Decisions Hearings 2009

The following Due Process Hearing summaries are intended to be a reference guide only and have no legal authority. If you are interested in learning more about any of the issues described in the summaries, please see the full decisions provided.

  • Case #: 09.041H (PDF, 471KB)
    Case Title: Yarmouth v. Parent and Parent
    Allegation Categories: FAPE; IEP/IFSP Contents
    A hearing officer concluded that the student's IEPs were reasonably calculated to confer an educational benefit, and that therefore the parents were not entitled to reimbursement for the cost of additional educational services or for private school tuition. The hearing officer rejected the parents' contention that the IEPs should have specified certain educational methodologies after finding no proof that the parents' preferred methods were the only ones that would ensure the student received FAPE. The hearing officer also rejected the parents' contention that ESY services were deficient because they were not calculated to allow the student to continue to progress, based on a conclusion that the law requires only that ESY services allow students to maintain their current level.
  • Case #: 09.043H (PDF, 387KB)
    Case Title: Parent v. Surry
    Allegation Categories: FAPE; IEP/IFSP Contents; IEP/IFSP Process; Least Restrictive Environment
    A parent challenged a student's IEP on the basis that the level of psychologicallbehavioral support services were too intensive, and that the IEP team lead person should be a deaf-blind expert rather than a psychologicallbehavioral expert. A hearing officer concluded that the district properly relied on evaluations of multiple team experts in making those determinations. The parent also challenged the district's determination to place the student in a private day treatment program, asserting that a public school program was the least restrictive appropriate placement. The hearing officer did not find sufficient evidence that any area public school could implement the IEP so as to allow the student to make meaningful progress, given the variety and level of services the student required. The parent also raised a number of objections to the IEP process followed by the district. The hearing officer found that all necessary members of the IEP team had been present, that the written notice of the IEP team meeting had not been inaccurate or misleading, that the district solicited and incorporated input from IEP team members, and that the district acted reasonably in its efforts to schedule one of the IEP team meetings even though the parent was unable to attend.
  • Case #: 09.044H (PDF, 150KB)
    Case Title: Bangor v. Parent
    Allegation Categories: Evaluations
    A parent refused to consent to the evaluation of a student for initial determination of eligibility for special education. The district sought an order from a hearing officer that it was legally entitled to conduct that evaluation. The hearing officer based his decision to grant the district's request on findings that the evaluations were reasonable and necessary, and that the parent's refusal to consent was without justification.
  • Case #: 09.077H (PDF, 408KB)
    Case Title: Parent v. Wells-Ogunquit
    Allegation Categories: FAPE; Least Restrictive Environment
    A parent challenged the appropriateness of an IEP for a student who had been out of school for 18 months because it provided placement in a therapeutic day treatment program within a public school setting, asserting that a private residential placement was the least restrictive appropriate setting for the student. Citing the parent's inability to be reasonable and cooperative, the hearing office found that the district's attempts to develop the IEP for the student were hindered by the parent's actions. The hearing officer ultimately found that the IEP, which additionally provided supports to assist the student to transition back to the public high school setting, provided the student with FAPE. The hearing officer further found, however, that the parent had sabotaged the district's proposed placement, poisoning the student against accepting that placement, and therefore ordered the parties to return to the IEP process to identify another comparable program for the student.
  • Case #: 09.078H (PDF, 245KB)
    Case Title: Parent v. Orono
    Allegation Categories: Least Restrictive Environment
    Parents challenged the appropriateness of a student's IEP because it determined to change the student's placement from a self-contained classroom in her neighborhood school to a nearby public therapeutic day treatment program. Finding that the evidence demonstrated an absence of improvement in the student's ability to control her behavior and a failure of the student to progress academically during her time in the self-contained classroom, the hearing officer concluded that the more restrictive placement offered by the district was appropriate for the student.