Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/re-student-v-hamilton-wenham-public-schools-bsea-04-4201/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:45:48+00:00

Document:
On April 12, 2004, Parents in the above-referenced matter filed a request for Hearing stating that Student had been without an education since November 2002, that the Hamilton-Wenham Public Schools (hereinafter, “Hamilton-Wenham ”) had been ordered to place Student residentially; and that Student still “sits at home.” Parents further stated that they were anxious to “start the different steps that [were] needed in order for him to be able to overcome the emotional distresses that he has had to be subjected to as a result of not being able to be successful and experiencing only failures.” In essence, Parents alleged non-compliance by Hamilton-Wenham of a decision issued by me in November 2003.
Hamilton-Wenham filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 801 C.M.R. 1.01 et seq., 603 C.M.R. 28.08(3) and (6) and Rule 6 of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals. Hamilton-Wenham also filed exhibits and a memorandum in support of its motion on April 23, 2004 and requested to be heard on the motion. A motion session was held on May 4, 2004 and the record remained open until May 5, 2004 to afford Parent an opportunity to submit a tape of the two meetings she had in March 2004. One meeting was held on March 8 th at the Harbor School and one on March 10 th with Debbie Frontierro of Hamilton-Wenham. On May 3, 2004, prior to the Motion Session, Parents submitted 14 exhibits in support of their request to place Student. Their final exhibit, the tape, was received on May 5, 2004.
School Exhibits 1 to 4, and Parent’s Exhibits 1 to 12 and 15 were considered in addition to the Parties’ oral and written arguments for the purpose of rendering this ruling. I have adopted part of Hamilton-Wenham’s proposed facts. I further took administrative notice of BSEA # 04-1791 & # 03-3932, the matters on which Parents now allege non-compliance.
Present during the Motion Session were Attorney Richard Sullivan representing Hamilton-Wenham, Deborah Frontierro, Special Education Director for Hamilton-Wenham, and Student’s Mother, appearing Pro Se.
1. On or about October 27, 2003, this Hearing Officer presided over a BSEA Hearing regarding the appropriateness of Student’s individualized education plan (IEP) as proposed by the District for the period from October 2003 through October 2004. The IEP proposed a residential placement of Student at Harbor School, to be cost-shared by the District and the Department of Social Services (hereinafter, “DSS”).
8. In response to the Parents’ request, regarding Student’s entry into the Harbor School program, Ms. Frontierro contacted the Parent by telephone to inform her that an intake meeting with the Harbor School’s residential team would be scheduled as soon as possible.
12. In March 2004, Parents requested that Hamilton-Wenham send a referral packet to Swift River Academy. (PE-11; PE-15) In response to Parents’ request and in an effort to “reconcile their differences,” as instructed by the Hearing Officer in the November 2003 decision, Ms. Frontierro sent a referral packet to Swift River Academy immediately upon receiving the Parents’ consent on March 10, 2004. (PE-4; PE-11; PE-15) The placement proposed in Student’s IEP for the period from October 2003 through October 2004 remained the program at Harbor School, should Student and Parents choose to avail themselves of it.
During the following months Parents did not communicate with Hamilton-Wenham until Ms. Frontierro again approached them via letter of February 9, 2004, after which Parents requested that Student be transitioned into the Harbor School. Parents did not attend the intake meetings and in March 2004 requested that Student be placed at Swift River Academy. When this placement failed within the first couple of days, Parents requested on April 8 th that Hamilton-Wenham fund a wilderness program in New York.
Hamilton-Wenham asserts that since issuance of the decision it has offered to place Student at the Harbor School, as directed by the decision. It drafted an IEP consistent with said placement and has continued to inform Parents of its willingness to place Student there. It has also arranged meetings at Harbor School in an attempt to comply with my order. To date it remains ready, willing and able to place Student at the Harbor School as soon as Parents and Student who is now 17 years of age wish to go ahead with this placement. According to the District, its willingness to place Student at Swift River Academy was an attempt to reconcile its differences with Parents. Hamilton-Wenham argues that Parents’ new request for hearing constitutes a review of the final decision issued by the BSEA, something forbidden under the statute, and would result in reconsideration of the case. Parents had an opportunity to appeal my decision to a court with pertinent jurisdiction, were so notified, and failed to do so. Hamilton-Wenham argues therefore, that this case should be dismissed.
BSEA decisions are final and not subject to further agency review. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(I)(l)(B); see also BSEA Hearing Rule 12. Accordingly, the BSEA cannot permit motions to reconsider or to re-open a case where a decision was issued. 603 C.M.R. 28.08(b). Moreover, BSEA decisions are final decisions subject only to judicial review from a court having jurisdiction over the party’s appeal. M.G.L. c. 30A, § 14; 801 C.M.R. § 1.01 (13); BSEA Hearing Rule 13; see also, Mass. Dept. of Education , 18 IDELR 1115 (OCR 1992).
The evidence shows that in March 2004, Parents requested that Hamilton-Wenham send a referral packet to Swift River Academy. Hamilton-Wenham was mindful of my admonition to the parties in the November 3, 2003 decision to “reconcile their differences.” In spite of Parents’ and Student’s inability to follow through with their end of the responsibility regarding my order for placement, in what appears to be an attempt to respond to Mother’s desperate cry for help regarding her son, Ms. Frontierro agreed to send a referral packet to Swift River Academy. Student attended only days before he once again sabotaged this placement. Once he got there, he did not wish to stay. (PE-12) Mr. Ravenscraft recommended that Student participate in a wilderness program and suggested the Adirondack Leadership program. (PE-9) Parents requested that Hamilton-Wenham fund this program and when the district declined to do so, Parents filed the request for Hearing now before me.
It seems from Mother’s statements and the documents presented by her, that while she was greatly concerned about her son’s education and having him placed, Student was not. I find that her new request for Hearing strives to have the previous case re-opened and Student’s placement changed. Given this, under the facts of this case, Parents are not entitled to a BSEA hearing in this matter. The evidence shows that the issue they are asking me to decide, the appropriateness of the District’s proposed IEP, was already addressed and disposed of in the decision issued on November 2003; a decision which Hamilton-Wenham has made every effort to implement without success due to Parents’/ Student’s unwillingness to cooperate.
Parents’ request for Hearing dated April 10, 2004 alleges no specific area of non-compliance and none was shown during the Motion Session. A challenge that a BSEA decision is not being implemented requires the moving party to set out the areas of non-compliance. 603 C.M.R. 28.08(6)(b). The decision of November 3 rd found that Student required residential placement and specifically found the Harbor School to be the appropriate placement. Hamilton-Wenham has offered the placement ordered by me. Parents’ request for hearing is merely an attempt to re-open the evidence to re-litigate issues regarding Student’s placement for the period from October 2003 through October 2004. This was the same time period and issues already litigated in BSEA #03-3932 and # 04-1791. Therefore, Parents’ new request for hearing cannot proceed.
Under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 30A, Section 14(1), appeal of a final Bureau decision to state superior court must be filed within thirty (30) days of receipt of the decision. The federal courts have ruled that the time period for filing a judicial appeal of a Bureau decision in federal district court is also thirty (30) days of receipt of the decision, as provided in the Massachusetts Administrative Procedures Act, M.G.L. c.30A . Amann v. Town of Stow , 991 F.2d 929 (1 st Cir. 1993); Gertel v. School Committee of Brookline , 783 F. Supp. 701 (D. Mass. 1992).
Therefore, an appeal of a Bureau decision to state superior court or to federal district court must be filed within thirty (30) days from receipt of the Bureau decision by the appealing party.
Mother stated that they disagreed with my decision and appealed it by writing a letter to the Department of Education or the BSEA and they also wrote a letter which they mailed to the McCormick building in Boston. Parents further allege that they did not know what they were supposed to do or where they were supposed to appeal the decision. When reminded about the notice attached to the decision, which provided this information, Mother stated that it did not contain an address. Parent was asked if she had called anyone to obtain additional information, including any of the free or low cost legal entities on a list which had been sent to the Parents when they first requested the hearing. Mother said no. Administrative review of BSEA #04-1791 and #03-3932 show that between about June and September 2003 Parents/Student were represented by Sheila Deppner, an advocate knowledgeable in special education law. Thereafter, they were represented at Hearing by Attorney Alanna G. Cline. The BSEA satisfies its obligation by informing the parties of what their rights are. It is up to the party who wishes to appeal to determine the next step.
The IDEA at 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(1)(A) requires the District to make FAPE “available” to an eligible student. It does not require a district to motivate that student to avail himself of the education services and placement offered, when as in the case at bar the student is not compelled by state law to attend school, and his Parents fail to require him to do so. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist. V. Robert M ., 168 F. Supp. 2d 635 (W.D. Tex. 2001).
Here, Student turned seventeen (17) years of age, and is no longer subject to the Commonwealth’s compulsory school attendance laws. M.G.L. c. 76, § 1. Accordingly, judicial remedies compelling the Student’s attendance at the Harbor School, which would be available to the District and DSS if the Student were under sixteen (16) years of age, are no longer an option. At this point, it is up to Student to decide that he wants to access an education and come forth requesting that Hamilton-Wenham effectuate the placement at Harbor School. Other than that, Hamilton- Wenham is under no obligation to offer anything different to what was stated in the decision of November 3, 2003. The evidence is persuasive that Hamilton-Wenham has met its legal obligation. Parents may certainly place Student privately and fund any other placement or program of their choice privately.
Hamilton-Wenham’s motion to dismiss the proceedings is GRANTED . This case is hereby DISMISSED .

References: § 1415
 § 14
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 §1412
 V. 
 § 1