STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
STUDENT S. DOE,
By his parent,
Petitioner
v.
EXETER-WEST GREENWICH
REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT; and
EAST PROVIDENCE SCHOOL
DISTRICT
Respondents
In re: Residency of Student S. Doe
RIDE No. 22-054K
INTERIM ORDER DECISION
Held: Student placed in a group home by the Department of Children, Youth and Families and the student's mother, who retained custody of the student and who does not reside in the town where the group home is located, is a resident of the district where the group home is located for school enrollment purposes under R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-64-1, affirming In re: Residency of P. Doe, RIDE No. 20-019K (Feb. 26, 2020).
October 11, 2022
I. INTRODUCTION
On or about September 29, 2022, Petitioner, Ms. Doe, on behalf of her son, Student S. Doe ("Doe"), filed a request for an interim protective order with the Commissioner of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education ("Commissioner" and "RIDE," respectively). The issue presented is which local education agency ("LEA") must accept educational responsibility for Doe, who was placed in a group home located in Exeter by his mother – who retained custody and lives in Riverside[1] – and the Department of Children, Youth, and Families ("DCYF"). Respondent, Exeter-West Greenwich Regional School District ("EWG"), argues that the Commissioner should reverse the decision in In re: Residency of P. Doe, RIDE No. 20-019K (Feb. 26, 2020) ("Commissioner's Interim Order Decision" or P. Doe), which made clear that it is the location of the group home, not the residency of a parent, that determines child residency for school enrollment purposes under R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-64-1.
II. JURISDICTION
The Commissioner has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 16-39-1, 16-39-2, 16-39-3.2, and § 16-64-6.
III. MATERIAL FACTS
The material facts are not in dispute, and the following recitation was deduced from the testimony and documentary evidence submitted at the virtual hearing before the undersigned Hearing Officer on October 5, 2022.
1. Doe is a ten-year old student with several developmental disabilities, including disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and seizure disorder.
2. As a result of his disabilities, Doe has been inpatient at Bradley Hospital's Center for Autism and Developmental Disabilities since February 2, 2022. This is Doe's fourth hospitalization at Bradley Hospital.
3. During this hospitalization, Bradley Hospital staff made the determination that Doe can no longer safely live at home and that he should be discharged into a specialized, residential setting.
4. Based on this determination, Ms. Doe contacted DCYF through the Children's Behavioral Health Residential Treatment program ("CBH program") to begin finding an appropriate placement for Doe upon his discharge.
5. According to testimony of Kristen Lanni, a social worker in the CBH unit who works with families that are voluntarily seeking residential treatment for their children, the CBH program allows parents to seek assistance from DCYF without having to relinquish custody of their child. As the parent retains custody over their child, the CBH program does not require any involvement from the Family Court and DCYF assumes no legal status over the child. Moreover, DCYF pays for the child's residential placement through Medicaid while allowing parents continued autonomy in making decisions for their child.
6. Ms. Lanni testified to working with Ms. Doe through the CBH program to find an appropriate residential placement for Doe once he was ready for discharge from Bradley Hospital.
7. After sending several referrals, DCYF identified Bradley Hospital's Exeter House as being able to accept Doe.
8. The Exeter House is an eight-bed residential program located in Exeter. In order to be placed at Exeter House, Ms. Doe was required to enroll Doe in the EWG.
9. Ms. Doe attempted to enroll Doe in the EWG through the CBH program, with the assistance of Ms. Lanni, on September 15, 2022.
10. In an email dated September 20, 2022, the EWG denied Doe's enrollment, stating: "Exeter-West Greenwich, RSD will not enroll a student who does not reside with his parent(s) in our community. We are not accepting educational responsibility for students placed in the Exeter Group Home."
11. There has been at least one prior incident where the EWG refused to enroll a child placed at the Exeter House through the CBH program for this same reason. Ultimately, in that prior case, the parents were forced to file a voluntary petition in the Family Court relinquishing custody of their child to DCYF so that the EWG would enroll the child and thereby ensure immediate placement of their child at the Exeter House.
12. Doe became ready for discharge from Bradley Hospital on August 29, 2022. However, due to the EWG's refusal to enroll Doe, Doe currently remains at Bradley Hospital where he is not receiving any educational services.
13. Ms. Doe presently lives in Riverside.
14. Prior to his last hospitalization, Doe had been enrolled in Pathways Strategic Teaching Center with the East Providence School District ("East Providence") being the LEA responsible for his education.
IV. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
1. Petitioner
Ms. Doe requests that the Commissioner order the EWG to immediately enroll Doe so that he can be discharged from Bradley Hospital and into the Exeter House, which has been identified by DCYF and Bradley Hospital staff as the most appropriate residential placement for him. She emphasizes that Doe has remained at Bradley Hospital due to the EWG's refusal to enroll Doe without the benefit of receiving any educational or social services, despite being identified as ready for discharge on August 29, 2022.
2. EWG
The EWG implores the Commissioner to overturn her previous analysis of school residency laws as applied to children in residential placements under the CBH program, as set forth in the Commissioner's Interim Order Decision. The EWG argues that P. Doe represented the law as it had developed on that date but that this decision no longer accurately reflects what is in the best interest of the child, and specifically does not address "the exceptions" contained in R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-64-1.[2] Instead, the EWG contends that educational responsibility should be determined only after a best interest determination has been completed under the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 ("ESSA"), which would help ensure that: (1) school districts with residential facilities are not unfairly bearing the financial burden of educating Rhode Island children in such residential placements; and (2) the child receives the best educational services available. Moreover, EWG notes that neither R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-64-1 nor P. Doe precludes the Commissioner from requiring such a determination be made for children in the CBH program.
Finally, the EWG argues that the law has evolved in favor of holding best interest determinations.[3]
3. East Providence
East Providence argues simply that the facts and issues presented in this case are squarely controlled by P. Doe and there is no reason why the Commissioner should reconsider or otherwise stray from her prior analysis and findings. As Doe is not a "foster child," ESSA is inapplicable and as Doe was placed and accepted at the Exeter House, which is located in Exeter, existing state law unequivocally provides that Doe shall be a resident of Exeter and, therefore, entitled to enroll in the EWG.
4. DCYF
While not a party, DCYF appeared as an interested party and made a position statement.
DCYF posits, both at the hearing for the Commissioner's Interim Order Decision and now, that the Commissioner should find that educational responsibility for a child placed in a group home under the CBH program should be determined by the parent's residence consistent with the principles articulated in ESSA. While acknowledging the benefits of the CBH program, DCYF nonetheless argues that determining educational responsibility based solely on the location of a group home for students in this program has, in practice, resulted in a hardship to parents and a barrier to the functioning of a good program. Specifically, counsel for DCYF recounted scenarios where parents are forced to relinquish custody to secure their child's residential placement after unsuccessfully attempting to enroll their child in the LEA where the group home is located under the CBH program; such scenarios discourage participation in the CBH program.
DCYF also states it is sympathetic to LEAs forced to cover the costs associated with residential facilities in its borders and agrees that these costs should be evenly spread among Rhode Island LEAs.
V. DECISION
1. Doe is a resident of Exeter for school enrollment purposes under R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-64-1 because he was placed at a group home located in Exeter by his mother and DCYF under the CBH program and, therefore, is entitled to immediately enroll in the EWG.
Despite the EWG and DCYF's arguments to the contrary, In re: Residency of P. Doe remains controlling. There has been no change in any pertinent laws or guidance, including ESSA and Rhode Island residency statutes, since this decision was issued on February 26, 2020.[4] In recognizing the barriers faced by DCYF and parents, however, the Commissioner emphasizes that these hindrances to successful implementation of the CBH program are not due to the Commissioner's Interim Order Decision but, instead, due to LEAs’ refusal to comply with the explicit mandate set forth in the decision and R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-64-1. Thus, there being no compelling reason to overturn or otherwise revise her Interim Order Decision, the Commissioner now takes this opportunity to reaffirm and clarify her prior ruling.
There is no dispute that the federal ESSA regulations, and associated educational stability provisions, only apply to "children in foster care." See ESEA § 1111(g)(1)(E). As found in P. Doe, a child in the CBH program is decidedly not a child in foster care because DCYF does not "actually exercise[] custody over children who participate in the CBH Residential Treatment program[.]" See In re: Residency of P. Doe, p.6. Testimony from this hearing also confirmed that because parents retain custody over their child under the CBH program, DCYF assumes no legal status over the child. Accordingly, the federal ESSA provisions do not apply to children in the CBH program, and no best interest determination is required to establish LEA educational responsibility for these children. Thus, determining which LEA is responsible for the education of a child placed in a group home under the CBH program must be analyzed in accordance with Rhode Island residency laws. R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-64-1 is directly on point, and provides, in pertinent part:
Except as provided by law or by agreement, a child shall be enrolled in the school system of the city or town where he or she resides. . . . Children placed in group homes, in foster care, in child caring facilities, or by a Rhode Island state agency or a Rhode Island licensed child placing agency shall be deemed to be residents of the city or town where the group home, child caring facility, or foster home is located for the purposes of enrollment . . .
(emphasis added). Stated differently, and as set forth in P. Doe, Rhode Island statutory law unequivocally provides that children placed in group homes, whether by a parent, DCYF, or any other person or agency and whether under the CBH program or any other program, are residents of the city or town where the group home is located. Thus, consistent with both P. Doe and R.I.
Gen. Laws § 16-64-1, there is no legal or factual dispute that Doe, placed at the Exeter House by his mother and DCYF under the CBH program, is a resident of Exeter, where his residential placement is located, for school enrollment purposes and that the EWG is the LEA responsible for Doe's education during the entirety of his placement at the Exeter House.
While the Commissioner recognizes the financial burden imposed on school districts operating a group home located within its borders, the law is clear and she will not carve out an exception for the EWG, or any other school district, that attempts to circumvent well-established laws mandating the enrollment of a child accepted into such a group home under the CBH program. To be clear: this decision shall serve as full and fair notice to all school districts that a district cannot refuse enrollment of a child placed at a group home within its borders under the CBH program on the basis of residency. Well-intentioned parents should not be required to relinquish custody to DCYF through the filing of a voluntary petition in Family Court for the sole purpose of securing their child's residential placement.
By requesting that the Commissioner read into Rhode Island statutory law a requirement that a best interest determination be made to establish educational responsibility for all children placed at a group home, whether the child is in foster care or not, essentially requires the Commissioner to rewrite and establish new statutory law. This plainly falls outside the Commissioner's authority to "interpret school law" and is thus a request that the Commissioner cannot, and will not, grant; any change in state statutory law would have to be made through the Rhode Island General Assembly. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-1-5(10).
VI. ORDER
For all of the above reasons:
- The petition is hereby granted;
- The Exeter West-Greenwich Regional School District shall immediately enroll Student S. Doe; and
- The Exeter West-Greenwich Regional School District is hereby enjoined from refusing to enroll any child placed at the Exeter House under the CBH program on the basis of residency.
Footnotes
[1] Riverside is within the East Providence School District.
[2] It remains unclear what "exceptions" are contained in R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-64-1 and precisely what exceptions the EWG is referencing here. The EWG also references "new oversight law" that warrants revision of P. Doe but does not provide any citations such that it is also entirely unclear what this new law is or otherwise provides.
[3] EWG also argues that P. Doe "predates" laws and guidance from DCYF and RIDE Legal regarding residency requirements for school purposes. However, this argument is without basis, as discussed infra.
[4] It shall further be noted that the EWG mischaracterizes the guidance from DCYF and RIDE Legal because: (1) both sets of guidance were issued after the Commissioner's Interim Order Decision; and (2) the Residency Memo drafted by RIDE Chief Legal Counsel dated October 30, 2020 does not discuss the residency of children placed in group homes under the CBH program and instead only addresses the residency of children in foster care.
KAELYN R. PHELPS, ESQ.,
as Hearing Officer for the Commissioner
ANGÉLICA INFANTE-GREEN,
Commissioner
Date: October 11, 2022