NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
In the Matter of the Impartial Hearing
| upon the request of Ri. Parent,
Forza. DECISION AND ORDER
Petitioner.
“ARAST- THRS No. 98554
ciuiat FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
Respondent.
pn oe ee a 7 .
a JLIDITH SCHNEIDER. ESQ. tmeartial Hearing OFficer
243 West 99 Street 6A}
Mew York, NY 10075
Telephone: 347-886-3967
LAW OFFICE 0, TT So
Acorness for Paren
APPEARANCES November 9, 2016 December 27, 2016 January 11, 2087
November 2. 2016
For the Parents:
Parent
Attorney
Attorney
Director of Special Services
Former Director of Special Services
For the Parents:
Parent
For the District:
Atiomey
Attorney
Director of Special Services
Director of Special Services Supervisor. Secondary Level. K-L
December 21}. 7016
For the Parents:
Esa.. Altorncy
Parent
Attorney
Attornes
Director of Special Services
Former Director af Special Ser ices
Executive Director. Scho
Esq.. ATLorney
arent
For the District:
ESc.. Attorney
Attorney
aie: ochool
Director of Special
Senior Psychologis
January 10. 2017
Attorney
Attorney
Aniorney
Director of Special $
Schoal Psychologist
Special Education Teacher.
Social Worker
Attorney
Attomey
Aflorney
Director of Special Services
School Counseior gh Schoo!
January 18. 2017
Far Parent
Esq. Attorney
For the Parents:
School Counselo High School
Schaol Counselor. wh School
For the District:
Attorney
Attarmey
Director of Special Services
Social Worker: tigh School
January 25, 2037
For Parent
Attorney
Attornes
ATornes
Director of Special Services wh
April 26. 2017
For Parent
Attorney
Parent
Far District
_. .
Attornes
Aftorney
Director of Special Services
‘ nie ? Mav 2. 2017
For Parent
Attorney
Clinical Psy cholagist
For District re
Aftornesy
Director of Special Services
Mav 10, 2017 For Parent areTHE
Esq.. Atiorney . Attorney
Director of Special Services na, June i4. 2017 For Parent aot eS arent |_| Clinical Psychologist. Clinical Direc ii For District . Esq.. Attomey
Atiomey
Elementary Special Education Supervisor
1), 2017
August
Attormey
Clinical Psychologist
Esq Attorney
Attormes
Director of Special Servicers
Septernber 28. 2017
Alfomey p i Clinical Ps: cholouist or Disiriel
Attorney
Attorries
Director of Special Services
On November 2. 2016. November 9. 2016, December 2]. 2016. December 27. 7016. January 10. 2047. January 11.2017. January 18, 2017. January 18. 2017. January 25. 2017. April 26. 2017, May 2.2017. May 10. 2077. June 14. 2017. August 10, 2017 and September 28. 2017 at various faci}ities of the iii: Free School District , conducted an Impartial Hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIATM). 20 U.S.C. $1415, and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York. réparding the special education program of | tor “the student’).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The proceeding was initiated at the request of the parent by correspondence dated July 19. 2016. recorded as received by the district on July 22. 2017. (Ey. 4’ The district filed a response by correspondence dated August 1. 2036. (Ex. //} Resolution was not successful.
I was appointed Impartial Hearing Officer on July 22. 2016 and was available to commence a hearing within 14 davs af appointment. At telephone conterences on August 25. 2016 and Scptember 13. 2016. the hearing was scheduled to commence on October 25, 2017. (T.4} The Ocicher 25 hearing was adjourned due to settlement negotiations. ¢T. 4}
The hearing commenced on November 2. 2016 and contmmued on mutually available dates. Various scheduled hearing dales were adjourned at the request of the parent or the disirici.
Subpoenas were requesied and disputed. All conumunications regarding that and my determinations are included in the record. (T. 6-22, 24. Ex, #4)
The scheduling of the cross-examination of the parent and the testimony of the student's current psycholovist was disputed. Ail communications regarding that are included in the recard, ¢T. 1]159-J16). Ex. /9
The patent’s testimony as a rebuttal witness for the district was requested by the district ahjected to.bs the parent and permitted bx me. All communications conceming that are included in the record. (Ex. }}
' Chations preceded by “T.” refer to the hearing transcript. Clations preceded by “Ex.” refer to exhibits admitied jmro evidence. Letter designations for Exhibits refer to parent exhibits, Number designations for Exhibits refer to district exhibits. ftulicized designations for Exbiolts refer to Impartial Hearmg Orficer exhibits, The parties moved io extend the compliance daie on various occasions in light af anticipated testimony. the scheduling of witnesses and the submission and consideration of closing arguments. [In considering the requests. | weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the need of the parties for additional time to prepare and present their positions in accordance with the requirements of due process was greater than any’ delay: in the resolution of this matter. Accordingly, the joint requests for extensions of the compliance dates were vranied. (7. 4. 5-6. 22, 213, 271-271, 805. 859. L151, 1817, 2144. 2176)
The current compliance date is March 6, 2018. The record closed on January 26, 2018,
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
Parent
The parent asserts that:
1} The district failed m Child Find obligations commencing in Spring 2015 thereby delaying provision of appropriate services and the consideration of an appropriate program, 2) The district denied the student a tree and appropriate public education ("FAPETM) for the 2013-2016 SY. The parent unilaterally placed the student in > aims that placement was appropriate and seeks reymbursement for it, The district denied the student a FAPE for the 2036-2017 SY br the CSE’s rejection of a Summer 2015 Extended School Year (“ESYTM) at the February 22. 2016 review. The parent unilaterally placed the student 7 oe that i was appropriate and seeks reimbursement tor that placement as well as the student's related transportation costs. 4) The district denied a FAPE for the 2016-2037 SY (10 month program} by failing to provide an appropriate placement. The parent unilaterally placed the student at jain that placement was appropriate and seeks rennbursement for it. 3} The parent asserts that equitable considerations provide no basis for a denial or limitation of the district funding sought. (Exs.£ iY7 7
° Although there were references to alleged Oulixing behavior at the high school in the complaint and in the testimon,. the parent stated that “bullying” is not a claim in this proceeding. (7. ii8h) Rehef chains for compensators sersices for alleged 2014-2015 and 2013-2016 failures to provide appropriate educational sers ices (Ex. f) have. Peonclude, been abandoned. Howeser. I note mis Finding thar the ex idence. discussed below. does not provide a suppert for compensators ser ices. District
The district asserts that:
1} The district did not violate its Child Find obligations. 2) The district provided a FAPE for the 2015-2016 SY 3) The parent's unilateral 2015-2016 SY placement at &... not appropriate. +) The district's determination that the student WAS. not entitled to Extended School Year services in the summer of 20]5 was appropriate. 3} The district provided a FAPE for the 2016-2017 SY. 6} The parent's unilateral 2016-2017 SY placement a Was Not ap riate. 7) Equitable considerations favor the district because the rerent sf pacemen was predetermined and she unreasonably failed to cooperate with the district throughout the initial eligibility process and in the search for an appropriate placement. ° (Exs. ff, 49
CASES PRESENTED
Lists of documents admitted into evidence and persons who appeared are appended.
The district presented the testimony of irector of Special Services 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 SY's *: pecial Education Supervisor. Secondary vel: secutive Director’ choo iT Senior -
Ps. chologist. ar ic: School: school Psychologist = See SE Special Education Teacher. jf school Counselor. ae izh School.
The parent asserts violations of Section 304 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the ~Rehabititation Act’) . 29 U.S.C. Section 794. Those claims, 1] conclude. are based solely upon the allegations concerning Child Find discussed helow. Jhe parents Child Find claims [ have found to be without merit, (Exs. £ £¥) However. | nate ms conclusion wilh regard to Rehabilitation Act claims that the evidence. discussed below. shows no bad faith or vross misjudzment in the district's actions here and accordingl, no Rehabilitation Act violations. C.b ov. Scursedile , 3d 826 (2d Cir. 2014) identified herself in this proceeding as the district's former Director of Special Education, (1. 40) hi appedrs tat her formal title was Director af Special Services, (Ex. 3? at 1} g
The parent presented the testimony [Hii == School Counselor {a High School: school Counselor. High School: We
Clinical Psvchologist: Dr. linical Psychologist, Clinical Director
Fe ae i: Psychologist: the student's mother (“parent”).
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A} initial Findings of Fact a: “the student’) is a student with a disability. whose mother iijter=th. parent’ ). resides within i rrr. (“district”).
The student is currently 17 years old and is classified as a-student with an emotional disturbance. (Ex. 17) Si} 1¢ has been variously diagnosed with (T. 1514-1515, 1965.Exs. 6 at 7-8. 15 at 2) She has been tn therapy since the age of four. (Fx. Y-19) , a private psychologist with over 30 years of experience who treated siated with regard to this student’s diagnosis and treatment that this was “one of the mast difficult situations...] have experienced as a therapist. trying 10 sort out diagnostically what this picture was and how best to intervene.” (T. §474-1475. 1479. T322) Da ¢:: psychologist treating her since September 2016 stated that at this time “my sense is that she
« LORS ERP rinnenberrr=rttTh Miveetreetrereenins cr Seite se T. 1965) She was hospitalized from May 26. 2015 through October 2. 2015. after exhibiting symptoms Cn yng of 2015, (T. 1347. 1252. Fx. 6 at 1) parents divorced when she was in the 2” grade. ler biological father was am Fr aa i Roan" (Exs. 6 al > V at 236) Her father has for mans years has been denied all contact with her without n
Sere or : es!
permission. pursuant to court order. (Ex. W at 1178-1209) several clinicians. (T. 1498. 2134-2135. 2187-2188. Exs. V at 292. ¥ at 87) => BS. Including therapeutic ones. and largely underlies her emotionali challenges (T. 1513. 2135, 2195) There is a family history (‘TiS |... <a Le 1274, Ex, 130. Ex .Vat 236) Ifer younger brother's behavior at home and school at times ‘w ———— (1.1490) He has been sragnoses
The student's overall cognitive abilities are in the are “strong overall” witl ae her academic abilities s impacting and causing some weakness and her writing abilities are “a major strength. (Ex. 6 at 7- 8)
Before enrolling in the district. the student attended public schools in at least the 6" grade. (T. 1017. 1106. Ex. T at 6) While in her 7" grade year at (2012-2013 SY) she engaged n
The Stuer also. unknown to the parent.
“CT. V111. Ex. 18 at 2) — Ex. Veat 173) ° did not believe the student required and the parent did not request special services and the (cae oly schoo] was not informed. (7. 1018, J491) Dr fate that since mil na behaviors were nol ongoing or school related and the family was dealing with.the issues with BE «0: issues Were therefore “private and confidential.” (1. 1491)
The student continued in for her 8" wrade (2013-2014 SY) and the behaviors were not repeated in the 8° grade. (T. 1112} The student generally received As and Bs while ,0té‘ia was a member of the National Junior Honor Society. (T. 1142. Ex, 169)
* Fhe studem later reported Bree that she had been distressed by a bosiriend having emotanal issues, (Ex. ¥ at235)) There is no indication That s known 1a the parent or t¢ During the 7" grade the student also had matertal ‘on her iPod conce but Dr. had no MM that that was connected with the student’s S25-1527, Ex. V at 63)
In late Summer 2014 the family moved into the district. (T. 1117) Dif ecatted the move as being very much ahout the school district and a desire that the student have a fresh social start. (T. 1494-1495, 1502) Before deciding to enrol} the student in the parent had made application to various private schools but was not looking for a school for Students with disabilities. (T. 1119-1 [20, 1620-1621} Among parental considerations at that time was possible benefit from smail classes and more individualized attention. (T. 1492-1493)
Just prior to commencing school in hel student ol En ut did not plan at that time to share that with her family because of concerns about family response. (T. 1495-1496. 1531-1532. Ex, V at 105 & 193) Therapy for a period thereatter focused on both DE concerns about imposing a label on one’s feelings and experiences during adolescence and the student's fears about possible ramifications ofdisclosure ” to her tamily. (T, 1532-1533)
In September 2014. Dr. BR icv ec that the student required SRS but did require any in-school services. academic intervention, o 5Q4 plan oran JEP. (T. 1496)
Upon enrolling the student in the district's h School { r the “high school’). the parent completed a registration packet in which she informed the district that the student had no known or suspected disability that substantially impacted her learning. had never been evaluated for a disability. had not been previously classified by a Committee an Special Education (“CSE”) as a student eligible for special education services. and had never received any special education services. (T. 1126-1127. Ex. 106 at 13) When the student was enrolled the district was not informed about . 1179-1180) The parent did inform the high school of communicalion with ans school and that information was istributed to relevant district stail.
(7. 1029. 11236. 937-939, Ex. A) (T. 937-999. Ex. A) The student transitioned very well to the district. (T. 1018) Commencing the beginning of that school year (9 gerade) she made friends and was involved in many school activities. including (hell 2: she was picked as “freshman liaison” due to Jeadership skills within the club. (T. 813-814, 1019) In addition to her schaol based coursework, the student participated in independent study Nn enable her to obtain language-other-than English credit in the language she started J astead of another language. (T. 1201. Ex, 113.117)
During the first half of the vear she developed a powerful bon =e another student ("CTM} whict QM characterized as her relationship. ¢T. 13504-1305) That student had a similar family history nd Dr. elieved the student saw her as a guide. (T. 1504-1505. Ex. V at 211 ,s
The student did well academically in the first semester. attaining A’s and B's. (T. 820. 1338 Ex. Q) Such stress ee: was not affecting her academically. (T. 1536) =a
In February 2015. the student's Global 9 teacher recommended that the student continue in the Regents’ track class for the following year. rather than taking AP Eure. a college level course. (T. 822-825. Ex. 103) The parent disagreed and on Mebruary 10. 2015. signed a “Course Waiver Form” allowing the student to be placed in the college level course. (T. 822-823.1202- 1205. Exs. 103. 105} The student had requested tt bur reported feeling pressured by the parent and academically overwhelmed. (T. 1547-1548. Ex, V at 208) The parent believed that student reluctance with regard to AP courses was prounded in a desire to stay with friends and not by academic concerns or issues. (T. 1640. Ex. Y at 210) This continued to be*an issue In nudApril. (Ex. V at 210)
Later in February 2015. the student experienced 4 non-school trip during the midwinter break a eer
1540. 1646, Exs. 6. 15 at 2) At about that time the parent was observing that the students enthusiasm for going to school had diminished. (7, 1019) At around the same period the student reported to Dr that there were some class SI, (T. (510) The district was not the student was reported to have engaged Hed in the schaal : Geta trurse for an assessment. (T. 994) The nurse noted ° madkwaaesdiavaiverd Sftorey ee ; (T. RSS. Ex. S)
The parent at that time thought that the action was principatly ieee re reincamag V 2208 OR!lieved e thatthat thethe ! ats ss . aA ney tthe satis (YT. 1512) Dr. clieved that “the relationship with Rad ihe trauma that occurred in that relationship was the underpinning of psychological emotional stressOT3
Tor the student in her life. Including in the spring of 2015.° ¢(T. 1515)
Within a few days of the March 10 incident the student commenced seeing ne
}231) a :: ai that time treating Vee: was familiar with the family. (7.1513) Dr a Dr, specifically to address the student's configuration of 1515) S15 _
The student was not referred lo ag ree eae os |. 7 | +) Dr. ie did not then or later propose a 404 plan or JEP review although she was familiar with them. (T.
The student attended i zee: : in March and thereafter. on March 18. mT. 154+) Although the parent stated to the student and seemed to he student did not have conftdence that that was pgslitsiieasecgs the case. (T. 1344-1347. Ex. V at 206-208 & 235} The student was bi ad looking for rejection” and Dr. ae... unsure about what was really going on. (T. 1546-1547)
The student maintained her very good grades for the 3TM quarter notwithstanding ¢ggiiimy eee (5 Q) .
However the student continued lo perceive as well as academic pressures. (T. 1547-1550. Ex. V at 214) She reported to ifficult. sitting still in most of her academic subjects and hyperventilating. (T.1551) There is no indication that the hizh school knew of any student problems at this ume.
On April 13. 2015 the parent informed Dr. that she observed what appeared to be eae... (Fx. V-at 210) This was not reported to the high sehool.
On April 27, 2015. the student informed RR es: counselor ~~ e . 1226. 1517. Exs. 123. V at 217) The parent was not at day and the parent consented to staff communication with (Ex. S) Ms, 1 spoke with the same day and told her that the student said sh:
> se the student the same day (April 27) and concluded that she was Not in any imminent dange gnc ‘thata hospital stay was not recommended at that time. (T. 1554. Ex. V at 218) Dr believed. and Dr. PB erced. that the source of the student's difficulties i i eel informed D hat school staff had proposed that the student should be evaluated at a hospital and D ywreed because hospital admission might be necessary. (Ex. V at 211)
The student attended schoo! the next day. April 28. (T. 1229, Ex. (24) Later that day. the student again saw Dr. e..: reported “social issues with several kids with whom she feels extremely irritated. and also sort of bullied.” (T. 1559. Ex, V-219 and 222) or. cic not know whether the student was— bullied or whether the student’s conclusion was due to = ito speak with the student's therapist to determine whether supper at the school was needed. (T. 685-686. 690) On April 28. 2015. she emailed the parent referencing an “attached Release of Information form” for consent to speak with pa (T. 683-686. Ex. 93) A signed form was not received hy Dr. (T. 686) The parent testified that she did nat recall receipt ofa form from i (T. 1228) } am persuaded that the parent did not intend to deny access to a CtéiC note that the email trom Dr TR ces not indicate an allachment was actually effected. (Campare Fx. 95 and Ex. 98) Further. the parent had cansented to communication between Dr. fina a. S. WV at 217) There was no further communication between the parties concerning the April 28 emai] and/or and a request for a release bx D In the hope of enabling the student to finish the school year. x (7. 1361) The student continuedaggRa and por aaa geen (Ex. V at »25) Dgtated that she had no knowledge as to the accuracy of the sludent’s perceptions in view of her hypervigilance. The foregoing was not reported to the school. Boih the parent and D hought the student was doing well and looking “good” prior to May 14. 2015 ( T. 1230. Ex, ¥-229} On May 14. 2015. the student reported 4
(T. 1230. Exs. 125, V at 235) Requests for consent for to speak with the student's therapists were emailed to the parent thal day bs both iia the student's official guidance counselor. (Exs.
95. 96) The parent provided consent that same day. (T. 786. Exs. 125, 97) 0 atlempted to talk with the therapists the next day. May 13. leaving messages requesting they call her concemming the student. (Ex. C)
In the days thereafter there were verbal incidents and exchanges involving this student and another and the evidence indicates that each was cutting classes to avoid the other. ¢Exs. F.
G. ¥ at 231) On May 19, 2015. Dr ABR ok: with > ie the first time. (7. 1568, Ex. C } A focal point of that discussion was , about what 00 going to be and 110 AO Coa (T. 1519) Dr. ae: also seeking suggestions for what the high school should be doing. ¢T. 690. 1515-3516) "At that ume. although there had bee no intervention other than the involvement of De (T, 1549) Dr Ras informed thai the student had ereat grades and she would be fine academically (Ex. V at 231) Dr BE understood Dr o believe that should be recommended. (T. 691-692. 1567. Ex. V at 229) l.aier on May 19. 2015 the student reported to Dr, ha she had three classes with a student with whom she was having difficulties. could not tolerate sittmg through them and did
—EEE
" Alchough Dr. quid not recall the date of this conversation. I conclude that it occurred on Mas 19 in view of o pon number of conversations berveen the tro and the cestimeny that bs May 20 a determination to d been made. Ex. ©) not know if she could
CORRES. V-231)
May 20. 2015 was the student's last day in school. (Exs.C.P) On that date the parent informed D hat the student would not be returning to school for the remainder of the 2014-2015 SY and that she was ime |e C) The student was a: May 26. 2015. (T. 1251. Fx. V at 236)
The student had continued to maintain the same good grades in the 4" quarter until her removal from school. (T. 819-820, Exs, !04, QO)
Dr equested authori@tion to speak with whomever was working with the giudent a (T. 693) A purpose of that communication was to determine when the student would be coming back and what should be done in preparation for that. (T. 692-693) The parent linited Dr. a icisin to “educational purposes only” and the district was informed that only issues relating to certain non-academic school assignments could be discussed. (T. 693-694. Exs, 98. I) However. Pati were denied permission to share any information whatever with the district and no information of any kind was provided x the district. (T, 1283-1284, Ex. 135)
Commencing on May 20, 2015 the parent had expressed concern about the student's grades for both the 4" quarter and the year since she would not be returning and would not be doing school work (T. 892. 1021. Ex. C) The parent had been told by, that academic work was a stressor for the student at that time. (7. 694, 1025) Grading options were discussed with the parent on several occasions. (T, 961-962. Ex. N. P} The matter was referred to the Schoo! Resources Team i: May 28. 2015 to determine how the student would be graded for the 4" quarter. * (T. 680-682. Ex. L} The next meeting of the PR bereafier was on June 16. 2015. (Exs. M.N)
The was high school based and included staff members from various disciplines. (T.475) The | a nol report to the Director of Special Sern i neither she nor special services director for the secondary school. was a member ofit (7. 220-221) ‘A purpose of the a. as 10 deveclop/discuss witerventions for students with Dr. treatment af the student effectively ended after the patient's admission MB or0r002n she did later receive discharge summars dated July 2.2015. (1. 1337, (321-1322. Ex. V at 235-241) * The SR Pad different names at various dines including the Response to Intervention Team ("RTI") and the Child Studs Teabs (CST) and those designations were variously used by school staff during the relexamt period. (7.159,
174. 221.477) The entity will be hereinafter referred ty asx the SRT. 1?
academic or behavioral! dithculties and referrals for special education evaluations were not made by it before other interventions were considered. (T. 218-219. 475. 477-479, 674-675. 678-679) A student i RITE sion a basis for SRT referral to the CSE. (TY. 677} In those circumstances information and recommendations from a student's T4542} Among the SRT’s tasks is to determine plans for students not finishing out the school year. (T, 682) On June 16. 2015 the SRT met and was informed that the student had beenqqgigareaam and would not be returning by vear end. (T. 480, 48]. 508) It determined that the student's grades would be based upon the first tllree quarters as well as any 4 quarter midterms that had been piven. that her 4" quarter grades would not be factored into her final average. and that she would be exempt from any final exams. (T. 979- 980. Exs. QO, P) Accordingly. the student would not jase credits as a result xs. 104. 56) There is no claim that the student's 5 ere discussed at the SRT meeting and 1 conclude that thes were not. (T. 508. 320-522) There was no discussion of a 504 plan ora CSE referral for this student. {T. 523}
On May 26. 2015. the student had been admitted to ee: program which ute 2335) DBT . (T. 1285. Exs. 136. V at han wa wee '
TT. 1520-1521) ay is an advanced form of cognitive behavioral therapy. eat sii inc fe. (1. 1958. 1845, 490-191) Meditation techniques including appropiate senifine are 7.1958) The correct determination eye in Various circumstances fs an essential part of the therapy. (T.
1048. 1966) The _- program required a minimum stay of 28 days. (T. 1285. Ex. 136) The Student participated in that program for a period @ TT, ag afteanets namanise E HETNESES, Semesaen avy
1302-1303, Ex. V at 236)
Upon entrance student school and class since February 2015 and more recently having had a falling out with a former friend and for about a manth prtor (Ex. V at 235)
Upon discharge she was not having t continued to hn (Ex. V at 239)
The parent had disagreed with certain medication an ment approaches at (T.
1260. 1305-1307. Exs. V at 239.170) While the student was 1@ parent had consulted with Dr. P| Ma (T., 1360. Ex. 170} iia recommended that the student be program. (7. 1260. Ex. 15) The parent thereafter sought expedited placement , (Ex. 170) The student wa n June 29. 204jjlmoyneaguaeas (Ex. ¥ at 241) The parent had n while the student was gum (T. 1295-99, 13500. Ex. 147) The parent did not inform the district that the studen|bcalyagisianaimrnnaatinaeiin. ; On June 30. 2015. the student was ee Program (thE P o2cam") (T. 125. Ex. 15 at 2) That program specialized in the treatment rat |
It included individual and parent‘famils components and classroom-based skills and agenda based groups as well as DB1 coaching 24 hours a day for residents and parents. The minimum stay was 28 days and the average length of stay was six to re a’
LL
1 alay= S sntireH fsa New York State hicensed psycholovds n Oda * “0 age: concerns Children. (T. J8S55. Cx. & at 1) He has been ‘the student's treating psychologist since September 28. 2015 and had nor met her until then. (7. 2024, Y al 46} He ts the Co-Toundeg lineal Director cer orem
" ion which has establish rograms in public ahd private schools including He is also Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behas ioral Science’. . 955-1956. Exs. 19]. X) eivht weeks, It pros tded = an immersion form so that residents “could safely and effectively master the skills they need to ret alates (FX. 15 at 2) Dr conducted a psychological evaluation of the student on July 28.
2015, atter her admission ogy: (the TE
Although his report was not issued until Seplember 16. 2015. the parent had previously been informed of the results (T. 1356-1357, Ex. 15}.
Dr ated that the student re al arenes a cans: ) a tti«éd 6 at 8) The report noted that the student reporte since February 2015. (Ex. 6 at 1} Behavioral observations included the student never asking questions or expressing concem verhally and that although she had sooad sectal skills (Ex. @ at 2) Her academic functioning was mm most domains within the expected limits of her cognitive ability p> Rees math fluency. was a Weakness. s9jagnmuumahmapaleientusens® _ (Lx. 6 at 4) Dr BP onciuded that the student’s understanding of Ue was a weakness. (Ex. 6 at 5). She did not recognize man) of the ways she engaged in Cn amesadenieni Reig IN near, and was unable to recognize the plgpineeginseeee na ace re . ; h rr r= i LJ 2, Toe F agree he AF Oe 7
ARREST
ema (ES. 6 at 8)
> recommendations included continuation of individual, sroup. parent and phone Pan JEP. various test and assignment accommodations. a “point person at the school to check in with regularly and ensure the completion of assignment and other academic expectations”. and an identified counselor as point person to assist student ‘Te 0 would be in contact with the student’ therapist to assist in the identification of appropriate skills for the student 10 use. (Ex, 6 at 8-9) sram develope eee which the student was participating included 24 7 phone coaching
Anis experience Mess in moment and are having difficulty about which skull to use to copgesbes
| and speah with their thertpis tO get advice on what to do. (T. hack It also includg aggre T a 4 a amt 1 s*
~ omy parent coaching. famils sesstons for parent and sndent, a neaduate Sour in WHICH f 2 Stu ent . ogi:
The student remained A A for more than three months afler her June 30. 20145 admission and was discharged on"Uctober 2. 2015. a stay substantially in excess of program average, (7. 1259. Ex..15) ATP hc student had initially been egies had had ia frequent comniunications planning a visit. (T. 1324-1325) Ba Geese 1517) In Jate July the student informed the parent ofa desire to (T. 1319-132 The determindtion to mst libpitiiee ki which ii concurred, was based upon the conclusion of the reatment team and the parent (ha RI, pede the student’s recovery and (T. 2020. 2036) . chen wT. 2140-2141. 2189-2190) The student came to agree with tbat after she commenced treatment with _ (T.S¥90)
The student alse informed the parent in July of her dc si queers (T. 1326-1327. Exs. 171. 172) The parent objected. (T. 1326. 1330. Ex. 172) Dig
Further, recommendation and was suli considering what type of placement. including possibly residential. might be required, (T. 2286) The parent had looked into possible residential and day participated after abuut 6 nionths tn theraps. and weekh team meetings tor all staff. (T. 1966-1968, 1993-199. 227-2274, 2274-2275) therapeutic placements. inchud n the event that recommendation was made. «J. 1335- 1338. Ex. 174) With regard to placement the parent also. on August 3, 2015. communicated oe staff i: she did not want the student fo eo back to the high school, (T. 2285, Ex, 208) On August 14 2015. the parent informed Dr she had told the student she world not be returning to the high schoo) upen discharge and the student was “ok” with thal. (T, 2286. Ex. 206) On September [1]. 2013 the parent informe taff that she was working toward the student not returning te the high schol and would be seeking district funding for another placement. {Ex. 177) The parent was at that time “hepingTM that the student would be home by the end of September-beginning of October. (Ex. 177)
The parent testified that she telephoned the high schoo! ai feast twice a Wweek during the month of August prior to August 28. leff messages for the high school principal and GBas veceived no responses. (T. 1027. 1351-1352) There is no evidence with Tegard to those calls in the record and the parent acknowledged that she made no entail attempts. (T. P3531} Purther. there was no testinigny thal any telephone message provided intormation sugeesting that evaluation and/or placement was or might be a parental concern. [| find no basis for concluding that the district was or should have been alerted prior to August 28, 2015 as to any need to consider placement or any evaluation ar was provided with any information as to the student's whereabouts. ‘
The parent an August 28. 2015. via telephone. infonned the principal that the studesit would not be starting schoo] al the beginning of the school year and the principal instructed her to send an email requesting a CSE evaluation. (T, 1352-1353} By email the same day (a Friday}
224) The fax gave no indication as 10 whether or where the student was hospitalized. ¢T. 224-234) Dr RB ersiies the parent the same day requesting a telephone cail to clarif\ the purpuse of her fax message bu aecive aresponse. (7. 223-224. Ex. 83}
On September & 2075 ocial worker informed Dr that the student wa that ap evaluation had been done and would be forwarded when the Written) report was completed and that the student would not be discharged until the end of Sepiember-early October, (1. 226-227. Ex. 4}, That was the first time Dr. BM teamed that ihe student was at (T. 223} The parent has mademo claim that any district staff breviousiv were mformed of th RAoTe were.
A Septermber 9. 2015 telephoned affer to the parent to come in and discuss her concerns egarding placement with i Dr, wie: as made but declined by the parent who stated she had received no reports or evajuations. ¢T, 230. Ex. 4)
A fegues! for consent to initia] evaluation dated September 9, 2013 was transmitted to the parent. (Ex. 3} The district received the signed consent from the parent on Septeniber 16. 2015.
(T. 233. Exs. 3.3) Th Fx aluation was issued on September 16. 2015 and forwarded othe district that day, (7. 226. Ex. 6) On Septenvber 17. 2013 the parent informed Dr hy telephone that with regard to the requesied Social Histaryv report she was “only comfortable sharing certain information.” (T. 235-236) The Social History repori completed by the parent provided ismited detail but directed the CSE to “see evaluation repom” for fiurther information with regard to most af the questions. ¢T. 53-56. 236-237. Ex. 8) The Pg Evaluation was by then in the district's possession and nas acknowledged that the information sought im the Social Histery report was provided to the CSE in other documents. (T. 281-283. Ex. 6)
A classroom observation a: required for the review and h been requested on September 16. (Ex, 85) On September 23 the district was informed that atl would not jel? conduct the observaiian. (Ex, 85) Initially scheduled to be conducted on September 30, it was done on October 2 by M T, 258-241 bees 16. 85) The student was discharged fron bere: tna: day. (7.1252. 135 id not pravide its “Treatment Team Sumnmuan” (°Treaiment Summary”) including its recommendations. requested by the disirict on September 17. und] October §, 2015, the day before the observation and discharge. (T. 242. Ex, tailt] [> nas oe ee recommended placement in an acatlemic setting with an emational support component that could provide necessary support for emotional disability. stating that “Due 10 he Scammers be able to access her academic potential in an environment that is sensitive lo her ongoing clinical needs.” It recommended placement in a school with smali-class sizes. rich academic curricula and eg (Ex. 1S at 3) Although th program was described. the Treatment Summary did not specity components were required nor did it specifically state th staff in the student's placement. (T. 1906. Ex, W at 9-10)
The CSE convened on Monday October 5. 2015 for an Initial Eligibilit. Determination
Meeting (“the October 2015 review"). (T. 58. Ex. 17} The parent participated without an attorney or advocate, (Ex. 17) At that review the parent informed the CSE that ihe student had been been discharged over the weekend. (T. 65. Ex. 17 at 2)
The CSE concluded that the student was eligible for classification as a student with ee It ruled oul a residential program at that time and recommended a | cyguntt See? | 2-1-1 for all academics). a program which it acknowledged was not available in the district and for which it would send out referral packets. (T. 64. Ex. 17) It also i.
see =
(T. 64. Ex. 17) A (1 hour bi-monthly by phone) was provided..(Ex. 17) Ms estified that the consultation was added beeause the outside theraps was part of the student's wansition ae ~ 4 and collaboration between the student's outside provider and the placement’s clinicians was “importani.” (T. 62. EX. | 7 0Qiigigiiguenytillpetdtttwesiceniisiniveninteigae” (kx. $7) CSE recommended
1) She also reported that the student was apprehensive about running into fommer peers/friends and was intending to misrepresent concerning the reason for her absence if she did so. (Ex. 17 at *
2} The parent expressed concer that whatever program the student was in should be familiar with the ce Gag cepando the CSE that paivould be providing pn eee ee ed (T. 76-77, 288-289, Exs. i7 at 2.41)
Prigr io the October 2015 review Dr. ae MH had recommended the yong others. as a passible placement. (7. 1737.
| : aa on at least two occasions prior to the review. fl. 1357. 1905-1906. Exs. 180. W oat 8} At the review. the parent requested consideration of a placement and was informed that a school that “as not appraved by the State Education Department us a facility with which a district could contract for the delivery of special education services could not be recommended by the CSE. (T. 64-63. 1036. Ex. 17) as and {s not a State approved non-public school ("NPS").
On October 7. 2015. 2 days after the review. the district sent out referral packets to four programs: the t
70-7}, 409. Exs. 20. 27.22. 23, 24. 25)
The parent and student visited all four schools and the parent concluded that none were apprapriate. (Ex, 40) vas Visited on October 16, accompanied oa the student completed the inerview process. (T. 1048-1047, 1049. Ex. 40) Although an acceptance letter was nei received by the district and the parent until October 26, 2007. Executive Director Dr.
hdsiatee:
“ Home based (uiuring sas subsequends presided pending placement. C1. G7 Ess. 20. H. 38,46 at U1 J: to the parent at the ume of the intake interview that the student would be accepted, (T. 411. Ex. 33}
On October 19, 2035. the parent visi Tthout the student and was given a tour of the school, (T. 1407)
Rit tober 21 and October 22. respectively. the parent and student visited
Ex. 40} Both programs. were located in very large schools: the student eermuention
~ | — em eer as Not considered for these programs (7. 1039-1042. 71-73. Ex 30,40. 49) The parent also noted other abjections to thase schools, (T. 1039-1042. Ex, 40} y | isited an October 23 and the parent was informed that its students were not permitted ta have any outside therapists and, further. that the focus of its program was not academics. (T. 1042-1043, Ex. 40) The parent's deseription of iii aiid the sites of hP ograns has not been cumested by the district, On October 22, 2013. the parent and student visite nd the student was pleased with the school a “formed them that the student wooure cepted. ¢T. 1403-J4U4. Ex. 184) The parent inform the student's start date would depend upon communications from parent's counsel but that “we look forward to being pari of i (Ex. 184)
On Octoher 26, 2015. the district sent referral packets to at least five additional schools. (T, 73-74. Ex. 33. 37) One of them informed the district it had no openings. (Ex. 39) On November 2 the parent and student visited three of them. (ex. 20) Both fi and the parent described them as very frightening to bath parent and student with cursing and velling in die hallways and no apparent knowled with one reported to have princinally residential students who were there because unmanageable at home. (T. | Ex. 40} The district has net contested this description. The parent reported that 7 Sche ed a therapeutic environment. knowledge and an appropriate-class profile. ¢T, 7044-7045. Exs, 40) The parent comtacted The but was itormed that the siudent would be required to have a 44-60 nmunutes intake interview before a tour «sould be permitted although the parent had informed the school *~
On November 3, 2015. the parent informed th adimissions director that “ihe ten day notice” would be sent out by the following day. ( T. 1415. Ex. 188) On November 4 the parent also informed Dr. that the 10 day notice was being sent out that day so that the student would be able to start by around November 19". (T. 1413. Ex. 187) However. by follow up email hat day the parent stated that she would have to hold off sending the notice unti! atter th ovember 12" CSE meeting. (T. 1415-1416, Ex. 188)
Sometime between October 26 and November 3, 2015, had intormed the parent that a public school program. based in trained staff but the parent did not visit thal program. (T. 78. 345, Exs. 25.40.41) The parent told the district that her job was in jeopardy due to her repeated absences resulting from the student's hospitalization and the evaluation and placement process. (T. 1051-1052. Ex. 40 } °° The parent also believed that the student would have social/emotional challenges in that school due to anxiely since friends attended and would know she was a special education student. (Ex. 404
The CSE reconvened on November 12. 2015 ("November 2015 review”) to consider placement. (Ex. 46) The parent attended with her counsel. district counsel was present. and BBB i: ecto: SFP icipxes via telephone for part of the meeting. (T. 423-424. Ex. 46 at 1} Dr (RE informed the CSE about the Gai program including that the school had Worked with students who were receiving private th {Ex. 46) A classroom profile was not provided although the CSE was informeggshat the student would be grouped with athers who were similar. (Ex. 46) In view of theg on counseling provided in addition to t Pe tnidagtaMIGET CASS ratio
= weekly counseling recommendation to 1x30 (1:1) and 1x30 aT el —— a —_——— (5:] (Ex. 46) The parent informed the CSE that she rejected the placement and that the student would be enrolled at (T. 82. Exs. 46. 50)
The parent signed ai enrollment contract for the 27015-2016 SY on Navember 30. 2015 which specitied that tuition for the period November 30. 2015 through June 30. 2016 was $46.500. (7. 1087. Ex. U-1) The student commenced attendance on November 30, 2013. The tis =4 her emplos ment the (alow ing menth and the absences were cued. (T. 1052. 1169) : . . . = , She was discharged from getting good grades and forming relationships with peers. (T. 357)
In February 2016. the parent requested a CSE review to discuss the student's eligibility Jor extended school year services. In support of her request. the parent provided a letter dated February: 9. 2016. from DE nica Director. who recommended a 12 month IEP so that the student “can have an opportunity to recover credits that were lost during her hospitalization and graduate on time” and noting that delaying graduation would negatively impaci the student's self-esteem and increase the risk of her becoming increasingly anxious and depressed. Dr. Iso noted that “It is also important that she maintain the current structure of ber school day which includes unlimited access to the counseling office.” (Ex. 54)
The CSE convened on February 22, 2016. The parent attended with counsel. district counsel was also present. (Ex. 56 at 1) Dr. the student's advisor. participated by phone and informed the CSE that: skiils worked on with her therapist were supported in school by the student’s teachers. that the student S11 pide piidggn naam t that was not reflected in her prade reports: her private school therapist reported some oul of schao! stress at that time. (Ex. 56 at 2} District staff repened that the student was noi behind in credits but rather was ahead of schedule to graduate on lime notwithstanding her hospitalization. (Exs. 36. 104. Q) Progress reports staff were reviewed and specified that the student was then receiving As in all courses and had been successfully able to transition back trom Winter hreak both academically and social/emotionally which the CSE believed indicated progress in all areas. (T. 357. Exs. 56. W) The CSE also noted that the student would receive summer services pursuant to her private therapy program and would have access S| stafl during the summer as well even if not enrolled in the summer session. The CSE concluded that there was no evidence that the student would likels experience substantial regression during Jujy/August and that therefore the student did not meet the regulatory criteria for ESY services. The parent's request was denied. (T. 84-85. Exs. 56 at 2. 53. 104)
Thereafier. by contract executed by the parent on May 1. 2016. the student was unilaterajly enrolled in the Summer 2016 program at a tuition rate of $7750. (T. 1087. Ex. U-7) District transportation lor that program was denied and the parent arranged Jor private transportation. (Exs. 59, U)
By letter dated March 14, 2016. the district had informed the parent that it had contracted with DT group “lo support the development of a school based i, High School” for the 2016-2017 SY. (T. 88. Ex. 59) No inquiry to the district concerning the program was nade prior to the May 9. 2016 Annual Review for the
2016-2017 SY. (T. 89}
However. the parent contacted i il day alter the district's letter to inquire as to whether D s involvement with the district’ sll rogram would compromise his ability to “testify” that the student “needs a different program” in a hearing against the district should that be requested and he replied 1t would nat. (T. 2081-2082, Ex. 191)
On March 15. 2016. the parent executed a contract for the student sit roll ment for the 2016-2017 SY (10 month program) at a rate of $67,500. ¢T. 1087. Ex. U-13)
The CSE reconvened on May 9. 2016 to develop a program for the 2016-2017 SY ("May “O16 review"). (Ex. 62) Participants included the paremt with her counsel. the district's counsel and Dr. school psychologist who did not himself work with the student but had been informed about her. (Ex. 62} District staff provided overviews of the district's
") to be implemented in September 2016. (T. 92-93. En. 62) The CSE reviewed progress reports indicating that the student had made progress in all
$d on tan pe ee see The CSE was also informed that >Dr. AIM rc be been consulted and that he had opined that the pnnot the program itself was the issue and therefore any placement there was not appropriate for this student. (Ex. 62) The parent expressed concerns about the student's ability to be in the high school environment with peers that were not appropriate but did not further amplify that concern. (T. 98-99, Ex. 62} Further. she believed ihat the student would not be able to face other students and noted that when the student had come back for school functions in connection with her brother. it had been difficult for her. (7, 103) The CSE reconumended placement in the SB. hich provided among other things: an on an .
| | GB st: \- s ee be utilized and that a transition plaf*To address studem concerns about re-ent®ring the building would be developed. (Ex. 62) Other elements of the program were also discussed. Additional goals were developed and test accommodations were specified. (T. 100-101. Ex. 62) At the time of the May 2016 review although the fact that it would be i>: known. its precise location within the school had not been determined. (T. 338-339) The parent rejected the program. (T, 102. Exs. 62. 65)
At theg@@@ew the CSF requested that the parent sign consent to permit the district to speak to Dr. nd the parent responded that she would consider it. (Ex. 62) A consem form was returned_on May 31. 2016 and was jimited by the parent to permit only school psychologist < to Dr, only for the purpose of discussing the student and the “High ram. (Fx. 70}
UE spoke with on June 10, 2016. (T. 503) During their conversation ae that a be “insufficient to meet {the student's] needs” and that the student was “not far enough Into her treatment to be able to manage a large schoo] environment.” (T. 504. T. 1983) At the conclusion of their conversation. . ee ‘ir transmit his opinion in writing and he agreed. ¢T. 1984)
The parent filed her hearing request by letter dated July 19. ra by the district on July 22.2016. (Ex. /) A letter dated June 30. 2016 from Dr was included as an exhibit. (T. 105-106. Exs. / 72) There ts no indication or claim that it had been provided to the district previously. {T. 369-370) In that letter Dr. opined that the most fulfilling and therapeutic aspect for this studen but certain aspects of its program. its diverse and accepting student body and “the vers CULTURE of , | that provides the necessary and sufficient degree of validation and ‘aceeptanceTM that has allowed [the sfudent] to not only recompensate hut aiso blossom in a way that I did not think was possible in such a short periad of time.” He stated with regard nat the student felt her experience had nat been sufficiently supported. structured or therapeutic. that the sheer size of the environment had overwhelmed her with regard to physical plant. class size and less supervision. that she had experienced considerable sacial alienation in the high school and did not feel a part of the schaol milieu and that she did not feel connected to these assigned for guidance and therapeutic support. Dr. FB pine that ‘as not an appropriate 2016-2017 SY placement “due to class size. school size and culmire. all necessary to meet [the student’s}] academic social and emotional needs al this lime.” He stated that there was a risk of her decompensating in the “old school culture” where she felt insufficiently supported emotiona}ly. socially and academically if she was moved back only 10 months after leaving en c cautioned against imprudence, (Ex. 72)
The CSE convened an September 9, 2016 10 discuss pv i § letter (“September 7016 review"). |" (Ex. 75 at 1} The parent paiticipated with her counsel and district counsel was also present. (Ex. 75 at 1) The in-school site of the program had been determined by the start of school and the program had commenced. The review recessed 10 provide the parent and her attorney a tour of the program and the district stated that it would like o view the program. (J. 106-107) At the review the parent was informed. among other things. that the student's schedule could also include some core academics classes offered from 3-5 PM Monday-Friday in classes with from 1-3 students and thai the student could consider various Career Tech programs located near the high school. The parent. stating that she was relying on Dt recommendation. rejected the CSE’s placement recommendation. (Ex. 75 at 1-2) No changes were made to the IEP. (T, 107. 585)
On October 13. 2016. the school! psychologist for spoke with Dr. via telephone. regarding the student and the parent was also a participant. ¢T. $86) Dr stated that the student could not return because she had been “traumatized” at JJ (T, 387-388. 590. 1986) Dr. was invited to visit the program. which he had never seen in operation, and he declined. ( 90. 2000. 2104) , the 2016-2017 school year but id baal
The student continued to do well generally a experienced significant difficulties in two periods (Exs. W. Y)}:
The student had previously reported dj —— facilities in cofMection with activities involving her brother. (T. 102) She had been planning to take an extended drivers education program (“drivers ed”) operated from the school which was expecied to commence on is fl 33, {Ex. Y¥ at 283 & 286) On September 19 student lrauma in connection with visits Lo d the use of a support dog for drivers ed was discussed with > 6 Y at {90) The student began to repért problems . . —— Although the IEP specifies a meeting on September 1. 2016. the meeting was actually beld on September 9, 2016. (Ex. Y-257) (See Ex. Y at 271 ef seg.) The parent testified that the student had sien she arrived for a drivers ed session. was Within ES | ea ae EE eee (1. 1083-1085) There is no record of a i in the documents in evidence. However. the student pee ord on the school bus on September 27 followed by symm ememetee: | ith an
(T. 1966. 1990) Dg pines that the student had thought she could do the pregrany But had been “blindsided” by her anxiety. (T. 2252) In the period thereafter the student continued to and there was as a medication change. (Ex. Y) The student continued to maintain good grades although she had difficulties in some classes and conflicts with a friend at school (T. 2071. 2074. Ex. Y at 201) I conclude that the drivers ed experience. if not the sole cause of the student's distress in the September-2016 period. was a significant contributor. (T. 2177)
In late Spring. the student ran for school office but lost. Her willingness to take the chance was impressive and considered by Dr to have been a sign of progress. The student was depressed and thal exacerbated some of her concerns about schoo] work. She took an excess of an over the counter medication but reported that she has done so. The pill taking
The student continued to do well academically. (T. [991-1993, 2129-2131. Exs. W. Y)
The choo! is located Ne 1 York. near the student's home district. is a New York State approved school for students with disabilities. (T. 397. D-25 at 2) It follows the New York State high school curriculum with students taking regents exams and earning high school credits and students get diplomas from the sending district. (T, 398. 399. Ex. 91) It serves students who have bee
395-396).
During the 2013-2016 SY served a full time equivalent of some 77 students and Was staffed by 40 staff members. including 18 teachers. one school psychologist and one schoal counselor, (T. 394. 397) Its students had four disability classifications: approximately 30-35 % emotional disturbance. 30 % other health impaired, 20 % learning disability and 20 % autism. (T.
395. 428) The school is not permitted to accept students with an intellectual disability classilication. (T. 442) The range of cognitive abilities at the school is usually between 79 and
[34 1Q. (T. 393) vided 6:1:1 classes (6 students. one teacher and one teacher's aide). (T. 397) Since its students varied in cognitive ability. instruction was individualized by the provision of IEP specified modifications and accommodations and enriched or modified curriculums depending on need. (T. 399} Although there were no AP classes the school provided Opportunities to take advanced placement (“AP”) level English. Social Studies and Math coursework in ils classes through individualized instruction in those classes. (T. 400-401) Approximately seventy perceni of | ae graduaie and go on to study in postsecondary institutions. (T, 398) Its student body is diverse and it had numerous student-generated clubs including ee (T. 400-401. 425) - os had no more than a three chronological vear age range up until the age of
16. (T. 397, 429) In forming content area classes the students were grouped as closely as possible in functioning levels but there is a wide swing. (T. 396) Class schedules and profiles developed after the CSE meeting specified FSIQs of students in classes in which the student would have been placed and showed ranges of: 124-79 & 72 in 10" grade English: 115-79 in Algebra 2 (math): 124-94 in Global Studies (social studies) and 106-79 in Chemistry (science).
(T. 417. 435-437. Exs. R. 91) Dr estitiea that for students with a disability IQ may not be an accurate reflection of cognitive ability because other factors could affect the scores. (T.
418. 437-441) The school provided counseling in accordance with each student's IEP and made counseling available on an “as-needed” basis when necessary sometimes through other staff if the counselor was not available. (T. 401-403 mental health professionals are trained to work with students in identifving and implementing coping strategies and identifving their needs professionals of students 1 when requested to do so by parents. (T. 402) There have been ne trainin nd no one there is certified or formally trained in that methodology. (T. 403. 422-423) a not assert that clinicians had taken any <i rather that they are “familiar” with it in thal they keep up generaily and would have looked up information on the necds of their students. (T. 403. 422)
istrict’§ 2016-2017 SY Recommended Placement
Al] district aff directly involved in tl ompleteGR vcining provided ball during June 2016 including an initial orientatic and introduction t (T.
496. 598. 630-631 A 's0 provides consultations every other month throughout the school year with the Gear: teacher. school psychologist and two teaching assistants. (T. 598. 618.
621. 634) Th s located jn a structure atiached to the school. is self-comained and has its own separate entrance’cxit. accessed from the outside of the building. (T. 578. 641} Students can be dropped off and picked up from a location near those entrances and avoid the main student entrances altho still encounter other stud@nts. (T. 478.605-613. 641)
The served between 14 and 15 students during the 2016-2017 SY. (fF. 579) Its es a students exhibiiedga@hnh GiuaipaaiNe Les wetness
(T;
582) The great majori'yai@ embed id not. (T. 534} The psychologist had an office in the unit and she provided all mandated counseling and was available for coaching. crisis intervention and chech-ins ¢ T. 575. 581-582. 618)
Theffiencens had a range of academic needs and a variety of classroom settings including spefiaf education classes. typical mainstream classes. Honors and AP courses were me. (1. 665. 667) Teaching assistants supported students in mainstream classes on an “as needed basis” and teachers of those classes were advised as to student needs. (T. 625. 648. 663. Ex. 90 at3) The uscd individual counseling sessions to help the students cope with high stress situations‘ensironments and homework production and attendance were monitored. (PT. 382-584) im coaching is available throughout the day. (T. 639-640) Check-ins are indis ualized to feet each student's needs. (588. 640. 657-658)
The program provided a weekly study skills class. a daily support period in the TSP classroom.. the opportunity to participate in skills training and access to a DBT trained clinician throughout the school dav. (Ex. 90 4t 3)
Parent's Unilateral Placement
= =—Seti‘<ié«*rsS Manhattan. New York City. (T. 1842 ) It is an independent college prep school for students who need therapeutic support. (T, 1826) RM hat some 7) students in high school. (T. 1893) Classes averaged 5-10 students with one teacher.
(T. 1843) Almost every student was college bound and each had the ability to attend college. (T.
1838) Most of ils students were from New York City and it has about 3-4 students from Wesichester County in the 2016-2017 SY, (T. 1894)
Students with behavioral and conduct problems are not considered suitable ir which principalls had students struggling with issues related to poor executive functioning. anxiety and depression who often have histories of trauma. (T. 1840-1841) Almost every student had an JEP and one student had a 504 plan. @. 1842. 1893-1894) Although some students had OHI and learning disabled classification. all si ilantembe tT 9 ee (T. 1894. Ex. L&+)
A school wi rogram was introduced in September a all staff. provided ongoing puidance « and oversay | implementation in the school, (T. 1846} However. no therapy was provided afl which uses a program) model in which its
* + ‘
118 Fy rj e z : ! - : ie + ra .
T. 1893. Ex. U} works closely with students’ outside providers and had numerous and ongoing comacts with Dr oncerning this student. (E-xs. W. ¥}
The STopram consisted of three core parts: academics which included an arts provram. an advisory program and clinical therapeutic support. (T. 1826}
The academic program followed the New York State graduation requirements and included generally six 40 minute academic periods per das (math. science. English, history and mea electives.) * C7. 1833-1834. 1896) Schedules were created individually for students and based an skills. (T. 1854} Each student also had a “student prep” period when any teacher could call a student for additional help in an area of academic need. (T. 1897) Feachers were trained jor at least a week and a half before the start of the new school vear, meetings with curriculum directors were provided weekly when appropriaie but at least biweekly for all teachers, and teachers receive training and professional development on clinical topics. (T. 1834-1835} A Full time feaming specialist was also available for consultation by teachers. (1. 1836) Test accommodations were provided ifrequired. (T, 1839) The advisory program provided an advisor for each student. (T. 1829} The advisor was usually also a teacher in te school although psychology interns served as backup advisors. (T. 1830} The advisor was scheduled ta meet with a student three times per day for a total of $5 minuies, First. upon arrival in the morning for 13 minutes to make sure the student was prepared for the day and to ascertain if possible whether the student was stressed in which case advisor support or encouragement io go the counseling office would be provided. (T. 1831) Second. a midmoming adusary period of approximately 30 minutes is provided to do Joosely structured activities to help with executive functioning. communication aad interpersonal skills. (7. (832) Third. an end of day period of 1Q minutes Before leaving to ensure the student haf recorded al] assignments for all classes. (T. 183. 1893-1896) In addition. advisors met weekly with cach student to review a dacument. sent to parents. in which each teacher made entries about the student's academics. behavior and secial emotional issues. (T. 1833) New faculty initially started as backup advisors shadowing and learning fron: a lead advisor for yp to a few sears, (T. 1835)
Clinical therapeutic support was provided by four full time doctora) level psychologisis aod ane part time doctoral level psychologist. (7. 1827) Students had access io the cvunseling office at a times both to confer with eaunselors and to refocus and utilize relaxation techniques on their awn. of. 1227) Counselors provide skills-based interventions. (T. 1828 GFE sesdens do not haye a mandatory counseling sessions with mental health professionals: rather students received counseling services on an ’as needed” basis which was in addition to whatever services ther rceeived privately. iT. 1888. 1897) Various student support groups were provided anc
“ ‘Thove is an carly departure an Fridays and some periods on prior days are lengthened to make up for that, CT.
FSO? [898}
a6
participation .vas optional bet for a mandatory “junior group” which wes to prepare
*
students for life afler graduation. (T. 1828-1829. 1838-1839) Mest counselors and psvchologists had appropriate licensure and the others were in preparation and were directly supervised. ¢T. 1843)
Meming meeting of all staff to disouss students were held as well as case conferences regarding individual students when necessary and there was regular collaboration with outside treatment teams, (T. 1829} Families received weekly reports from advisers and there was addiaonal communication from stall to parents based on need. (T. 1836-1837} Workshops were olfered throughout the vear fo parents and paren! svipport groups were provided, (T. 1837-1838)
The student entered mn November 30. 2015 near the beginning of th reand quarter, (T. (864. 1886) She did exceptionally well making straight As ber first quarter and made friends quickly and ulso joined the schoo aR > and. although ma coming in frequently to the counseling office. used the advisor “a lot.” (T. 1864-1867) Because the school wes aware that the student might conceal when she was struggiing. it was more proactive about checking in with her in the beginning. (T. 1867)
The student consistently thereafter received principally As and some Bs. (7.1869. 1672tR73. 1876-1880. Ex. W at 49-93) In the second quarter of the 2016-2017 SY she had “eqotional shifis” and clinical staff noted her becoming more depressed and frustrated and having a harder time figuring out what was troubling her and she was struggling with sel{monitoring: advisors prompted visits to the counseling affice or added check-ins. (T, 1877-1878. Exs. W. ¥) The student periodically came into the counseling office to ust talk about what sas happening in her Hfe and staff was aware that the student could ptt on a “strong face” and perform well even when she was vers stressed, (7. (873. 1870-1871)
B) ANALYSIS"
I} Child Find Claims
The IDEA places an alfirmative duty on Schoo! districts to have “in effect policies and procedures” ta identify. locate. and ev aluaty all children with disabilities residing in the State “to Hg
'" Record references not sutad below are specified abose. a?
ensure that they receive needed special education services" (20 U.S.C. § 14)2fa][3}: 34 CFR. S001) [al{l fil: Forest Grove Sch, Dist, 1. T.4., 557 US, 230, 245: (2009): see 20 U.S.C, 8 I4i2latd]{A]lii): see also 8 NYCRR 200.2fa][7]; New Pali Cen. Sci, Dist. v. Sp Pierre. 307 F. Supp. 24 394, 400 1.13 [N.D.N.¥. 2004)). The “child find” requirements extends to "children who are suspected of being a child with a disability...and in need of special eduvation. even though they are advancing from grade to grade” (34 CFR 300.11 1fcJ[lk: see 8 NYCRR 200.2{fa][7]: 8. « Searsdale Cnien Free Sch. Dist., 826 F. Supp. 2d 635. 660 [§.D.N.Y. 2011).
Because the Child Find obligation places an affirmative obligation on the district. the IDEA does not require parents to request that the district evaluate their child. (See Reid ry. District af Columbia. 401 F3d 516. 518 [D.C, Cir, 2005]). ~Thus. courts have held that a district's child find duty is “trizgeredTM” when it “has reason to suspect that special education services may be needed to address that disability.” New Pafts Cent. Sch. Dist, 307 F. Supp. 2nd a1 400 n.13: see atse Afurpliy vy. Tow of Wallingford . No. 10-CV-278. 2011 WL 1106234 ¢D, Conn. Mar. 23. 2011 (°Once a school has reason to suspect a disability. the schoal must conduct an evaluation of the child within a reasonable time.” {internal quotation marks omitted)” /S., §26 F. Supp 2d at G60. lt is undisputed that neither the parent nor the student's clinician requested a CSE evaluation or suggested that one might be warranted during the relevant period. Further, the evidence shows and the district does not dispute that the district made #0 efforl to conduct any evaluation of this student nor did i inform the parent as to rights with regard to evaluations. services or accommodations under the IDEA and/or under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act until afler the parent requested a CSE evaluation on August 28, 2015. There is also no evidence or claim that ans district staff reccommended or even suggested the need fora CSE evaluation in that period.
The parent claims that the district had reason to suspect a disability as early as March 2048 and that there were repeated indications of student difficulsy and a therapeutic hospitalization commencing May 26. 2015 which showd have triggered provision of information concemine parcnt rights and/or a CSE review, Further. the parent claims that as a consequence of districts failure the student's evaluation and placement were delayed to the detriment of the student, f tind no merit in these claims. ] note that the student maintained very good prades at substantially the same levels and that her attendance record remained unchanged and appropriate until she was withdrawn. (Exs.
104. Q) Further. the parent has acknowledged that the student transitioned well ing that there was no basis for a district suspicion of disability until the student’s second semester. ( EN. LX)
The evidence shows that the first time the district learned that the student was having any sort ofdifficulty whatever was on March 10. 2015. when it discovered. and promptly reported to the paren After that incident the student continued to receiv ervices from her She was also treated by The student attended school the next day and her grades and attendance remained unchanged. The fact that the student was taking medication tres was known | counseling statf. (T. 1223} J find no basis for a conclusion that the district knew or should have known of any Studer <q alien ene en ernneern, “NAA Rar nT nimanerte mianeapeennomai eG. The testimony of theif is not a basis for a CSE review was credible and J note that it was not disputed by parent’s witnesses in this proceeding. (T. 887) Moreover. I find persuasive M unrebutted testimony that the fact that a student RRM.not necessarily invoke Child Find (T. 123)
On Apri] 27. 2015 the student reported to Dr. Ben a counselor a further wiles 7) The parent was promptly informed and the counselor spoke with ae: same dav. Dr RR ances but did not receive parental consent to speak with t that time. Although E have found that the parent did not intend to foreclos iM ccess. that was the result. The student appeared in schoo! the Within a few weeks. on May 14. there was a thi Although araund that time staff was becoming aware of issues between this student and another. there is ne evidence to support a conclusion that district personnel had any basis for belief that “bullying” was occurring or that the student was having or perceiving difficulties with more than one student. The student returned to schoo} the next day. On May 14. however. the parent had provided consent for Dr. a: speak —puizminere pyar. whieh am promptly attempted but with no success until May 19. A focus of the discussion on that date was one order to consider whether something needed to be done in school.
The next day the student was withdrawn from the high school and the district was informed that she would not be returning that school vear, On May 26. the district was informed neem It is undisputed that the parent did not provide any further information concerning the student’s location, diagnosis or prognosis and that consent for the district to communicate Bc 2cive that was denied. The district received no further information conceming this student until after the parent requested a CSE evaluation on August 28. 2015.
* "Under the IDEA, the term “children with disabilities’ means, among other things. children with a serious emotional disturbance...who by reason thereof. need speciul education and rejated services. J.D. ev rel. JAD. v. Ponvler Seh. Dist, 224 F.3d 60. 65 (2d Cir. 2000) (emphasis in original) (quoting predecessor to 20 U.S.C. 1401(3)(A)). 4S. An “emotional! disturbanceTM is defined im pertinent part as “a condition...over a long period of time which to a marked degree adversely aifects a student’s educational performance...” /’
I note this student's academic progress despite the issues thal began to affect her in Spring 2015. the very limited period of time after that before the student was withdrawn and the fact that the student was known to the district to services provided by the parent during the relevant period. See e. ¢ JS. I also note the denial of any additional information concerning the sludent’s diagnosis and prognosis before the CSE evaluation process was initiated by the parent. I find no basis for conclusion that the Child Find abligations were violated in the foregoing circumstances.
Further, the parent's claim that the student's evaluation and subsequent placement were delayed to the detriment of the student by CSE delay after notice to the district is nol supported bs credible evidence. Rather the evidence shows the district was notified on August 28. 2015 that the parent wanted a CSE evaluation and that it acted expeditiously thereafter. It is
An emotionally disturbed student exhibits one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of time and toa marked degree that adversels affects a child’s educational perfurmance; (A) An inability 10 !earn that cannot be esplained by intellectual. sensory. or health factors, (B) An inability to build or maintain satisfactan interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers. (C) Inappropriate ty pes of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances. {D) A generally pervasive inoed of unhappiness or depression. (£) A tendency to develop physical sx mptonis ar fears associated with personal or school problems, 34 CFR § 300.7(c)4r § NYCRR 200. 1224}. noteworthy that the signed consent to evaluate and the Lambright Evaluation were not provided until September 16. 2015 and the requested reatmen: Summary with recommendations Was not transmitted unt] a few business days prior to the evaluation and one day prior to her discharge. Further. that discharge date was not. I find. delayed as a consequence of CSE action or inaction but rather was consistent with BE «:0<c:2ti0ns as communicated to ihe parent in August .
Finally. with regard to detriment alleged to have arisen from district lack of provision of . 4 Py . > \ von ay gee . - . information concerning evaluation possibilities and special education rights. although not necessary in view of the foregoing I note that the parent hago geenee Coan aamaan Eu 5 oe ewe __= ae eat _
2 ia. . e = reek lens a wi byes
©
__— eens ee ou,
~ (1. 1612. Exs.
thereafter had a 504 plan including during the 2014-2015 SY. (T. 1613-1614. Ex, T-4) Indeed. the parent noted awareness of 504 accommodations when discussing her grading concerns after this student was hospitalized. (Ex. N at 2) |] conclude that the fact that the fact that no evaluation was requested by this sophisticated and knowledgeable parent was volitional.
2) Denial of FAPE Claims
The parent alleges denial of FAPE claims for the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 SYs. She seeks reimbursement for the student's enrollment at RLS during the 2015-2016 SY and the entirety of the 2015-2016 SY including a Summer 2016 program as well as transportation costs for the Summer 2016 program.
The legal standard applicable to a request for reimbursement for educational services is well established. Reimbursement is granted if: (1) the services offered by the district are inadequate or inappropriate (Prong 1): (2} the services selected by the parent are appropriate (Prong 2): and (3) equitable considerations support the parent's claim (Prong 3). Florence County Sch, Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 US, 7 (1993): School Commi. of Burlington vy. Departinent of Eehue. of Muss., $71 US, 359 (1985). In New York State the district bears the burden of proof with regard to Prong | and the parent bears the burden of proof with regard to Prong 2. Eefie. Law 44th} lf fe]
Further, hearing officers have broad authorin to erant such relief as they deem appropriate, tu = U.S.C. §814t2(ayy). 14S
QRC Mi: Forest Greve Sch. Dist vo TA. 129 S. Ce. 2484, 2492 6S. Ce =O09). Frank Gv. Bel of Edt, 459 F.3d 356. 37) (2d Cir. 2006)
+
Prong 1
An appropriate educational program begins with an Individualized Education Program QEP) which accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs, establishes annual goals related to those needs. and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (dpplication ofa Child with a Disability. Appeal No, 04-046: Applicetion af ao Child with a Disuhility. Appeal No. 02-0): Application ofa Child with ua Disability. Appeal No. 04-093: Application of a Child Suspected of Huving a Disehilin. Appeal No. 93-9). While schoo! districts are required to compiy with all Individuals with Disabilities Edueation Act procedures. not al] procedural errors render an IEP jegally inadequate under the IDEA (Grin v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sef, Dist, 346 F. 3d 377. 381 [2d Cir, 2003]) If a procedural violation has occurred, relielis warranted only if the violation affected the student's nght to a [ree appropriate public education (FAPE) (A.D. Pesclet Sef. Dist. 224 F.3d 60. 69 [2d Cir. 2000}}. A denial of ao FAPE occurs when procedural inadequacies either result in a loss of educational opportunity for the student. seriously infringe on the parents’ opportunity to participate in the IEP formulation process (see fermen. Clarkstown Cen. Sch. Dist. 363 F. Supp, 2d 636, 659 [S.D.N.Y. 2003): Hod. Pascarella. 133 F, Supp. 2d 144. 153 [D. Conn. 2001)). or comprornise the development of an appropriate [EP in a way that deprives the student of educationa! benetits under that IEP (see 4Jrfingion Cent. Sch. Dist. v. D.K.. 2002 WL 31521158 [S.D.N.¥. 2002)), In evaluating the substantive program developed by the CSE. the Secand Circuit has observed that “for an IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational) benefits. il must be likely to produce progress. not rearession” (Weivel vy Bao of Eslec,, 187 F.3d (38. 18) [2d Cir. 2002]. queting ALS. v. Ad. of Ediw.. 231 F.3d 96, 103 [2d Cir. 1998]}. This progress. however. must be meaningful: i.e. more than mere trivial advancement (IPafezak, [42 F.3d at 130). The IDEA, however. does not require school disicts 10 develep JEPs that maximize the potential of a student with a disability (Roofer. 458 ULS, at 197 1.21, 199: see Grin. 346 F.3d at 379: Weiecak, 442 F.3d at (32. However, “To meet its substantive obligation under ihe IDEA. a school must offer an IEP reasonably caleulated 10 enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the
A2
child's circumstances...” and “a student offered an educational program providing “merely more than de minimis progress” from vear to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.” Endrew Fo v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. ___ (2017). 2017 WL 1066260 (March 22. 2017). 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 200.6fa}f1]).
a) 2015-2016 School Year
The parent asserts that the CSE failed to provide a FAPE for the 2015-2016 SY by issuing an JEP that was inconsistent with programmatic recommendations in evaluative material and recommending a program not adequate far this student's needs and a placement which was not appropriate. (Exs. / ZV)
The student has been diagnosed with. among other things. Den sO Ka EASE RS ee — (T. 2332) J find that the district has not rebutted that diaynosis which. I note. is consistent with Dr. | ee thc TR & valuation. the RE: erren: Summiary.
The district's proposition that parental opposition to the student's expressions of elos te eee . poaed ‘7 - a u oe ee al
23) # support in T — (aeeneres and th Treatment Summary. I note that the CSE continued to classify her as student with emotional disturbance and recommended a developed in order to be able to keep in district students who would otherwise require an placement notwithstanding its awareness that the student had progressed substantially. | turn therefore to the proggafffand placement recommended for this student for the 2015-2016 SY.
Initially, however. [ note that | give no weight to the claim that the parent asked only for a placement with someone “familiar” Qiu There is no indication that anvone asked her what ye meant by “familiar” and with regard to that it is relevant that she was seeking
A3
placement 2 school indicating that she thought a significant level qa hnowledge was necessary.
Parent claims that rT 6 reatment Summary and/or he i Evaluation specifically recommended a school providing a ogram lack merit. {Exs. / LY) Although both noted that the student was i ogram from which she benefited neither stated that a placement in a similar program, residential or day was recommended. (Exs. 15, 6) Also of note is that Dr. Iso did not state that this student required d school program and/or that a recommendation that did not inglude that was not appropriate. That he recommended nd other schools which had rograms does not require a conclusion that he believed That no program without that could have been appropriate.
However. specified that it was “eritical that [the student] be ... in an environment that is sensitive to her ongoing clinical needs” (emphasis added) and recommended a placement which would provide “the clinical oversight that she requires? (Ex. 15 at 3) staff had conferred with oi t the student on several occasions and was aware that he would he providing herapy upon her discharge. a s2< the student required a “point person at the school to check in with regularly and ensure the completion of assignment and other academic expectations” and an identified counselor as paint person to aggist the student in deescalating when necessary and who would be in contact with the student s erapist to assist in the identification of appropriate skills for the student to use. (Ex. 6 at 8-9)
The CSE recommended a ine eee: provided accommadations and modifications consistent with certain specific recommendation of a ~~ It noted th ninant rogram and it provided omg liliitnnmimers (Es.17 317) Mf cknowledeed that the consultation was provided because ee was important 10 the student's transition trom the hospital and collaboration was “important.” (T. 62) The CSE recommende iam which it claimed would implement the TEP. ] nete that in this proceeding the disirict has not asserted that a counselor or clinician with no knowledve GB: 22050: would be acceptable. Rather it claims tha a -: provide someone sulficienths familar to meee roguired by the JEP. aA (Ex. Vat 28) However, the evidence indicates that no -— ie even taken a course-in ut rather that someone might have read up on it or would do so if necessary. I give no weight to the claim that in the past’some clinicians at the school had worked with outside DBT providers and note that there was no indication that it was anything more than an isolated occurrence and no indication as to the effectiveness of that for the student/s involved.
DBs: itiec that “having some familiarity. having read a textbook or an article without being trained in how to adequately supervise in general” would not suffice. (T. 2278) I note | etn and I find no basis for including that experience with general counseling skills/tasks such as aiding students in identifving and implementing coping strategies. identifying needs and soliciting assistance from appropriate school personnel would substitute for know! SS ec generally Ex. Y) 1 conclude that any meaningful collaboration between the school and Dr RR as not likely to be possible at ee
4
Further. the student was transitioning from an over four month period of hospitalization during which observed that this student had had. even after two months of hespitalization. he student would be entering an entirely different environment than the rogram she had experienced. I conclude that where there would Irkely be no meaningful support for the therapy she was receiving from otwithstanding the CSE’s belief that it was] student would be put at high risk. I note hasnt nd its consequences and her difficulty in seeking help. a placement that could appropriately implement the JEP with regard to element critical to enable the student to mgke meaningful pains. Accordingly. 1 do not address the parent’s other claims revardin b) 2016-2017 School Year i) Summer 2016 (Extended School ¥ ear Services)
The parent alleges that the CSE’s February 22. 2016 failure to recommend extended services for the Summer 2016 was not warranted and a denial of a FAPE.
“The IDEA does not automatically require the provision of school services during the summer months: rather. such services must be provided when they are a necessary element of a lAPE to the student.” Appeal No. 12-209. citing Antignano vy. Wantagh Union Free Sch, Dist.. 2010 WL 55908, at *11 [E.D.N.Y. Jan. 4. 2010}). Pursuant io State regulations. studenis “ ‘shall be considered for 12-month special services and/or programs in accordance with their need to prevent substantial regression, .. who. because of their disabilities, exhibit ihe need for a 12-month special service and/or program provided in a structured learning environment of up to 12 months duration in order to prevent substantial regression as determined by the committee on special education’ (8 NYCRR 200.6[k](1}. (KDI). Ua, State regulation defines substantial regression as "‘a student's inabifity to maintain developmental levels due to a loss of skill or knowledge during the months of July and August of such severity as to require an mordinate period of review at the beginning of the school year to reestablish and maintain IEP goals and objectives mastered ai the end of the previous school year’ (8 NYCRR 200.1 [aaa]: see 34 CFR 300,106)." (7d)
Accordingly. the critical element for determining eligibtlity is whether the student is at risk for substantial regression. '* The parent does not assert that the student was at risk of academic regression. (Ex. LY at past len months. including but <a, (dd at 30) I note the parent provides no legal support for the assertion that ESY services would be required in those ui Coums have adopted the State Education Department's Office of Educational Program's guidance for interpreting what constitutes an “inordinate period of review” warranting ESY:
A studem is eligible for a telve-inonth service or program when the period of review or reteaching required to recoup the skill ow knowledge level attained by the end of the prior schoal year is beyond the time ordinari, reserved Jor thal purpose at the beginning of the schoo] year. The typical period of feview or reteaching ranges between 20 and 40 school days. As a guideline for determiningfeligibilit, for an extended school sear prograin a review period of eight weeks or more*-would indicate that substantial regression has occured thitp: www. pll.nssed.zov specialed publications policy ess qa2006.htm). DOS vv. Savthlidd Catan free Sch. Dist. 2OUE OLS, Dist. LEXIS 100809 at 49-80 (Eb.
DO KY. 20101, circumstances. However, ] need not address that in view of my finding that the student was not at risk for substantial regression.
Although Dr nitially asserted as a zround for ESY that the student needed to recover credits lost as a result of (7 anor Pe anislaniniscongappemnsanane a ees air has apparently been withdrawn, (Ex. 54} 1 note that the evidence shows that the student Jost no credits as a consequence AIA Reieege track to 7 graduate with her peers. (T. 84-85. Exs. 56 at 2. N. 104) Further. no evidence has been oo presented that the student's late entry in ould result in delayed graduation oar other a detriment there, (T. 1903)
Rather the parent apparently relies upon the testimony of ps iii RM: there Was a potential risk of regression without the structure and services provided by RLS during the summer. (T. 1868-1869. 1920. 1977) However. I note. as did the CSE, that the student would have had as needed access to services BB cure that time-from persons who would have
Y # LI *
1 . = . 2 e + =
=
oe _ eer Tata . SRCCS\ Te eee OEE565, See also note 1]) Further. appears to have significantly based upon his observations during the periad between discharge from and entry to (T. 1977-1978) By the time of entry nif. iii had observed-some signs of beginning decompensation. (T. 1977)
However. I note that during that period the student had on Jy recently commenced AS (GB with pr. Bn was receiving tutoring services at home and knew she would be entering a new schoal with unknown peers both late and at an uncertain date, Those would not be the circumstances in Summer 2016. By that time she would be more advanced in her therapy with , and in the various group services that were part of the program. Further she was having preat success academically and socially <Q «x there was no reason to think that would not continue. The student would have had onyoing access to that school’s advisory service from advisors trained i —a If there was increased stress resulting from Jack of siructure. the student would hawaii
*> ee BILE zi : . wat
=a"
she was now familiar and who collaborated Wg vhen necessars .
Further and significant. it ig.undisputed that the student did very well commencing iminediately upon her entry into from the 2 month gap between the in ih= residential program QM... if some skills were lost or diminished it appears that she very quickly recovered them. I find no indication that considered that prior experience. which T tind relevant to a determination that there was a risk of “substantial represston” with regard to emotional issues. Further. I note that I find no basis in the evidence presented Jor concluding that the student. who had very significant clinical and other support during the relevant period giana ere ecen tr SIRE
Accordingly J find no basis for a conclusion that substantial regression absent ESY services was likely and find that the district has established that that the denial of that service Was nol a denial ofa FAPE.
it) 2016-2017 School Year (September 2016-June 2017)
The principal issue to be determined with regard to the district’ sill recommendation ts the consequence for this student of the program being housed within
Although the parent asseris other objections go the program (Ex. /A). I find that they are not a basts for a determination that it was not appropriate.
1 note that gig program which was developed by and with on eee: it has ongoing routine guidance and oversich li dittcrs somewhat from prograin. a in that (QB orovides individual herapy in addition to ot _ Further the Miibrozram includes a 3 times a dav scheduled advisory program while agg plan provides ands individualized check in program based on student needs. However. J] conclude that the programs provide the same basic elemenis. (T. 878-879) ay provide a prouram thal the parent believes is better than the &. this student. However. it is well established that a standard for a district program and placement is noi that it be perfect or even the best available but rather that it is reasonabls calculated to enable the student to make gains meaningful in that student's circumstances. Although Dr. | iestified that the PP. .»-: 11012 this student, neither he nor any witness asserted that the student could not be expected to make meaningful gains in a program which provide similar services in a different form or at different intervals.
Further. although the parent questions the competence staff, I find thai the evidence shows thes received appropriate training and would have had ongoing exper support and I find no basis in the teslimony in this proceeding for concluding they could not appropriately imgfement the program. (Ex. ZY at 17) Although this was the first vear of the program at hat was aijso the case a or the 20145-2016 SY and the parent asserts that the program Was appropriately delivered there.
Finally the parent's claim of Jack of timely implementation because the site of the program within ad not been determined at the time of the review lacks merit. (Ex. ZV at 17) It is well established that the site ofa program need not be specified at the time of the review, Moreover. that the program would be located in as known. I find credible the testimony that a specific site within the school was identified and the program was implemented by ihe start of the school year. The parent had objections to the program's designated location within nd disputed the district's representations with regard to its physical appearance. (Ex. LY PTs) I find the program location acceptable and. based upon the evidence presented. I conclude that it was adequately equipped and furntshed for its purpose when the program commenced. {T. 107-109, (11-113. 342-343. 540. 577-578, 605-613. 1072-1079, Exs. s, Accordingly. I] turn to the claim that any location within 1 the student at substantial risk of regression witPCOnre: to tet aaa eae e
MER -0<1user that the size a: public high school culture and the student's attitudes toward the school itself resulting from her perception of her past experience would put the student at substantial risk of regression notwithstanding the provision of 5 and services. Indeed Dr Alibetieved that the risk to the student outweighed the benefi therapy in her school program. I find that persuasive. The district has presented no evidence that rebuis that testimony.
I tind - > i testimony with regard to the student's current perception of her experience at note that there is no evidence that she sought suppon which she did not receive. The students impressions and belief concerning school staff may very well have been a consequence of the lg aa: Similarly the evidence does not establish that “bullsingTM occurred but rather indicates only a problematic relation for a limited period with one other student,’” Although the student reported ongoing dilficulties with other students to her therapist. this too may have been a consequence of a “ That student was not C. people and places. (Ex. V at 235) I tind Dr. description of the student as having been al least to a devree " AS discussed above. I find no support for the district's claim that the student's experience was principally a consequence of parent behavior. However. even were that the case it would not change that that was her experience with resultant effects with regard to responses the 2016-20{7 SY. The facts that the student wanted a support dog to go to a program merely operating from the school. reported discomfort in connecypn with very intermittent family related activities at the school ad hal agile aa ae EO contributed bolsters my conclusion. The student's vulnerability can be limited \ ithagains
Baris not likely to disappear. (1. 3136-2137)
The evidence also shows this student's extreme vulnerabilitystese@aemneechepea
OM wie The student herself reported Se she had felt self-conscious and that she was being judged in her previous experience. (Ex. W at 13) 1 note that the parent reported in October 2014 her anxiety about other students knowing about her circumstances and her intent to lic to prevent that. (Ex. 16) Indeed the student went to th ounseling office for that service but left before receiving it because of her coneern that others would be aware that she had difficullies. (Ex. Y at 272) ] find it likely that were the student attending on a datly basis at least some of th tudents at the schoo] she would be encountering and who she may know. would be aware that this student was in a special program. I conclude that this constant possibility would likely result in substantial datly anxiety.
} am also persuaded that a large school was nol appropriate for this student. The parent reported to On lion: the student ———— eroups cid CROC eign gree (Ex. 121): Dr. BE - ported the student's difficultyin |g dei
N A S
eae aaa The student herself reported "so many people” as a “rouble” with regard to her pre perience. (Rx, Wat l2) I give no weight to the student's expressed desire to go to th t that tine of the CSE review and note the student's limited self-awareness which was observed by i. 0|6Cté‘é‘ continues a8 demonstrated by her being “blindsided” when she
Accordingly. | tind that the district has failed to establish that it provided a program reasonably calculated to enable this student to make meaningful educational! gains for the“016-2017 SY (10 month program).
Prong 2
When a pubbe school svstem has failed to provide FAPE. the prosram and services chosen by the parent are “proper under the Act” if the edyication provided is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benetits.” Carter. 310 U.S. at 14. The parents bear the burden of proof with regard to the services obtained by the parents for the Student. However, parents are not barred from reimbursement if their program does not nicet the IDEA definition of a FAPE. See 70 WES.C. §$1401(9), Frank G. +. Bd. af Edue. of Hyde Park, 459 F. 3d 356 «2TM Cir. 2006). It js not required that the provider of the services be State-appraved to provide instruction to children with disabilities. Carter. 510 US. at 10. The student need not be the least restrictive environment. Frank G. 459 F, 3d at 364.. “Ultimatels the issue turns on whether a placement...is ‘reasonably calculated ta enable the child to receive educational benefits. [internal citations omitted] ...°. Frawk G. 439 F. 3d at 130. No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining that. Bd af Educ. vo Rowlev. 438 U.S. 176. 207 (1982). Parents need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational insiruction specialh designed to meet,the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are nevessars to permit the child to benefit from instruction. df. at 364-365. See also Gagliarde v. Ailigion Cent Sch. Dist, 499 T 3d. 108. 113 (2d Cir. 2007). While LRE is a factor to be considered in a perental placement it is not dispositive and parents are not held to the same standard as the school district. CLL. « Accrsedale (FSD. 744 F. 3d 826. 836 (2d. Cir. 2014)
The evidence shows tha Hrovided an academic program for this student that was preparing her for her goal of atten®ing college. that it provided approximately 55 minutes of 1:1 advisor support éach day specifically targeting this student's umque needs. thal counseling services were available wheneser the student wanted tt or stalf believed she needed it, iol utilized and support ethodology (acknowledged bs the district as appropriate by its PHF 2cee00) and ced cooperatively with the student's private therapist and the parent. Indeect the district’ included substantially similar elements. The district asserts however that the parent has failed to meet her burden, The district points to the fact that " not provide counseling in the form recommended by the CSE for this student but rather relied on an advisory system with the addition of as-needed counseling which it provided for BEBE cents. However. it is well established that a parentally selected program need not adhere to all elements of an IEP. Review of the communications between the parent. SiR aif concerning the student shows thal the school was informed of the student's needs and issues and uns. appropriately responsive and collaborative and that the advisor schedule was one of FP rctied upon modalities to meet individual student needs. (Exs. W. Y) Further. the evidence shows that advisors who areQ rained worked collaboratively with counseling staff to address issucs as they arose. Moreover. the student’s private therapist endorsed the program provided and emphasized the particular benefit to this student by the advisory session structure. I conclude that the content. methodology and delivery off mstruction addressed the unique needs that resulted from this student's disability and ensured her access to the genera) curriculum and consequently that provided the required “specially designed instruction” 8 NYCRR 200.1 [\v]. That the same general program design was utilized for other students. for whom It may or may not have heen appropriate. does not provide a basis for a determination that it was not appropriate for this one.
The district also asserts that the parent has failed to establish that the student made academic or social ‘emotional progress. It notes that the student was an “ATM~ and ~BTM student at apparently suggesting that therefore a similar academic record agi 2s not significant for this student. Nevertheless. it demonstrates substantial academic progress occurred. Further. the district cites teacher comments indicating that the student had lapses from consistently perfect student behavior during her almost two years a (Ex. Vat 36} However. I conclude that the overwhelming weight of the teacher comments were favorable and showed growth and note ihat that four of the six arguably critical comments cited by the district occurred during the period trom about late September - November 2016 a period which nc] Ud Saga an a Was me (Ex. W at 51. 54, 58. 65 and see generally Ex, W) With regard to the student's social/emotional progress. I note D iii testimony that the student had samen —~ ana nS eereri ri. 2703} I find credible the teasd and the parent. supported by documentary evidence. that very substantial social/emotional progress was made by the student. Moreover. ] note that progress is only one factor to be considered and weighed.
Finally. the digjrict argues that the length of the bus {rip between the student's home and hould be considered in determining the “restrictiveness” of the placement and whether it is appropriate. Itis undisputed that the trip during the 2015-2016 SY normally took 2-2 ‘4 hrs and sometimes up to 2 '2 hours and the trip during the 2016-2017 school year was about } '4 hours. ¢ Exs. 73. Y at 245, 247) Student anxiety about being late has been acknowledged. (7.2127) The student has ox perience damage alas while on the bus although I conclude that was unrelated to the Jength of the trip. Certainls a more nearby placement with reduced transportation umes Would be preferable.
However. even if the length ofa trip were considered to be an LRE factor that would not be dispositive. The restrictiveness of a parental placement is only one factor to be considered in determining the appropriateness ofa parental placement. C.L. v. Sccrsdele UFSD. 744 F. 3d 826, 836 (2d Cir. 2014) Further. a parent. like a district. is not required to provide a perfect placement. When weighed against the other relevant factors. I find that the length of the trip ts not a basis for concluding that the parent has failed to meet her burden and conclude that it was a “relatively small price to pay.” (T, 1990) Accordingly. I conclude that the parent has met her burden to establish that the placement aR: reasonably calculated to enable this student to make meaningful educational gains in her circumstances.
Prong 3
The determination of whether equitable factors support a parent's claim for tuition reimbursement hinges. in large part. on whether or not a parent cooperated with the DOE and CSE. See generally Burlington. 471 U.S. 359: Carter. 310 U.S. 7: see also Mr, & Mrs. A ex rel. Dts. NVC. Dept of Edu.. 769 T. Supp. 2d 403. 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2011): see alsa NR. ex rel. ER v. Dept of Edue. of City Sch. Distr. Of N.Y.. No. 07 Civ. 9648. 2009 WL 87406]. at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31.2009). 11 is well established that a parent's subjective intent. or preference for a nonpublic educational setting. is not relevant to a determination of the cquitics. even if. in seeking tuition funding. the parent has. as “[p]resumably. nearly alt parents who make unilateral placement . . . and then seek tuition reimbursement. act[ed] at least in part out ofa hope. belief. or expectation that the schoof district [would] ultimately be foreed to fund [the] placement.” Af & Adrs. A. ex rel. D.A.. 769 F. Supp. 2d at 430: see ulso NR. ex rel, T.R. 2009 WL 874061. at "14. See also CLL. v. Searsdale UFSD, 744 F. 3d 826 (2d Cir, 2014) ¢'[Parents] pursuit of a private placement was not a basis for denying their tuition reimbursement. even assuming...that the parents never intended to keep [the student] in public school.”)
2015-2016 SY
The district asserts several claims for denial or limitation of reimbursement.
Initially [ note that |] find meritless the district's’ claim that retmbursement should be denied or limited because the parent misrepresented or omitted infonnation on the famuly history form thereby inhibiting the evaluation. (Ex. .V at 42) On that form the parent specifically directed the CSE to other documents in iis possession and those documents included. as was viedged by Ms all the information the CSE needed. (T. 281-283) Indeed Ms. stified that the parent had fully cooperated with the CSE but for. in her view. the issue of the CSE’s placement efforts. (T. 346)
I find that the evidence establishes that the parent had decided by earls August. before requesting a CSE review that the student would not return igh School. CExs. 205.
206) Further. I find that a determination that she wanted CSE funding for a non-public school placement not yet identified. that would meet the student's needs was made virluaily at the stan of the CSE review. (Exs. 1.177) However. | tind that does not demonstrate predetermination or lack of cooperation here where the parent participated fully in the review. the CSE determined there is no support for a conclusion thal the parent was at that time unwilling to consider any CSE recommendation at all.
Further. with regard to the parent's ubjection to a return Se. district asserts that her “primary motivation” was parental objection (Ex. .V at 41) era]
The evidence does not support that. As discussed above. the student's diagnoses. which include
s. (7. 2132. Ens. 6.15) All the student's clinicians had conclude that the student’s problems stemmed from her diagnoses and that oe wiipinnaieeenR oi eh: haye triggered it in Spring 2015. it did not cause it. It is noteworthy that it Evaluation and the BR treatment Summary. although aware of the student's s did not address that in their evaluations other than reporting it and did Not reference thal issue in their recommendations. (Exs. 6. 15) Accordingly. there was substantial basis for parental objection to a return 5 a “0
I therefore turn to the parent's cooperation with regard to placement proposals.
The district proposed a total of eight possible placements for this student on October 7 and October 26. The parent visited seven and rejected them. The parent credibly testified that reasons for the rejections included programs being housed in large public schools which were not appropriate because of the student’ s (quae? schoo) refusal to permit the student to continue her ousid frightening lock down environments with students cursing and velling in th@halls and which had as enrollees numerous residential students unmanageable athame. D testified that the student was “clearly... upset by some of the prospects she was looking al” and was more anxious and |f note that her account was consistent with the parent's testimony. (T. 2255-2236) The district has not contested those descriptions. With regard to parent objections concerning a lack of sufficient iia inowiedge [ note that no evidence concerning that for placements than other mee: presented by the district and |] have concluded tha ould not appropriately implement the JEP because of that tssue.
The parent t ed that although she altempted to. she did not visit [he remaining school. because it would not make accominodations in its Interview ‘admission process necessars 10 enable the student to be able to be interviewed. That too has not been contested and I find it credible.
At some point between October 26 and November 5. Mf eamed that rogram which might accept the student. However. the parent declined Ms.
a, = F
Parent unwillingness 10 peri nm these circumstances Was not unreasonable, 2016-2017 SY
The district asseris that the parent never intended to consider 7 oO le the 2016-2057 SY. It points to a communication with Dr. everal months before the May 2016 CSE review asking. at the request of parent's counsel, whether in view of CBC's development of base rogram for the district he “would still be able to say that she still needs a different program than you are developing there” (Exs. 39.191) ! find that an inquiry and not on its face a demonstration that a determination by the parent hadrs made. However, if is undisputed that the parent was happy with student's progress at and the evidence establishes that she had a Strang preference for continuing the student there. Moregver. the district was not proposing a different nonpublic school placement but rather o1 Parent concern about returning the student to the specific site in which she had. for whatever reason. iii. js not surprising. (T. 1729-1730)
Parental preference for a private school is not. however. a basis for denial or limitation of reimbursement. Dr opposed the student's return to t various reasons. The parent made Dr QE citer to enable CSE consideration of his views which she relied upon. I have found his testimony persuasive. There is no indication that the disirict sought and was prevented from itself evaluating the student or that the CSE process was otherwise obstructed. See e.g. CLL. v. Scarsdale GF SD. for denying or limiting reimbursement for the 2016-9017
Accordingly } find no support
ORDER
1) The district shall reimburse the parent for tuition at Bi: the period November 30. 20] 3-June 30. 2036 munus 20°. >) The district sha!l reimburse the parent for iuition ro September 1, 2016-hine
3Q, 2017. e
Dated: February [3.2017
JUDITH SCHNEIDER. ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer
Within 40 days of the date ofthis decision. the parent and/or the Public School District has a right to appeal the decision to a Slate 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 appeajing parties’ request for review shalf be personally served upon the opposing party within 40 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. An appealing party shail file the hotice of intention to seck review, notice of request for review. request for review. and proof of service with the Office of State Review of the Siate Education Department within two days after service of the request for review is complete, The rules of procedure for proceedings before a SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. A copy of the rules in Part 279 and mode! forms available at hun: woes scd.zos part? 79home. hun, a8
EXHIBITS
DISTRICT
I. E-mail from 0 Parent. Ip. 831.2015 » EMR oss Authorization for Release of Healthcare Information signed by P arent and Fax Transmission, spp. 9.8.2015 hao] District Prior Written Notice Proposed Referral for ‘aluation and Request for Consent. pp. 9.9.2015
4. Handwritten Notes oF IIE 200 9,9.2015 school District Consent for Initial Evaiuation signed by Parent.
Ip. 9.16.2015
6. a Cemer Psychological Evaluation and Fax Coversheet. Opp. 9,16.2072
7. Fax from De? to Parent with Fax Transmission Sheet. 6pp. 9.17.2015 schoo! District Social-History Confidential. 3pp. 9.17.2014
9, Student Daily Attendance Detail Grade 9 for Student fil Ip. 9.1 7.2015
16. E-mail strand rom T° Parent. 2pp. 9.17,2015
Ll. E-mail strand fron TT 5 Spp. 9.25.2055 - ane District CSE Meeting Notice. Spp. 928.2075
‘
13. E-mail strand pon Parent. Ipp. 9.292015 . E-mail strand trom _7: 90.29.2015
14. E-mail fron
16. ET District Clas ro m Observation = pProgram. 3pp.
10.23.2015
17. JEP and CSE Committee Auendance Sheet. }} pp. 105.2075
18. rior Written Notice Proposed Initial Eligibility for Special Education and Request for Consent. 3pp. 10.35.2015 i... District Letter fon git Ip. 10.7.2015
70. E-mail jon i Ip. 10.7.2015
21. E-mail as p. 10.7.2015
22. E-mail from ‘i ° 10.7.2015
23, E-mail from Sq| p.10.7.2015 ; ae: onsent for Referral Packets signed by Parent. Ip. 10.7.2015
75. Referral Packet. 30pp. 10.7,.2015
>6, E-mail strand from C i. Parent. Tp. 10.8.2015 meg: Letter from Dr. Pg Ip. 10.8.2015
28. E-mail strandfrom ae. 10.15.2015
2 EE s:00' District CSE Notice of BOE Review for Special ucation. Ip. 10.16.2015
30, E-mail strand “a 2pp. 10.22.2015
3] hoal District CSE Meeting Notice. 3pp. 10.26.2015 tt SS) OU Letter tr0U0Ut~*TM Ip. 10.26.2015 Tod toy . E-mail froma: with Attached Yr 8 8=loégs Parent and Consent. 4pp. 10.26.2013
34. E-mail from Parent 0 ip. 10.27.2015
35. E-mail strand rom Rs Parent. 2pp. 10.27.2015
36. E-mail strand ion i 2. 10.27.2015
37. Referral Packet. 32pp. 10.27.2015 . a: from a: Parent. Ip. 10.28.2015
39. E-mail strand omit Parent, 2pp. 10.29.2015
40, E-mail from Parent to ig 2pp. 11.6.20
41. Letter from a: Parent. 2pp. 1).9.2015
— UFSD Letter from Ip. (1.10.2015
43. E-mail fro orarent. App. 11.10.2015 44, E-mail from SR |p. 11.10.2015
45. E-mail from IH aren with attached rejection letters, 1Opp. 11.10.20]
46. IEP and CSE Committee Attendance Sheet. ]2pp. 11.12.2015 chool District Prior Written Notice Proposed Continuation for Special Education. 2pp. }1.12.201>
48. Letter 8m Parent i 11.12.2015
°, <= (coo Ep 122015
30. E-mail strand fron ee 2pp. 11.18.2015
5}. Letter (re pe? are Ip. 11.18.2015 4° i a { District GSE Notice of BOE Review for Special Education 12.4.2015 la 3. Fama Educational Evaluation 2nd Q. 7pp. Clanuary 2016)
1 (iiLetier of Support from pt p. 2.9, 2016 Deetill Meeting Notice. 3pp,27.11.2016 5, Thy strict Prior Written Notice Proposed Continuation for Special Education. 2pp. 2.22.2016 F< District CSE Notice of BOE Review for Special Education. ip. 3.11.2016
59, Letter from a: Parent. Ip. 3.14.2016
60. rts tmmmeameee Enea Educational Evaluation 3rd Quarter, 7pp. (March ~016)
61. as ecmaeil CSE Committee Information and Attendance, Lp. 5.9
62. IEP. 11pp. 5.9.2016 ; epee ailliere Prior Written Notice Proposed Continuation for pecial Education. 2pp. 3.9.2016
64. E-mail} strand trom Parent to ae: 5.10.2016
65. Letter from Parent im Ip. 5.28.2016
66. Letter ‘rom cee p. 53.26.2016 67, E-mail from Ft p. 53.27.2016
68. E-mail from Eo Parent with Attached Consent Form. 2pp. 5.27.2016
69. E-mail strand jon ip. 5.31.2016
70. Es: 001 Distr d@onsent to Receive Records Form signed by Lf
Parent. 1p. 5.31.2016 a: CSE Notice of BOE Review [for Special
Educauion. 1p. 6.3.2010Z2pp. 6.30.2016
73. Letier froff Parent lo p. §.31.2016
7 es Meeting Notice. 2pp. 9.2.2016
75. IEP. 10pp. 9.9.2016
76. Letter from Parent t 3.2016
77, E-mail from Parent 2pp. 9.13.2016
78. t Prior Written Notice Proposed Continuation for Special Education. 2pp. 9.13.2016
79, Letter from my: Parent, 2pp. 9.14.16
8 ‘lassroom Photos. 8pp. 9.14.16
! Schoo] District Calendar 20) 5-2016 Schoo! Calendar
82. E-mail from to Parent. ip. 9.4.2015
83. E-mail from o Parent. Jp. 9.4.2015
84+. E-mail! from to Parent. Ip. 9.8.2015 at
8S. E-mail thread from Opp. 9.28.2015
86. E-mail from to Parent. 3pp. 9.29.2015
87. IEP Contact Log.
88. E-mail strand fro1 2pp. 10.35.2015
89. IDONLY
90. MBB 0 r0s01with Email froni. 11.25.2015
91. Class Schedule —2015-2016. Ip. <*
92. [ID ONLY
93. E-mail strand fro Spp. 4.7.2016
94. [E-mail strand fr 2pp. 6.10.2016 YD. E-mail frot with BLANK UFSD Release to Exchange Confidential Information Form. 2pp. 4.28.2015 oe «ona an Form. 2pp. >.
96. Faw fro D Release to Exechan
97, Complere AE rsp Release to Exchange Confidential Information Form signed by Parent. |p. 5.14.2015
98. E-mail strand fon i Parent with BLANS, UFSD Release to Exchange Confidential Information Form. 2pp. 3.2. 2UT?
99.
100. E-mail strand from Paren . 39.26.2015
101. E-mail fro Ip. 53.28.2015
102. E-mail rom© Parent. 1p. 5.29.2016 aa
103. Student's a: School Course Offering Selection - 13/16 School Year. | p. [O4. siuden Bien School Transcript. Ip. 10.14.2015 105, i School COURSE WAIVER £ORM signed by Student and Parent. Ip.
2 IU2ZOIS
106. F New Stud. Regis. Packet Enrol] Start Date Sept 2014 13 pp.
107. eS
108. vith Completa Schooj District Medication Form. 3pp. 8.28.2014
109. (i acnctee: | 3-2014 Grade 8 Quarter + Repon Card. 2pp. 110, F-mail froyfbarent to Pe 8272014
111. E-mail) strand from Parent to | Ip. §.29.2014 [-mail from Parent to a: p. 94.2014
E-martt from Parent ip. 9.24.2014
E-mai} strand ioe Parent. }p. 9.24.20i4 P15. Letter from Parent >» ff 19.10.20{4
116. E-mail strand from rare a 4pp. 11.10.2014
117. Student Tutoring Log signed by Parent and Ip. 1.29.2015
118. E-mail strand i tC Parent. “Pag2.26.2035
119. E-mail from Parent to || p. 3.1G.20185 }20. E-mail from Parent y Ip. 3.19,2015
121. E-mail from Parent yO Lp. 3.19.2015
122. E-mail strand from [MMBo parent. 2pp. 4.27.2015
123. E-mail from Parent to pr 05 124, E-mail trom Parent . 0UUt~<“‘i‘i‘é (25. E-mail from Parent [i |. 53.14.2015
126. E-mail from Parent ls Ip. 53.14.2015
127. Student Tutoring Log signed by with Handwritten notes ll
128. Student Course Request Sheet. 1p.
a 3: from Dr. So Parents, 1p. 53.21.2015
Factors Questionnaire. 13pp. 35.21.2015 129.
3|. RD vepression Seale (Ages 11 and Over). Ip. 5.21.2015
132. Screey for Anxiety Related Emotion Disorder (SCARED) Parent Version. 2pn. S.21.2015
| ql seenpy, Demographic Information. Ip. 35.26.2015
134. IDON LY a Atherizations and Acknowledgments to pay for non-cavered servi
36. ies Fransitional Living Program and Agreements signed by a arent, 3pp. 93.26.2015
] 37. JDONLY
138. IDONLY
~~ —— BB hone Note frie ». 53.28.2015
140-146. ID ONLY
=
147, CoS Adolescent Transitional Living Approved Phone List. 1p.
I48-166. IDONLY
]- x Patient Authorization Form. 1p. 6,.30.2015
168-169. ID ONLY
170. E-mail from Parent ke: 6.18.2015
171. E-mail strand from a: Parent. 2pp. 7.22.2015
172. E-mail strand from a: Parent. 2pp. 7,23.2015
173. E-mail strand from ae: Parent. 3pp. 7.31.2015 ae
174. E-mail strand from ae: Parent. 2pp. 8.5.2015
175. E-mail strand from ae: Parent. 4pp. 8.7.2015
176, “E-mail strand from | ia Parent. 3pp. 8.19.2045
177, E-mail strand from o Parent. 2pp. 9,.2.2015
178-179. IDONLY
180. E-mail sirand from | Mp. 1U.).2075
181. E-mail strand —— io Parent. 4pp. 10.6.2015
182-183. JDONLY
184. E-mail from Parent iim Ip. 10.22.2015 i835, E-mail from Parent . Ip. 10.26.2015
186. E-mail strand from | ££ Parent. 2pp. 11.4.2015(7:41 am) *
187. E-imail strand from: Parent to 2pp. 11.4.2015
188. E-mail strand from Parent to 2pp. 11.4.2015 (6:39 pm)
189, E-mail strand fom to Parent. 2pp. 11.}0.2015
190, PF SS Application and Sacial History. 5pp. 11.18.2013 19%, Excerpt from e-mail strand from Parent 7, app. 3.16,2016
192. E-mail strand from Parent ip 35.10.2016 E-mail strand from Parent fi... 5.20,2016
IDONLY
E-mail strand trom ain: Parent and Clinical. 2pp. 9.20.2016
196. ID ONLY
197, E-mail strand from Parent to Student. Ip. 9.27.2016
198, E-mail strand from pp. 9.27.2016
199, E-mail strand frot Parent. +pp. 9.29.2016
200, E-mat! strand trom Parent to 3pp. 10.4.2016
20), E-mail! strand from Parent t opp. 10.5.2016
E-mail strand trom Parent to 2pp. 10.14.2016
10.14.2016
American Psychological Association — Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. 26pp. .
205, E-mail trom Paren tag p. 8. rr 204 Ay
206. E-mail from Parent J Ip. 8.10.2018 Parent
A. E-mail eT Ltt~<‘isSCsi 9.3,2014 i igh School 2014-2015 Report Card Grade 9 4" Q, Progress Report. |p.
C. Handwritten Notes in App.
D. E-mails sent fron on May 14 - May 15. 2015. 3pp.
E. E-mat) thread (ror Ip. 5.15.2035
F. E-mail conversa on May 18. 2015. 3pp.
G. E-mail thread rom as 5.18.2015
H. E-mail thread fromrr1p,
J. elease to Exchange Confidential Infermation Form signed by Parent. 1p, 53.20.2015
J. E-mail thread of ii ge 8/15 and 11/25/14 trom
N. E-mail thread from 76.12.2015 < on
O. Agenda [Meeting 6/16/2015. 1p. 5.29.2015 ~ wth School CST Referral Form. Ip. 6.16.2015 igh School 2014-2015 Report Card Grade 9. Ip.
R. Handwritten notes TR via Fax. 2pp. 12.21.2016
S. Student's Health Office Visit Logs. ]2pp.
T. a Packet for the 2015-2016 School ear, [_pp. ml
U, egistralion Contract for 2015-2016 signed by Paret 1.30.201 5 BB contract orsummer 2016 signed by the parent on 35.1.2016. and egistration Contract for 2016-2017 signed by Parent on 3.15.2016 with attached copres of checks. | 7pp.
V. ocuments. 245pp.
tle. 139pp.
x. urriculum Vitae. 5Opp.
Y. File, 446pp. (The following pages are not to be included: 229 to 230. 293, to 361 and 389 to 391. Both parties agreed to this at the August 10, 2017 hearing on transcript page 19-48)
Z. esume. 6pp.
Impartial Hearing Officer
/ Due Process Complaint with Exhibits if District Answer
/77| Subpoenas and related emails
A Emails concerning BE s<hecuiing
IX Emails conceming parent testimony on Rebuttal
IF Femails concerning scheduling and other matter
Ti? Email re record closing
rHi OMITTED
iY Parent Post Hearing Brief
Vo District Post Hearing Brief
Footnotes
[1] the principal. the parent requested that the student be evaluated by the CSE. No information conceming the students current emotional starus or physical focation was provided nor was a reason for a CSE evaluation proffered in the email. (Ex. 1} On Tuesday September 1. the email to the district’s Director of Special Services. FI who assigned the matter . 47.50. Ex} attempied ta contact the parent by telephone on Sepiember | but was unsuccessful. (T. 222-223) pee eee aeery On September 4. 2015 she sent a foilow-up email requesting that the parent contact her to discuss the referral. (T. 224. Ex. 82) The parent responded immediately by faxing an authorization for speak to the student's “treatment team.” (J. 223- the student Darl seatepaperrouies accommodations included extended time (1.5) for tests. 4 flexible testing schedule to avoid multiple tests in one day and program accommodations of chunking assignments and breaking up long term assignments, (Ex. 17) ° The CSE had considered ne aivation and a reatment Summary and the Social History and Physical reports were also discussed. (Ex. 17 at 1-2} The parent had reported that the student age nee wet that the student sas unable to de that. (T. L047. kxs. 40. 453 parent reported to the district that the student did vers well from the time she commenced.