she was not around to assist him (Tr. at 71). She stated that she wrote to the CSE Chairperson on June 27, 2018, to alert the CSE that required the outside speech and ABA for 2018-2019 school year (Exh. I at 2 ), and that no one from the CSE explained to her why her son could not have the home program of after-school ABA and SLT (Tr. at 73). She stressed that no one from CSE presented her with any report that indicated that her son did not required the home program of after-school ABA and SLT or that he had progressed so much in 2017-2018 school year that he no longer needed the home program (Exh. N at 17;Tr. at 74). She stated that the ABA and SLT providers came to her house 4 days per week to provide ABA and SLT for 3 hours per day (Tr. at 77). She opined that her son progressed with his home program as this year for the first time he was able to text to her his wants and needs (Tr. at 82-83)

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Under IDEA, New York State law and both the federal and State regulations, the right to a FAPE is guaranteed. There is no obligation on the part of the school district to provide the best education for the student but that education must be appropriate so that there is an opportunity for the student to make progress in his/her education. States receiving federal funds are required to provide "all children with disabilities" a "free and appropriate public education" (20 U.S.C. § 400[d][1][A]).(Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 122 [2d. Cir. 2007]). FAPE consists of specialized education and related services designed to meet a student's unique need, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written JEP (34 C.F.R. § 300.13). "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...." and "a student offered an educational program providing 'merely more than de minimis progress' from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all" (Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. (2017), 2017 WL 1066260 [March 22, 2017]). To meet its burden of showing that it had offered to provide a FAPE to a student, the board of education must show (a) that it complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) that the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206, 207 [1982]). As for the program itself, the Second Circuit has observed that "for an IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, it must be likely to produce progress, not regression" (Weixel v. Bd. of Educ., 287 F.3d 138, 151 [2d Cir. 2002], quoting M.S. ex rel. SS. V. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96 at 103 (2d Cir. 2000); see Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 at 130 (2d Cir. 1998). This progress, however, must be meaningful; i.e., more than mere trivial advancement (/d. at 130). The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.550[b]; 8 NYCRR 200.6[a][1]).

The Court in Rowley also observed that states are not required under IDEA to maximize every disabled child’s potential (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 198). The Second Circuit further observed that the IDEA is not intended to "secure the best education money can buy" or "guarantee any particular level of education" (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch, Dist., 142 F.3d 119 [2d Cir. 1998]) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

In Application of the New York City Dept. of Educ., Appeal No.12-087, the SRO held that an "appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that includes a statement of the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance see 34 CFR 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] [noting that a CSE must consider, among other things, the "results of the initial evaluation or most recent evaluation” of the student, as well as the "academic, developmental, and functional needs" of the student]), establishes annual goals designed to meet the student's needs ttt resulting from the student's disability and enable him or her to make progress in the general education curriculum (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][2][1], [2][iJ[A]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i1i1]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; see also Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9)." The legal standard applicable to a request of reimbursement for educational services, such as in this case, is well established. Reimbursement is granted if: (1) the services offered by the Board of Education are inadequate or inappropriate; (2) the services selected by the Parents are appropriate; and (3) equitable considerations support the Parents’ claim (School Committee of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]). The burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging the appropriateness of an IEP is on the Department of Education. N.Y. Educ. Law §4404[1][c].

The Parent's attorney that "the burdens of production and persuasion fall upon the school district for all matters at issue at the hearing other than the appropriateness of the parental placement (if applicable), for which the burden of proof lies with the parents. N.Y. Education Law § 4404(1)(c); see also Appeal No. 17-105 at 8-9 (SRO January 22, 2018). (other than the appropriateness of a unilateral parental placement, the DOE’s burden of proof and persuasion applies to every contested issue in the hearing, including the appropriateness of compensatory relief). This is not a unilateral placement case, as the DOE is not challenging ’s placement at and, in fact, acknowledged at hearing that this component of ’s placement was appropriate" (Exh. X/// at 3-4). I agree and find that the District Representative did not object to funding 's placement at for the 2018-2019 school year (Tr. at 87).

The Parent's attorney asserted that the "SRO has also found that allegations that are left unchallenged are deemed as true “unless found to be inconsistent with the evidence in the record.” Application of a Student with a Disability, 01-044 (SRO March 27, 2002); see also SRO Appeal No. 12-006 at 8. The DOE’s silence at hearing has the effect of conceding every point alleged by the Parents against the DOE unless it is inconsistent with the hearing record. Id. By failing to put on any evidence in this regard, the DOE failed to meet its burden, and the continuation of these services should be ordered on that basis alone, as a matter of law" (Exh. X/// at 5). I agree.

I find that the DOE representative did not present a case. I find that without a DOE witness testimony to explain how the Student's deficits are addressed within the IEP and other DOE documents as well as to explain the CSE’s rationale in recommending the disputed program, the DOE is unable to meet their burden. The SRO has found that allegations that are left unchallenged are deemed as true. (See Application of a Student with a Disability, 01-044). Accordingly, I find that the DOE representative did not establish that a FAPE was offered to the Student during the 2018-2019 school year.

The Parent's attorney asserted that the May 17, 2018 IEP was substantively and procedurally defective as the IEP team changed the program by removing the home program of ABA and SLT (Exh. A at 3). The Parent's attorney further asserted that a FAPE was not offered for the 2018-2019 school year as "the DOE denied the parent the right to meaningfully participate in planning for 's education during and subsequent to the May 17, 2018 CSE meeting" (Exh. A at 4).

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 parent's 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 J[E][i1]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5) |[4][ii]; ELH. 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]); Bd. of Educ. v. Schaefer, 923 N.Y.S.2d 579, 56 IDELR 4 234 (App. Div. 2011.)

I find that the Parent voiced her concerns during the May 17, 2087 IEP meeting regarding removal of the after-school ABA and SLT (Tr. at 70). I find that she informed the DOE of her disagreement with the proposed removal of after-school services, and I find that the CSE was aware of the report and report (Exh. N at 3,17) that recommended that continue to receive the after-school ABA and SLT. I find the CSE's failure to consider recommendations on the report, the report and the Pediatric Developmental-Behavioral Assessment to continue the after-school home program of ABA and SLT and the failure to consider the Parent's input to continue the after-school services of ABA and SLT significantly impeded the Parent's opportunity to participate in the decision-making process and caused a deprivation of educational benefits regarding the provision of a FAPE.

I find that the Southern District ruled on whether the Burlington/Carter analysis applied in a case procedurally analogous to this instant matter. (See MN. and H.N. v. New York City Department of Education, 700 F.Supp.2d 356, 368 (S.D.N.Y 2010). I find that the Burlington/Carter analysis is not necessary when the relief sought is not funding for a unilateral placement, but rather the continuation of related services or SETSS services or SEIT services; however, I note that the Parent provided evidence (Exh. N) to demonstrate progress. I find the evidence presented established progress. I credit the testimony of the Parent and the SLT provider regarding progress. I find that the SLT provider asserted that because of the level of support that the received he progressed in his ability to comprehend and to use longer sentences so that he could sustain a conversation with minimal prompting (Tr. at 63). I credit this testimony. I further find credible the Affidavit of the Director of that the ABA provider helped generalize skills across various environment (Exh.X/ at 2). I credit the Affidavit of the Director of and find that the Progress Reports (Exhs. N-O) recommended that continue to receive ABA for 10 hours per week to work on his vocational and daily living skills(Exh. N at 17; O at 7) for the 2018-2019 school year. I credit the testimony of the Parent regarding her son's ability to text her for the first time in his life and so she was able to understand his wants and needs (Tr. at 82-83). I further credit the Letter from (Exh. L) regarding the cost of the SETSS ABA at the rate of $115 per hours and I credit the Letter from (Exh. M) regarding the cost of the 45-minute session of SLT at the rate of $95.

ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the DOE fund for the remainder of the 2018-2019 school year and continue directly funding 10 hours per week of 1:1 afterschool ABA services at the rate of $115 per hour provided by and continue to directly fund 3 session of individual SLT for 45 minutes per week at the rate of $95 per 45 minutes provided by upon proof of attendance.

Linda Agoston

LINDA S. AGOSON, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

Dated: June 18, 2019

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

The Parents 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.

Directions and forms can be found on the Office of State Review website: http://www.sro.nysed.gov/RevisedRegulationsOverview.html

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON AUGUST 14, 2018

A. Impartial Hearing Request, 7/1/18, 17 pp. Parent E Findings of Fact and Decision, 3/15/17, 13 pp.

Parent

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON MARCH 11, 2019

Impartial Hearing Request, 7/1/18, 17 pp.

Zatmrunarw->t

Email, 7/9/18, 2 pp.

Email, 7/9/18, 2 pp.

Email, 7/31/18, 2 pp.

Findings and Fact and Decision, 3/15/17, 13 pp.

Corrected Interim Order, 8/21/18, 5 pp. Parent

Email correspondence with DOE regarding the implementation of the attachments, 9/18/18, 5 pp. Parent

Email with attached letter, 6/18/18, 3 pp. Parent

Letter from parent to with proof of fax, 6/27/18, 4 pp. Parent

DOE response to impartial hearing request, 9/7/18, 7 pp.

Parent

Email to responding to DOE's response, 9/12/18, Ip. Parent

Letter from regarding costs, 7/11/18, | p. Parent

Letter from regarding costs, 2018/2019, 1 p. Parent

Progress report from , 9/5/18, pediatric developmental behavioral assessment revisit from , 9/8/2018, ABA report from

, 5/11/18, 23 pp. Parent

Progress report from , 2/25/17, 7 pp.

“©

Parent

Decision on Extension, 8/13/18, 1 p. IHO

I Decision on Extension, 10/12/18, 1 p. IHO

Il Decision on Extension, 10/23/18, 1 p. IHO

IV Decision on Extension, 12/3/18, 1 p. IHO

V Decision on Extension, 1/11/19, 1 p. IHO

VI Decision on Extension, 2/11/19, 1 p. IHO

VII _—_ Decision on Extension, 3/11/19, 1 p. IHO

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON APRIL 15, 2019

Corrected Interim Order, 8/21/18, 5 pp. Parent

TQAtT

Email correspondence with DOE regarding the implementation of the attachments, 9/18/18, 5 pp. Parent

Email with attached letter, 6/18/18, 3 pp. Parent

Letter from parent to with proof of fax, 6/27/18, 4 pp. Parent

DOE response to impartial hearing request, 9/7/18, 7 pp.

Parent

Email to responding to DOE's response, 9/12/18, Ip. Parent

Letter from regarding costs, 7/11/18, | p. Parent

Letter from regarding costs, 2018/2019, 1 p. Parent Zz Progress report from , 9/5/18, pediatric developmental behavioral assessment revisit from , 9/8/2018, ABA report from , 9/11/18, 23 pp. Parent

Progress report from , 2/25/17, 7 pp.

=O

Parent

Progress report from , 2/19/19, 3 pp Parent

Decision on Extension, 8/13/18, 1 p. IHO

Decision on Extension, 10/12/18, 1 p. IHO IT Decision on Extension, 10/23/18, 1 p. IHO IV Decision on Extension, 12/3/18, 1 p. IHO

Decision on Extension, 1/11/19, 1 p. IHO VI Decision on Extension, 2/11/19, 1 p. IHO VI Decision on Extension, 3/11/19, 1 p. IHO VIIT Decision on Extension, 4/11/19, 1 p. IHO IX Decision on Extension, 4/15/19, 1 p. IHO

Affidavit, , 4/2/19, 6 pp. IHO XT Affidavit of , 3/8/19, 8 pp. IHO

POST HEARING SUBMISSIONS

XIT Decision on Extension, 5/15/19, 1 p. THO XTIT Parents' Closing Brief, 6/14/19, 11 pp. IHO