COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Division of Administrative Law Appeals
Bureau of Special Education Appeals
In Re: Student v. Hanover Public Schools and Whitman-Hanson Regional School District
BSEA# 26-04218
RULING ON
HANOVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS’
MOTION TO JOIN
THE MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AND [FATHER]
On October 24, 2025, Hanover Public Schools (Hanover or District) filed a Motion to Join the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families and [Father], [1] (Motion to Join DCF and Father) alleging that the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and Fatherare necessary parties to this proceeding pursuant to 801 CMR 1.101 et seq., 603 CMR 28.08(3) and Rule I. J of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules). Hanover asserts that DCF’s and Father’s participation are necessary for full adjudication of this matter and that complete relief cannot be granted in their absence.
Whitman-Hanson Regional School District (“Whitman-Hanson”) assented to this Motion to Join DCF and Father.
Neither Mother, Father, nor DCF responded to the Motion, and the seven days allowed for response pursuant to Rule VI(C) has elapsed.[2]
For the reasons articulated below, Hanover’s Motion is ALLOWED.
FACTS[3]:
On October 13, 2025, Mother filed a hearing request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) against Hanover Public Schools and Whitman-Hanson Regional School District. In the request, she alleges that Student, who is 19 years old and currently resides at the Hillcrest(part of the Devereaux Behavioral Health Center in Rutland, Massachusetts), was removed by Whitman Hanson Regional School District from the Whitney Academy without Parents’ consent and in violation of Student’s stay-put rights. Hanover and Whitman-Hanson are the districts of residence of Mother and Father, respectively. The districts share fiscal responsibility. Whitman-Hanson has programmatic responsibility.
According to Mother, she
“share[s] custody with [her] ex-husband, who signed the IEP. However, [their] guardianship terms require[] both of [their] signatures. In addition[, Student] was removed from his program without another plan for a program. He has not been to school since 9/30. His specialists and many other testing show[] that he should remain at the Whitney Academy as he is not ready for transition services.”
Mother requested a hearing to demonstrate, in part, “that the Devereaux and the proposed programs are an ill fit for [Student] who is diagnosed with [fetal alcohol spectrum syndrome, or] FASD and has some sexualized deviant behaviors” and that Student was entitled to stay-put at Whitney Academy.
According to the District, Student resides at a pre-independent living group home via DCF. DCF has physical custody of Student with Mother and Father sharing joint guardianship and educational decision-making. Student has met all graduation requirements for Whitman-Hanson, but the IEP team agreed that Student continued to require special education in independent living and vocational skills. The most recently proposed IEP by Whitman-Hanson offered Student placement at a community-based transition skills program after his prior placement, the Whitney School, recommended a less restrictive placement for him. Whitney School does not have a community-based transition program. Father signed and accepted the proposed IEP. Mother rejected both the proposed IEP and placement.
A hearing is currently scheduled for November 17, 2025.
LEGAL STANDARDS:
- Joinder
Rule 1(J) of the Hearing Rules authorizes BSEA Hearing Officers to join a party upon written request, in cases where: “complete relief cannot be granted among those who are already parties, or the person being joined has an interest relating to the subject matter of the case and is so situated that the case cannot be disposed of in their absence.” Pursuant to Rule I(J) several factors must be evaluated when considering joinder of a party. These include: “the risk of prejudice to the present parties in the absence of the proposed party; the range of alternatives for fashioning relief; the inadequacy of a judgement entered in the proposed party’s absence; and the existence of an alternative forum to resolve the issues.”[4]
- BSEA Jurisdiction
The BSEA has limited jurisdictional authority.[5] 603 CMR 28.08(3) grants BSEA Hearing Officers authority to hear disputes involving
“… the eligibility, evaluation, placement, IEP, provision of special education in accordance with state and federal law, or procedural protections of state and federal law for students with disabilities. A parent of a student with a disability may also request a hearing on any issue involving the denial of the free appropriate public education guaranteed by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as set forth in 34 CFR §§104-31-104-39.”
G.L. c. 71B §2A and 603 CMR 28.08(3) specifically grant the BSEA Hearing Officer authority to resolve special education related disputes “among school districts, private schools, parents and state agencies,” provided that such jurisdiction over state agencies is “exercised consistent with 34 CFR §300.154(a),” and the Hearing Officer’s determinations are consistent with the rules, regulations and policies of the respective agencies. 603 CMR 28.08(3) specifically names the Department of Children and Familiesas one of the agencies over which jurisdiction may be exercised in the context of a BSEA Hearing.
To prevail in its Motion to Join DCF, Hanover must show “… at least in a preliminary way, that it will be able to present evidence at a Hearing that may result in DCF being found responsible to offer some services to the student.”[6]
DISCUSSION:
- Joinder of Father
Hanover argues that joinder of Father is appropriate because the central issue before the BSEA is whether the proposed and accepted IEP dated 5/27/2025-5/26/20026 is reasonably calculated to provide Student FAPE, and, “[i]n light of the Parents [sic] shared educational decision making, there is substantial risk of prejudice to Student’s Father if his interests are not represented in this matter and the case cannot be disposed of in his absence. Moreover, complete relief cannot be granted among those who are already Parties as Father could seek to challenge any BSEA Order issued without his notice and opportunity to participate.” As Father has signed and agreed to the IEP at issue proposed by Whitman-Hanson, I find him to be a necessary party to this action, and, as such, Hanover’s Motion as to Father is ALLOWED.
- Joinder of DCF
Relative to DCF, the District asserts that
“[a]fter a full evidentiary hearing, the Hearing Officer may make any number of determinations including that [Student] requires placement at a therapeutic day program, or residential placement for either educational or non-educational reasons. This analysis weighs in favor of joinder. Additionally, funding the cost of a non-educational residential placement for a child in its custody is in accordance with DCF rules, regulations and policies. Pursuant to its regulations, DCF is responsible for out-of-home placement for a child under certain circumstances for a child who is in its care or custody voluntarily or otherwise.”[7]
Specifically, pursuant to 110 CMR, § 7.120(4), when DCF determines,
“in its clinical judgment, that a child’s best interests would be served by placement into a community residential care facility, [it] shall select from the facilities available, which have a valid Department Community Residential Care Purchase Agreement, the one which best meets the child’s needs, and place the child in the selected residential care facility. [DCF] may utilize the following kinds of facilities:
- a facility licensed or approved by EEC;
- a facility not subject to the jurisdiction of EEC, which is approved as a special education school by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE);
- a facility not included in 110 CMR 7.120(4)(a) or (b) if otherwise approved by the Department; or
- a facility located outside of Massachusetts if the procedures of the Interstate Compact are utilized, and if the facility is licensed or approved by the applicable licensing/regulatory agency of that state.”
Here, Hanover contends that to the extent that Student may require out-of-home placement, it is required for non-educational reasons and, as a result, would be DCF’s responsibility.
In order for me to order DCF to provide additional supports and services, including possible residential care, DCF must be a party to the proceeding, and, therefore complete relief cannot be effectuated in DCF’s absence. Judicial and administrative efficiency support joinder so that I may fashion a range of alternatives for relief to address Student’s educational and non-educational needs and to ensure collaboration and coordination amongst the parties. Because a FAPE cannot necessarily be “developed, delivered, declared or guaranteed” for Student in the instant case in DCF’s absence,[8] DCF is found to be a necessary party to this action. Therefore, Hanover’s Motion as to DCF is ALLOWED.
Order:
- Hanover’s Motion to Join DCF and [Father] is ALLOWED.
- DCF and Father are hereby joined as Parties to the instant case.
So Ordered by the Hearing officer,
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Dated: November 3, 2025
[1] Consistent with BSEA Standing Order 20-2, Hanover certified that it had provided the Department of Children and Families (DCF), Mother, Father, and Whitman-Hanson Regional School District with a copy of the Hearing Request and the District’s Response.
[2] The Hearing Officer contacted the parties via email dated October 31, 2025 to remind them the any response to the Motion was due that day.
[3] These facts are subject to change in future rulings and decisions.
[4] Hearing Rules, Rule 1(J).
[5] See 20 USC §1415(b)(6); M.G.L. c.71B §2A; 34 CFR 300.507(a)(1); 603 CMR 28.08 (3).
[6] In Re: Student v. Attleboro Public Schools (Ruling on Attleboro Public Schools’ Motion for Joinder of the Department of Developmental Services), BSEA # 26-01402 (Figueroa, 2025).
[7] The District’s Motion cites to G.L. c. 119, § 21 (defining as “custody” the power to, inter alia, “determine a child’s place of abode, medical care and education”).
[8] See In Re: Auburn Public Schools, BSEA # 02-0983 (Byrne, 2002).