Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/fall-river-public-schools-v-department-education-franklin-public-schools-bsea-06-4240/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:45:47+00:00

Document:
Fall River Public Schools filed its Request for Hearing on March 10, 2006, appealing a second LEA determination entered by the Department of Education assigning sole fiscal and programmatic responsibility for Student in the instant case to Fall River Public Schools. In the first case, Fall River disputed that it should share responsibility with Franklin Public Schools for Student’s education because according to Fall River, Mother did not live there. Affidavits were obtained from the Parents that clarified the residence status of both Parents, and this newly acquired information was presented to DOE for review of its previous determination. The DOE entered a new determination in March 2006 and it is this determination that is the subject of Fall River’s current appeal.
Administrative notice of BSEA # 06-0659, Fall River’s first appeal, shows that on March 23, 2006, Fall River withdrew its first Hearing Request filed in July 2005, without prejudice.
The official record of the hearing consists of the Fall River Public Schools’ Motion and Memorandum in Support of the Appeal of the Department of Education’s Assignment and documents marked as exhibits E-A through E-F; Franklin Public Schools’ Motion for Summary Judgment as well as the recorded arguments. The Parties opted not to submit closing arguments and therefore, the record closed on Monday April 24, 2006.
2. Whether the determination should be reversed and Franklin Public Schools and Fall River Public Schools should be determined to be equally fiscally responsible for Student’s education.
Fall River argued that at the time of Student’s hospitalization, Student lived with Mother in Somerset. Student never actually lived in Fall River prior to entering the pediatric nursing home since she was transferred directly from the hospital to the pediatric nursing home. Somerset was the last location in which Student and Mother resided together. Fall River argued that Mother did not have physical custody of Student on January 4, 2006, prior to its filing the current appeal. The Court in Parents’ divorce proceeding vacated the Temporary Order regarding physical custody of Student on January 4, 2006. Since the change in custody occurred prior to the DOE’s review of Fall River’s request for reconsideration of LEA assignment, then Fall River asserts that Franklin and Fall River share fiscal responsibility for Student’s education. Under the January 2006 court order, parents shared legal custody but neither had physical custody. Therefore, DOE’s determination was incorrect and Fall River is not solely responsible. According to Fall River, DOE should have relied only on 603 CMR 28.10 (3) or (4).
Franklin Public Schools (Franklin) moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule VII of The Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals . Relying on the documents reviewed by the Department Of Education (submitted by Fall River as Exhibits A through F), it stated that the undisputed facts and applicable law support the Department Of Education’s (DOE) conclusions that Fall River bears full responsibility for Student.
The DOE stands by its determination and agrees with the position expressed by Franklin.
· On April 4, 2005 the Probate and Family Court, Bristol Division, entered a Temporary Order on Parents’ divorce proceeding. (E-A; E-D) This Order incorporates and adopts Parents’ agreement to retain shared legal custody of Student and awards physical custody of Student to Mother. (E-A; E-D) This Order further stated that Father would be solely responsible to complete the application process and discussions with the Crystal Springs facility regarding possible placement of Student there. (E-D) The record does not contain evidence that Student entered this facility.
If the student’s parents live in two different school districts, such school districts shall be jointly responsible for fulfilling the requirements of 603 CMR 28.00 except if the student actually resided with either parent immediately prior to going into living situation described in 603 CMR 28.10(3)or (4), or the parents are divorced or separated and one parent has sole physical custody, then the school district where the student resided with the parent or the school district of the parent who has sole physical custody shall be responsible and shall remain responsible in the event the student goes into the care or custody of a state agency. 603 CMR 28.10(8)(c)5.
· On March 10, 2006, Fall River filed its second appeal of a DOE determination in this matter to the BSEA.
The Massachusetts Special Education Regulations give the Department of Education authority to resolve issues regarding residency and LEA responsibility for special education students. 603 CMR 28.10. Subsequent appeals of those determinations may be brought before the Bureau of Special Education Appeals. 603 CMR 28.10 (9). While the facts in this case are not in dispute, one of the Parties, Fall River, disagrees with the DOE’s legal conclusions regarding LEA assignment. It this issue which is before me.
In applying the above regulation, the DOE initially assigned educational responsibility for Student to both Fall River and Franklin on June 29, 2005. (E-A) Fall River appealed that finding to the BSEA in 2005 and upon receipt of new evidence, the case was sent back to the DOE for a review of its determination. The new information consisted of affidavits submitted by Mother and Father in January 2006, providing clarification as to their whereabouts and legal relationship to Student under a Temporary Order issued in their divorce proceeding. (E-B; E-C) Upon review of the new information, on February 10, 2006, the DOE entered a determination that Fall River was solely responsible for Student’s education.2 Fall River challenged said determination and argued that by January 2006 Mother no longer had physical custody of Student since the Court in Parents’ divorce proceeding had vacated the Temporary Order regarding physical custody on January 4, 2006. The change in custody occurred prior to the DOE’s review of Fall River’s request for reconsideration of LEA assignment. Additionally, Fall River argued that Student lived with Mother in Somerset, MA, when she was hospitalized and that this was the last time student resided with Mother. Fall River does not dispute that Student was moved to the pediatric nursing home in April 2005 or that Mother was then residing in Fall River. According to Fall River, since 603 CMR 28.10(3) addresses the issue of school district responsibility based on residence of the parents in situations where students are in pediatric nursing homes, this regulation is controlling and there is no need to look at any other regulation. Under 603 C.M.R. 28.10 (3), both Fall River and Franklin would share fiscal responsibility for Student. (E-F) Relying on this section, Fall River argues that its responsibility was triggered when Mother contacted the district in the Fall of 2004 and Franklin became responsible when Father moved there on December 30, 2004. (E-F) Fall River ignores the fact that it challenged the DOE’s determination (twice) and that in doing so, it triggered 603 CMR 28.10(8 ) et seq.
Upon review of the pertinent statutes, regulations and case law, as discussed below, I find that Fall River’s arguments are legally incorrect and not persuasive. Fall River bases its whole argument on the physical custody and residency of Student at the time it challenged the DOE’s determination for the second time, that is February 2006, as opposed to looking at the circumstances regarding residency at the time Student entered the pediatric nursing home back in April 2005.
MGL c. 76 §5 assures an individual’s right to attend the public school of the town where that individual resides3 . When addressing residency, the words residence and domicile have been interpreted to be synonymous when used in statutes involving residency requirements. Watson v. Town of Lexington 1993 WL 818774, 1 Mas L. Reptr. 261 (Mass. Super. 1993); See Hershkoff v. Board of Registrars of Voters of Worcester , 366 Mass. 570, 576, 321 N. E. 2d 656 (1974); Teel v. Hamilton Wenham Regional School District , 13 Mass. App. Ct. 345, 349, 433 N.E. 2d 907 (1982). A domicile has been defined as the “place where a person dwells and which is the center of [an individual’s] domestic, social and civil life”, the place where that person has his home4 . Dane v. Board of Registrars of Voters of Concord , 374 Mass. 152, 161-162, 371 N.E. 2d 1358 (1978); Hershkoff v. Board of Registrars of Voters of Worcester , 366 Mass 570 (1974). In this regard, a minor who has not been emancipated is “generally said to lack capacity to acquire such a domicile of choice.” Hershkoff, 366 Mass. at 577. When residence issues involve children, the Court in George H. and Irene L. Walker Home for Children, Inc. v. Franklin , 416 Mass. 291, 296, 621 N.E. 2d 376 (1993) clarified that a minor child’s domicile or residence generally is the same as that of the parent who possesses physical custody of the child. See also, Lydia D. et al. v. Thomas W. Payzant et al. , 17 Mass. L. Rep. 272 (2003); 2003 Mass. Super. LEXIS 471. It is in this context that the DOE’s assignment of fiscal and programmatic responsibility is reviewed.
In the case at bar, Student is an eleven-year-old who has been identified as having special education needs for which she is entitled to receive special education services consistent with the IDEA.
On April 4, 2005, the Bristol Division of the Probate and Family Court, issued a Temporary Order in Parents’ divorce proceeding awarding full physical custody of Student to Mother. (E-A; E-D) This Order was modified on January 4, 2006 when the Court maintained shared legal custody of Student with Parents but did not enter any specific order regarding her physical custody because “child [was] in a residential placement facility.” (E-A; E-E) On February 10, 2006, having been presented with the aforementioned information, the DOE entered a determination assigning sole fiscal and programmatic responsibility for Student’s education to Fall River.
school districts shall be jointly responsible for fulfilling the requirements of 603 CMR 28.00 except if the student actually resided with either parent immediately prior to going into living situation described in 603 CMR 28.10(3)or (4), or the parents are divorced or separated and one parent has sole physical custody, then the school district where the student resided with the parent or the school district of the parent who has sole physical custody shall be responsible and shall remain responsible in the event the student goes into the care or custody of a state agency. 603 CMR 28.10(8)(c)5.
Here, Student had not only been residing solely with Mother at the time of her hospitalization and subsequent transfer to the pediatric nursing home (Mayflower Nursing Home) but the facts also suggest that the Court Order of April 4, 2005, awarding Mother sole physical custody of Student, may have been in effect at the time Student entered the Mayflower Nursing Home. (E-A; E-B; E-C; E-D) Except for the actual date on which Student entered the pediatric nursing home, which was not provided by any of the Parties, the facts in this case are uncontested and supported by the evidence. Furthermore, 603 CMR 28.10(8)(c)5 only requires that one of the two criteria occur, that is, that Student reside with one parent immediately before entering the pediatric nursing home or that one parent have sole physical custody. Franklin correctly argues that a hospital cannot be deemed a residence or domicile under any legal theory. Since Student is a minor, for purposes of ascertaining residency, under Walker , she would have been deemed to reside with a parent. The evidence is undisputed that Student was residing with Mother when she entered Brockton Hospital (which does not constitute a shift in residence as a temporary hospitalization does not change a person’s domicile or residence) prior to entering the Mayflower Nursing Home. Student’s domicile was where the parent with Student’s physical custody, that is, Mother, lived.
In its request for summary judgment, Franklin correctly argues additional points. Franklin states that actual residence means domicile, and an individual may only have one domicile at a time. A temporary hospitalization does not change a person’s residence or domicile and therefore, Student’s residence became Fall River, when Mother moved there in March 2004, before Student entered the pediatric nursing home. Franklin therefore, correctly argues that in the case at bar 603 CMR 28.10 (8)(c)(5) is determinative of school district responsibility. Since the criteria provided in subsection (8)(c)(5) creates an exception in cases where students were actually residing with either parent immediately prior to going into a pediatric nursing home situation, as in this case, or the parents are divorced or separated and one parent has sole physical custody, then the exception is controlling. Under subsection (8)(c)(5), Fall River, Mother’s place of residence/domicile, is solely responsible.
Therefore, where a dispute exists regarding the residence or residential history of a student’s parent/s, as in the instant case, where those parents reside in different communities, and where the student resided with one parent who had physical custody, then, the school district of the parent with whom Student resided is solely responsible for his/ her educational needs. The February 10, 2006 determination of the DOE is upheld, and Franklin’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
1. Fall River, the community where Student “actually” resided as a matter of law, immediately prior to admission to the pediatric nursing home, bears full fiscal and programmatic responsibility for Student’s special education program consistent with the DOE’s determination of February 2006.
2. Franklin’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
“The Department may assign or a school district or agency may request the Department’s assistance in assigning a city, town or school district to be responsible for students in living situations described in 603 CMR 28.10(3) or (4)… when a student has not yet been determined to be eligible and /or is not receiving services…603 CMR 28.10(8)(a)(4) and 28.10(8)(a)(4).
Fall River withdrew its first request for Hearing to the BSEA in February 2006 at approximately the same time that it requested this Hearing challenging the new determination.
As referenced in page 5 of this decision, section 28.10(3)(a) of the Regulations involves school district responsibility for students who are in a pediatric nursing home.

References: §5
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.