NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number: 158641
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: March 24, 2016
August 19, 2016
September 9, 2016
Actual Record Closed Date: October 24, 2016
Hearing Officer: Roslyn Roth, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MARCH 24, 2016
Mother — Student
DR. — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON AUGUST 19, 2016
Mother — Student
DR. — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2016
Mother — Student
DR. — DOE
DOE
(Via Telephone) — DOE
District Representative — DOE
DOE
(Via Telephone) — DOE
(Via Telephone) — DOE
(Via Telephone) — DOE
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This hearing was held pursuant to New York Education Law § 4404(1), 20 U.S.C.
§1415(f), the Individuals With Disabilities Act (“IDEA”). In accordance with the parent’s request for a hearing dated October 21, 2015 I was appointed by the Department of Education, (hereinafter referred to as “DOE”), to hear this matter. The parties sought and received timely extensions of the compliance dates.
Department of Education Position
The DOE called 4 witnesses to support its position that and that and thus,
. The DOE alleged that
, but
.
The Parent's Position
The Parent asserts that the student requires
and that .
The student testified on his behalf seeking a determination that the DOE be required to continue to provide services .
Finding of Fact and Order
The student attended the from 7/18/2011 until 2015.
The school is an school that provides special education and related services to students in an setting. (TR 15, 17) The student during the 2014-2015 school year. Additionally, during this time and and provided other supports to address ,
. (TR 29, 30)
The school spoke with the student and the parent on an ongoing basis and informed the parent of . The mother met with the and the after to discuss the student’s option
for services
. (TR 85, 86)
The student testified that he was aware that and that
. (TR 109, 110)
The student was neither excluded from, nor denied, special education programs and services—cumulatively or individually—for a substantial period of time such that a gross violation of the IDEA occurred warranting an award of compensatory education services beyond the student's period of entitlement for special education services and programs (see Garro, 23 F.3d at 737; Mrs. C., 916 F.2d at 75; Burr, 863 F.2d at 1078;
Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-089; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-084; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 05-037;
Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-018; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 03-094). Accordingly there is no basis to award compensatory services or reinstate him to the program he admitted
. The parent’s request that the student be re-admitted to his former placement is denied.
The parent also requested that she and her son be given assistance to enable him to get services that would allow him to . There should be nothing stopping the parent and the student from applying to agencies in order to obtain services. The parent may seek and obtain services from and other agencies, which could provide services that would enable the student to .
In accordance with the New York State Department of Education’s goal of providing appropriate opportunities for individuals with disabilities it is essential that the parent and student be advised of the , (“ ”) including
(in accordance with CFR 361. ), the application procedures and scope of services (in accordance with 34 CFR 361. ) that may be provided to all eligible individuals. Accordingly, it is urged that the parent and student be given assistance by the DOE in the form of a meeting, whether in person or a telephone meeting, whereby the DOE instructs the parent and student how to submit the appropriate paperwork to for a determination of eligibility for services. This meeting must occur within 30 days of receipt of the decision.
ORDER:
Within 30 days the DOE shall meet with the parent and to assist the parent and in the submission of an application to for services.
Dated: October 27, 2016
ROSLYN ROTH, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer RR:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
“The notice of intention to seek review shall be served upon the school district not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the petition for review upon such school district, and within 25 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. The petition for review shall be served upon the school district within 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period. ” (8NYCRR279.2[b]) Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.
Directions and sample forms for filing an appeal are included with this decision. Directions and forms can also be found in the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm.