In Re: Student and Ashland Public Schools and Department of Children and Families and Department of Mental Health BSEA# 26-01972

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

In Re: Student and Ashland Public Schools and Department of Children and Families and Department of Mental Health

BSEA# 26-01972

DECISION

This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 USC 1400 et seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC 794), the state special education law (MGL c. 71B), the state Administrative Procedure Act (MGL c. 30A), and the regulations promulgated under these statutes. 

On August 11, 2025, Parent (“Parent” or “Mother”) filed a Hearing Request against Ashland Public Schools (“District” or “APS”)[1].  An August 12, 2025, Notice of Hearing scheduled the Hearing for September 15, 2025.  A September 2, 2025, Ruling joined the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and the Department of Mental Health (DMH).  At the joint request of the Parties, the Hearing was postponed for good cause for two business days.  Two additional hearing days were added to accommodate party availability and anticipated witness testimony.  The rescheduled hearing was held on September 17, 19 and 22, 2025 and a joint postponement request to October 15, 2025, for submission of closing arguments, was allowed for good cause.     

The official record of this matter consists of Parent’s Exhibits P-2, P-6 through and inclusive of P-9, P-11 through and inclusive of P-14; P-16 through and inclusive of P-17; P-19; P-22, P-25 through and inclusive of P-34, P-45 through and inclusive of P-52 and certain pages of P-4 and P-5[2]; the District’s Exhibits S-1 through and inclusive of S-27, S-29 through and inclusive of S-34, S-36 through and inclusive of S-39, S-41, S-43, S-44[3] and certain pages of S-28, S-40 and  S-42[4]; joint Exhibits J-1 and J-2; and approximately 16.5 hours of stenographically recorded oral testimony of 12 witnesses, resulting in a 3-volume plus a supplemental transcript.  On October 14, 2025, DCF and DMH confirmed in writing that they did not intend to submit written closing arguments.  On October 15, 2025, the District and Parent filed written closing arguments, and the record closed[5].    

Neither DCF nor DMH submitted any exhibits other than the joint exhibits other than the joint exhibits submitted during the course of the Hearing.

Those present for some or all or part of the proceedings were:

Mother

Michele G. Scavongelli     Attorney for Parent

Tim Sindelar                   Attorney for Parent

Natalia Smychkovich       Attorney for Parent

Lauren McMann              Attorney for Parent

Nicholas Shamberger      Attorney for Parent

Seth Mennillo                  Attorney for Parent

Felicia S. Vasudevan       Attorney for APS

Ellen A. Crowley              Attorney for APS

Brittany Hawkins             Director of Student Services, APS

Heidi Manthei                  Special Education Coordinator- Elementary School, APS

Kyra Knox                       Special Education Coordinator – Middle School, APS

Sarah Marineau               School Psychologist, APS

Jennifer Caputo               Special Education Teacher, APS

Joseph Mespelli               Special Education Teacher, APS

Kristen S. Braithwaite     Attorney for DCF

Abigail Smith                    Social Worker, DCF

Thomas M. O’Brien         Attorney for DMH

Michela A. Healy             Attorney for DMH

Alisha Vargo-Wood        Clinician, Perkins School

Alexandra Petro             Teacher, Perkins School

Andrea Hendershott      BCBA, APS Consultant

Officer Patricia Vosikas  Ashland Police Department

Emmanuel Feraud          Assistant Program Manager – Ives House, OpenSky

Dr. Craig Murphy            Clinical Psychologist, APS Consultant

Dr. Julie Weineth             Independent Evaluator, NESCA

Dr. Robert Andler            Pediatrician, Weston Pediatrics

Sarah Gosenhauser        Observer Attorney

Kayla Mateo                    Observer Attorney

Rebecca Brownell           Observer Attorney

Miranda Costigan            Law Student Intern

Rebecca Baron                Court Stenographer

ISSUES IN DISPUTE:

1. Whether there has been a “change in conditions[6]” for Student from that existing at the time Parent and the District executed a Settlement Agreement in May of 2024; and
2. If so, whether Student currently requires a residential placement to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES:

Parent submits that since signing a settlement agreement with the District in May 2024, Student’s condition has changed, and this changed condition now necessitates that Student be provided with a residential educational program.  Despite Student’s intense social, emotional and behavioral struggles up to the 2023-2024 school year, his 2023-2024 school year was successful and did not involve aggressive or behaviorally disruptive behavior or require restraints in school or hospitalizations.  However, starting in the fall of 2024, Student’s behavioral dysregulation dramatically changed, resulting in monthly hospitalizations from his home and once from his respite house (and associated high number of missed school days) over seven months, restraints at school and at the respite house, and police intervention at home and the respite house.  Testing demonstrated substantially different scores from prior results, especially in the areas of executive functioning, anxiety, reading, math and writing.  Student’s independent neuropsychological evaluation in the spring of 2025 concluded that he requires a residential educational placement to provide him with the necessary consistent structure and support, and to ensure generalization of the behavioral regulation skills Student learned in school to all settings. 

The District contends it has complied with all terms of the settlement agreement, that the agreement is binding on the Parties, remains in full force and effect through August 2026 when it is scheduled to expire, and precludes any changes to Student’s current educational program prior to that time.  Parent has not proven that there was a change in conditions since the execution of the settlement agreement as Student’s diagnoses have remained consistent and his behavioral needs and the propensity and possibility that they may intensify were known to Parent when she signed it[7].  Further, outside factors that Parent had control over and/or parental decisions she is responsible for contributed to Student’s increased hospitalizations starting in the fall of 2024.  In the alternative, even if the settlement agreement does not govern the dispute between the Parties, Student does not require a residential educational placement.  If Student requires a residential placement at all, it is for reasons other than to receive a FAPE. 

FACTUAL FINDINGS[8]:

1. Student is thirteen and first enrolled in the District at the start of the 2022-2023 school year when he moved to Ashland, Massachusetts with Mother.  His eligibility for special education is not in dispute.  He is a “caring and loving boy”, a “neat young man” who is friendly, likeable, resilient, hard-working, engaging, with a good sense of humor.  Student enjoys interacting with peers and staff he is comfortable with, likes to cook and likes making Mother fancy coffees.  Student is diagnosed with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Specific Learning Disabilities in Reading (for comprehension not fluency), writing and mathematics.  Student has also been diagnosed with Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder (DMDD), Mood Disorder Unspecified, and Reactive-Attachment Disorder (RAD), although all of these diagnoses have at times been eliminated from and reinstated in Student’s profile.  (S-8; S-16; S-17; S-21; Mother VI, 56-58; Vargo-Wood VI 192; Knox VII, 279; Hawkins Supp., 3-4). 

2. Mother fostered Student at age four and adopted him at six. He experienced prenatal substance exposure (marijuana) and severe early trauma, including abuse, neglect, and exposure to violence and drug use, and lived in at least ten foster homes before her care. (S-8; S-42; Mother VI, 60-62).

3. Brittany Hawkins, the District’s Director of Student Services for the past four years[9], first learned of Student prior to his enrollment.  She was informed Student would be transitioning into public school from a residential school placement at the Walker School, which is not typical.  Ms. Hawkins, therefore, communicated with Walker to ensure it agreed that the District’s proposed in-district program would be appropriate.  Walker supported the transition explaining that while at Walker, Student was much less intense and had lower need levels than the other residential students.  Despite his IEP calling for a wholly substantially separate setting (Walker IEP), with Parent’s consent, Student began attending the District’s therapeutic elementary program[10] in the context of an extended evaluation at the start of the 2022-2023 school year (fifth grade). (Walker IEP).  (S-12; S-22; Mother VI, 63-64; Hawkins Supp., 4-5).

4. According to Ms. Hawkins, Parent’s main disagreement with the District during the 2022–2023 school year concerned her request for extended day services. Because these services were not included in the Walker IEP, the District recommended a Home/Community assessment on August 2, 2022, but Parent initially declined due to concerns it would focus on autism and ABA.  Although after-school needs were reviewed during Student’s extended evaluation, the Team did not recommend extended day services at its November 2022 meeting, which omission Parent rejected. The Team concluded Student could access school-based and extracurricular activities without additional support.  On February 1, 2023, Parent submitted a letter from Student’s psychiatrist, Dr. Julia Chen, recommending daily after-school programming[11].  The Team convened on March 1, 2023 to review this letter and agreed to move up Student’s 3-year reevaluation. (S-8; S-9; S-10; S-11; S-12; S-20; Mother VI, 64-65, 229-40; Hawkins VIII, 178-80, Supp., 5-6).

5. During the 2022-2023 school year, Student participated in a privately funded after-school program at the YMCA.  He had a “rocky” transition, attempting one time to elope and having an issue with a female peer.  Once made aware of consequences for his inappropriate behaviors, and given developing relationships with the staff, he did well at the YMCA.  (S-20; Hawkins VIII, 180-81, 231).

6. Sarah Marineau, a School Psychologist for the District for most of the past 19 years, provided services to Student during the 2022-2023 school year and completed a Psycho-Educational Assessment as part of Student’s 3-year reevaluation in April and May 2023[12].  Ms. Marineau performed a record review, interviewed Parent, Student and Student’s teacher, and assessed Student’s cognitive, academic, social-emotional and executive functioning skills and abilities[13].  (S-21; Marineau VII 181-83).

7. According to Ms. Marineau’s May 9, 2025 report, cognitively, Student performed overall in the average range.  Academically, he had overall average decoding abilities but demonstrated a weakness in the areas of comprehension, an average understanding of mental math but below average computation and math reasoning skills, and his scores on the spontaneous writing composite were in the very poor range (SS 65).  Student’s executive functioning skills reported on the BRIEF-2 by his special education teacher, Mr. Joseph Mespelli, were within expected limits in all areas; however, Parent’s BRIEF-2 responses indicated that all areas at home, except self-monitoring, were clinically elevated.  Similarly, Student’s social-emotional functioning, as reported by his teacher on the BASC-3, was within normal limits in all areas except atypicality, while Parent reported all areas of the BASC-3 to be clinically significant or at risk, except leadership and social skills.  Student’s self-concept ratings were all within normal limits, and he reported having average self-esteem, and a positive relationship with Parent, with whom he envisioned a positive future.  However, according to the Parent interview, Student was struggling at home with his eating habits, limit setting, and displayed aggression, emotional struggles, and tantruming behavior. Ms. Marineau concluded that Student was demonstrating age-appropriate abilities and emotional regulation at school but not in the home setting.  (S-21; Marineau VII 183-189).

8. Ms. Marineau supported a previously offered Home/Community assessment to get “insight and recommendations for strategies to support [Student] at home” as well as continued academic, social and emotional support in school to assist with generalizing his social and emotional successes across settings.  During testimony, Ms. Marineau explained that based on her interactions with Student during the 2022-2023 school year and given his successes with a supported and structured environment in school, providing appropriate supports in the home environment, rather than a residential educational setting, would address Student’s emotional dysregulation at home. (S-21; Marineau VII, 195).

9. Ms. Marineau provided direct clinical supports to Student twice a week in accordance with his IEP, once in a social skills lunch group and the other as either individual or group counseling.  Her counseling sessions were structured and provided lessons in Student’s skill deficit areas.  Student did very well in counseling, and his Progress Report indicates he was an active participant in group and met his counseling goal by the end of the year.  Student did not display any intense emotional dysregulation at school and had no significant behavioral concerns that year.  Although Student demonstrated he could use the emotional regulation skills he was learning, he did not have need to do that at school.  Ms. Marineau also observed Student in the pull-out setting with Mr. Mespelli and in the general education setting.  She observed Student to manage his self-regulation with regard to time, space and materials and to show average abilities to plan and organize completion of tasks in the school environment.  According to Ms. Marineau, her pre-existing positive relationship with Student contributed positively to her testing.  She believes Student needs time and consistent relationships to build trust, and that he will be withdrawn with unfamiliar evaluators.  Ms. Marineau also noted that frequent provider changes and attending a school without integrated social-emotional supports could negatively affect his functioning.  (S-19; S-22; S-26; Marineau VII, 186, 190-91, 193, 204-06).

10. During the 2022–2023 school year, Student had at least three hospitalizations that caused school absences. After a 23-day hospitalization in March–April 2023, Parent reported that Student “was doing about the same as he was pre-hospitalization, which is not good” as he had hit and kicked her, stole money and credit cards, attempted to open a Verizon account on his school computer, hid her keys, threatened to drive her car, defied parental rules and controls related to electronics, repeatedly yelled vulgar insults, splashed her with water, and physically attacked her. She also reported that he was mistreating the family cats. In May 2023, Student was hospitalized again for five days after becoming dysregulated and violent toward Parent, throwing bottles and extension cords at her and threatening to hit her, when she did not let him watch television, an incident witnessed by Parent’s social worker. (S-17; S-19; S-27; S-28; S-34). 

11. On June 1, 2023, Parent consented to have Andrea Hendershott, a Board-Certified Behavior Specialist (BCBA), employed by Proven Behavior Solutions for the past eight years[14], perform a District-funded trauma-informed functional behavioral assessment (Trauma Informed FBA) of Student.  The Trauma Informed FBA took place between June and September of 2023, and a report was issued on October 17, 2023[15].  (S-16; S-24; Hendershott VIII, 129-31).

12. Ms. Hendershott’s record review noted Student’s history of aggression, elopement (including an incident where Student eloped from the evening school open house in the fall of 2023, discussed below), challenges forming trusting relationships with caregivers and Student’s “numerous” hospitalizations since 2019.  The antecedents to Student’s numerous hospitalizations were setting limits, chores, and engaging in activities of daily living (ADLs) like tooth brushing.  The clinical interviews reflected that in school, Student did not display any aggressive or problem behaviors, although he had some limited work refusal that generally took the form of putting his head down.  At home, Mother reported a range of challenging behaviors with some emerging school refusal.  Aggressions took the form of slapping, hitting, and pushing.  The results of the FAST indicated that the functions of Student’s behaviors were equally to escape from demand and to access social attention.  (S-16; Hendershott VIII, 131-36. 158-59, 161).

13. On the AFLS, in school, Student demonstrated relatively intact skills with some additional assistance for applied academics.  Home results showed Student required more supports with ADLs especially with bedtime routines and going to and staying asleep.  Parent reported Student to have weak self-management skills, including difficulties following directions and rules, waiting, managing unexpected changes to routines, lack of safety awareness in the kitchen (such as checking to see if things are hot), a history of threatening to ingest medication that does not belong to him, medication refusal that at times led to escalating aggressive behavior, and lack of knowledge of who to seek out for help in the community.  Based on the AFLS, the function of Student’s disruptive behavior was to escape demands of chores and ADLs and to avoid participating in therapy.  Results of the Vineland-3 similarly indicated that Student had adequate adaptive behavior in school and moderately low adaptive behavior at home.  Communication, daily living skills, and socialization were adequate at school and low or moderately low at home (except community skills were reported as adequate)[16].  (S-16; Hendershott VIII, 142-47).

14. In-school observations showed Student was generally compliant with instructions, but he did not actively participate in academics, needed instructional prompts, put his head down at least once, and left the room for 10 minutes during social studies, although he returned with prompting.  During the unstructured after-school program, Student was more engaged, mainly with adults rather than peers, despite working at tables with peers.  While no inappropriate behaviors were observed, Student was reported to have used inappropriate profane language toward a female peer the previous day.  During the home observation, Student was involved in meal preparation, cleanup, and showering.  At first, Student did not make much eye contact with Ms. Hendershott, but he was independently preparing tacos and smoothies with multiple utensils.  He needed reminders to turn down music he was playing too loudly but complied when asked to give Parent the TV remote.  He was noted to try to put his sneakers in the refrigerator while emptying his backpack.  Student cleaned up without incident and with minimal parental support. He showered with the door open, in line with Parent’s reports.  Student did not show any aggression, inappropriate behavior, yelling, cursing, or need to be restrained throughout all observations.  (S-16; Hendershott VIII, 136-42, 159, 162).

15. With regard to the “trauma informed” aspect of the FBA, Ms. Hendershott advised on the risk factors and contraindicated behavioral procedures that could be potentially harmful to Student’s progress and behavioral health.  For instance, given Student’s history of reactive attachment disorder, he may not respond well to praise, and given his history of physical abuse, physical prompting was contraindicated.  (S-16; Hendershott VIII, 147-49).

16. Based on Student’s history of repeated hospitalizations and community-based acute treatment (CBAT) placements, Ms. Hendershott recommended  Student receive “a higher level of specialized support and intervention to prevent future instances”.  Ms. Hendershott testified that this did not mean Student required residential services, though.  Specifically, at school Ms. Hendershott recommended supervision support by a BCBA, and creating a behavior intervention plan (BIP) using a visual system to increase time on task, self-management and self-monitoring and decrease escape behaviors.  She also recommended adding a self-management goal to Student’s IEP, providing social skills support using an evidence-based curriculum, and specialized instruction in executive functioning skills for an hour a day on a 1:1 basis.  Further, given his loss of learning time due to his hospitalizations/CBAT stays, she recommended a fading extended school day plan and extended school year services if Student was not meeting academic IEP goals.  At home, Ms. Hendershott recommended Student be provided with a wraparound approach to service delivery with “clear and consistent communication between home and school service providers” this via monthly consultation among parent, school and home providers and weekly use of a home/school communication log.  Student also required direct home supports for five to ten hours per week utilizing behavior principal-based interventions (like ABA) from trained staff and focusing on ADLs and coping skills.  Further, Ms. Hendershott recommended an outpatient mental health counselor for Student, BCBA supervision and consultation an hour weekly and intensive care coordination (ICC) between outpatient, school and home providers with trauma training[17].  Finally, Ms. Hendershott recommended a BCBA- developed home behavior plan, an in-home safety plan, and an hour per week of in-home parent training with the BCBA.  (S-16; Hendershott VIII, 149-55, 157, 166).

17.  Starting with an initial intake on June 8, 2023, the family began to receive DMH PACT-Y (Program for Assertive Community Treatment for Youth), although Student left for camp shortly after this service started, to attend a 41-day therapeutic residential summer camp (Camp Wediko)[18].  Wediko’s discharge summary reflects Student’s success at that program and notably does not recommend that Student be provided with a residential placement.  Parent did not consent to PACT-Y speaking with Camp Wediko nor did she participate in family therapy there as she felt it was not “true family therapy”.  (S-18; S-37; S-42; Parent VI, 216, 228-29; Hawkins VIII, 188-89).

18. With Parent’s consent, Student began the 2023-2024 school year (sixth grade) in another extended evaluation in the District’s partial-inclusion language-based middle school program.  He was also given tutoring after school twice a week for 75 minutes.  According to both Ms. Kyra Knox, Student’s Middle School Special Education Coordinator[19] and Ms. Jennifer Caputo, Student’s sixth-grade Math special educator, advisory teacher and special education liaison[20], Student had an overall successful school year.  Academically, he accessed the curriculum and completed close to grade level work on average, with support, although he sometimes rushed through his work.  Math was a particular strength, and he was given more challenging work to keep him engaged.  Student successfully followed single and multi-step directions and was responsive to redirection, particularly when it came to putting his phone in the caddy, typical of middle school students, which was his main area of struggle with Ms. Caputo.  Student did not display any behaviors in school that indicated he required a more restrictive placement than the partial inclusion language-based program, as he did not have any aggressions, and never required restraint or discipline, although he sometimes engaged in work refusal.  Student calmly resisted attending five of his tutoring sessions after school due to not having any academic work to do those days (as he had used his academic support block to complete his work), but communicated his frustration, without dysregulation or behavioral outbursts[21].  Socially, Student had friends and had a good relationship with the School Psychologist and Ms. Knox.  He used skills and strategies he was taught, including asking for a walk to use the bathroom or to meet with Ms. Knox or the School Psychologist when he needed a break.  (S-6; S-15; Knox VII, 280, 287-89; Caputo VII, 311, 315-17, 325-28; Hawkins VIII, 185, 189).

19. Throughout the 2023-2024 school year, Ms. Knox communicated frequently with Parent who informed her that Student continued to be aggressive at home.  At times Parent discontinued some of Student’s in-home services and had declined a proposed therapeutic mentor in favor of waiting for a Black therapeutic mentor.  Eventually, Student began receiving services from Wayside.  Parent also refused to consent to the District communicating with in-home providers due to poor past experiences in providing such consent.  While Parent never provided consent to communicate, Parent did provide permission for a Wayside therapeutic mentor to pick student up from school.  (Knox VII, 284-887, 291-92, 298; Caputo VII, 322).

20. Between June and September 2023, Parent pursued an independent neuropsychological and educational assessment from Boston Child Study Center (BCSC).  The October 27, 2023 report, presented to the District, indicates that BCSC performed a record review, clinical interview of Student and Parent at home, and observed Student in four classes on September 28, 2023.  Student was found to need individualized academic supports in the areas of reading comprehension, math and writing.  While Student was socially motivated and engaged without any inappropriate behavior, appropriately addressing his learning needs would involve a “difficult balance between accessing the types of learning supports generally available in sub separate classrooms, and the social opportunities available in mainstream classrooms”.  Further, his school behavior was in sharp contrast to his home behavior.  At school, Student was “highly compliant” and “one of the better-behaved children in all the classes observed”, while at home, he was “angry, ostensibly anxious and willful around compliance”.  The evaluators inferred these differences likely created the disputed beliefs about Student’s needs, attributing his home behavioral challenges to his diagnoses of PTSD and attachment issues.  As such, more long-term and consistent supports were needed to address Student’s social emotional struggles at home as these struggles “seem[ed] to be one of the biggest impediments to [Student] receiving an appropriate education”.  That is, the home behaviors historically led to long term hospitalizations where Student was absent from school (i.e., 28 days the spring of the prior school year) which, in turn, “interfered with his ability to receive an appropriate education”.  Thus, in addition to recommending academic supports, accommodations, and an educational setting with a blend of inclusion and substantially separate environments, the evaluators also recommended that Student participate in a supervised after school homework support program and receive home supports by a trauma-informed provider to assist with social-emotional and trauma related struggles, particularly in the morning.  Finally, they recommended that if Student’s social-emotional needs at home are not sufficiently addressed so as to stop the need for ongoing hospitalizations he “will require a residential placement in order to be present to access an appropriate education”.  (P-17).

21. On October 4, 2023, the Team convened as a mid-point progress meeting for Student’s extended evaluation.  Ms. Knox, Ms. Caputo and Ms. Hawkins were in attendance.  The Team discussed that Student’s transition to that program had gone smoothly.  Parent raised concerns pertaining to Student’s continued dysregulation at home and her continued request that Student receive after school tutoring support services.  No changes were proposed to Student’s IEP at this meeting.  (S-6; Knox VII, 280-82; Caputo VII, 328-30; Hawkins VIII, 189-90). 

22. On November 3, 2023, the Team again convened to review the results of the completed extended evaluation, Ms. Hendershott’s Trauma-Informed FBA and two independent evaluations (including the BCSC evaluation)[22].  Ms. Knox, Ms. Caputo and Ms. Hawkins were again in attendance as were Parent’s attorneys.  The Team concluded that it was able to meet Ms. Hendershott’s school-based recommendations in the language-based program, and, consistent with her report, developed an IEP that continued to propose in-home supports and in-home tutoring for Student.  The Team also agreed to reconvene to further review the two independent evaluations with those evaluators in attendance, as Parent and her legal team disputed the District’s interpretation of these evaluations[23].  Given Student’s successes in school with the supports that were provided in that setting, Ms. Caputo and Ms. Hawkins believed home services would be appropriate and anticipated that if the same school-based supports could be implemented in the home environment Student would transfer what was working in school into the home setting.  Ms. Caputo also stressed that having consistent providers was critical given that Student took time to warm up and trust those who supported him in school, such as the school clinician.  Ms. Hawkins further explained that it was hard to know if home services would not be successful as Parent refused to even try them.  (S-5; Knox VII, 282-84; Caputo VII, 320-22; Hawkins VIII, 190-95).

23. On December 13, 2023, Parent partially rejected the proposed IEP.  Specifically, Parent rejected the Parent Vision Statement noting that Student still struggled at home[24], had repeated hospitalizations the prior school year and had attempted to elope at the fall open house.  She also rejected the proposed home services indicating that in-home services typically caused Student to be dysregulated, and aggressive to Parent.  Parent reiterated her request for a structured extended day small group service, instead.  Subsequently, through her attorneys, Parent agreed to pursue weekly parent training supports to provide her strategies to assist Student at home, as long as the trainer was an “independent provider”.  Despite the District believing that this trainer should be a school staff member familiar with the school’s strategies (since the purpose of the service was to assist generalizing what happens in school to the home), at the request of Parent’s attorneys, the District agreed to contract with the specific agency Ms. Hendershott recommended for this parent training.  (S-5; S-6; S-28; Mother VI 71-72; Hawkins VIII, 193-95).

24. Between December 2023 and January 2024, Parent and the District, through their respective legal counsels, pursued potential resolution of the disputes over Student’s educational needs and placement, and the appropriate interpretation of Parent’s independent evaluations (particularly the BCSC report).  Parent sought to invoke stay-put rights to a substantially separate program, but in a location other than the District.  As a resolution, the Parties agreed to send out referral packets to collaboratives and other public-school districts that had a substantially separate language-based program.  Parent also proposed several private day schools (including Clearway School in Newton (Clearway), discussed below), three of which were ultimately agreed upon.  No residential placements were requested by Parent or discussed at this time.  (S-28).

25. In February, 2024, on the day Student turned 12 years old (which is the age of eligibility for these services), DMH began to provide Student with respite home supports.  Emmanual Feraud is the Assistant Program Manager for Ives House, a group home for adolescent youth run by OpenSky Community Service (“OpenSky”), a vendor of DMH.  Mr. Feraud has worked for OpenSky for 9 years and with Student since Student began accessing OpenSky respite services.  According to Mr. Feraud, the OpenSky service notes, and the joint stipulation of the Parties, Student did not experience any episodes of aggression, property destruction, bolting, restraints, or 911 calls from OpenSky between February 2024 through November 2024.  (P-4; P-5; J-1; Feraud VII, 18-19, 21, 48, 51).

26. Student was hospitalized for almost the entire month of May 2024 (a total of 18 school days).  Ms. Knox was informed that shortly after the April vacation period (on May 5, 2025) Student had become violent and aggressive towards Parent and attempted to break down her door with a hammer.  No direct records of this hospitalization were provided at the hearing, and the District never received a discharge summary[25].  Ms. Knox attended a re-entry meeting on June 3, 2024[26].  According to Mother, Student was getting support from Wayside at that time, but these supports were limited, and she requested that the District provide occupational therapy services in her home.  According to Ms. Caputo, Student transitioned back to school without “miss[ing] a beat”.  (S-4; S-26; Mother VI 79-80; Knox VII, 285-86, 90-91, 299-302; Caputo VII, 320, 330-31; Hawkins VIII, 197).

27. During this hospitalization, the District and Parent executed the Settlement Agreement on May 9 and 14, 2024, respectively.  The Agreement called, in relevant part, for the District to fund Student’s attendance as a day student (for the regular school year and extended school year services) at Clearway, Learning Prep School, Dearborn Academy or another mutually agreed upon DESE approved special education school (the specific school to be chosen by Parent).  The Agreement covered the period beginning summer of 2024 through the summer of 2026, unless Student should suffer “an unanticipated or catastrophic illness or injury prior to August 15, 2026”.  The District and Parent agreed that the District’s funding of Student’s tuition at the selected school as a day student and provision of transportation to that school would constitute the District’s entire educational obligation to Student during the term of the Agreement.  (S-30; Mother VI, 79; Hawkins VIII, 197).

28. Student’s grades for the 2023-2024 school year ranged from average to above average.  His MCAS scores were Not Meeting Expectations in ELA, and “Absent-Medically Documented” for Math.  Student met the decoding goal on his June 18, 2024 Progress Reports.  He continued to progress on his executive function goals but had yet to meet all the objectives, and the hospitalization prohibited sufficient data from being reported for the last term on his comprehension, written language and math goals (although he was on track to meet his comprehension goal prior to his hospitalization).  For Student’s counseling goal, there were ongoing concerns both at school and home related to comprehension of appropriate technology usage and his efforts in both settings to circumvent rules and limits placed on use of technology (consistent with the June 3, 2024 re-entry Team meeting notes).  Student struggled both with ceasing to use technology when requested and attempting to access inappropriate content.  Although Student voiced his frustration with technology issues, even at times using inappropriate language, the progress report stressed that he did not engage in physical aggressions or elopement behaviors in school[27], unlike at home.  Student was also compliant with the restriction on using a Chromebook, and the instructions to turn his phone in during school.  (S-4; S-25; S-26; Caputo VII, 317-20).

29. On June 18, 2024, PACT-Y and DMH met with Parent due to difficulties PACT-Y was having providing support to Student that it claimed was “due to various barriers including lack of trust from the client’s parent”.  Based on information PACT-Y shared with DCF during an open investigation, throughout its work with the family, Parent had restricted PACT-Y from working with Student in a variety of settings, contrary to their support model, including limiting PACT-Y from communicating with Camp Wediko or the District.  PACT-Y also believed that difficulties with Parent “got in the way of preventing [Student’s] decompensation and subsequent hospitalization” in May of 2024.  At the conclusion of the meeting, it was decided that services from PACT-Y would discontinue, and DMH would instead make a referral to Youth Villages to begin providing family services.  Student would also continue to receive respite support at Ives House.  Youth Villages services started in July 2024.  (S-36; S-42; S-43).

30. Parent ultimately selected Clearway, and an IEP originally dated May 7, 2024 to May 6, 2025 was amended and fully accepted  by Parent on June 21, 2024, providing for Student to receive extended school year (ESY) services from Clearway commencing July 1, 2024, and thereafter to be placed at Clearway for the 2024-2025 school year (Clearway IEP).  Clearway provided language-based academic supports but was not a therapeutic school.  Unlike the District’s language-based program, which had two program psychologists, a school adjustment counselor, and three other counselors on staff to support all students at the school daily, no similar supports existed at Clearway.  Clearway initially communicated this limitation to the District when it received the referral by email and offered to speak with the District further about the referral.  Clearway was concerned that Student’s primary area of need was social-emotional, noting that it only had “teachers who served as case managers, a school clinician who ran groups, and staff trained in collaborative problem-solving” as social-emotional supports for its students.  Clearway advised it did not consider itself “therapeutic” nor did it offer 1:1 therapy in school, a behavior specialist or even extensive “timeaway [sic] spaces”.  Based on a follow up conversation with Ms. Hawkins, Clearway ultimately accepted Student[28].  (S-2; S-3; S-32; S-42; Mother VI 78-79, 81; Hawkins VIII, 198-99).

31. Student transitioned smoothly to Clearway in summer 2024 with no absences, but early in the 2024–2025 school year he experienced significant peer conflicts. On September 3, 2024, he drew on a male peer (X) and made an obscene gesture, resulting in an in-school suspension the next day.  On September 4, 2024, Student told a friend (Y) that he wanted to stab a female peer (Z) who had ended their “dating” relationship and threatened to kill Y if she told anyone.  He received a one-day out-of-school suspension the next day, a safety plan was created, his phone and Chromebook were restricted through September 23, 2024, and Mother was required to drive him home.  During that ride, Student emailed Clearway staff expressing a desire to repair peer relationships and made self-harm statements.  On September 5, 2024, Student’s Google account was also suspended for posting an inappropriate message on a Google classroom[29].  (P-14; Mother VI, 82-84; Hawkins VIII, 200, 214). 

32. In October 2024, the Team convened a progress meeting to discuss Student’s struggles at Clearway.  An in-home therapist (IHT) from Youth Villages attended this Team meeting with the family. This was the first Team meeting of the 2024-2025 school year, although Student had already been hospitalized twice that year, as discussed below.  Ms. Hawkins explained that prior Team meetings had not been convened as the District and Parent were proceeding in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.  While Clearway did not officially terminate Student from its program, it advised that it could not meet Student’s needs.  Thus, the Team agreed to explore a therapeutic day program for Student, and packets were sent out to five therapeutic schools.  Eventually, Student was accepted at Dr. Franklin Perkins Day School (Perkins) as discussed below.  (P-12; S-2; S-42; Mother VI, 91-92; Hawkins VIII, 200, 203-04, 214-18, 239, 242).

33. Dr. Rober Andler has been Student’s Pediatrician for the last 3 to 4 years[30].  He considers Student to be one of the most challenging cases he has encountered given the range of needs that he presents.  Despite counseling supports, medication management, and in-home therapies, Student continues to have significant struggles particularly at home, having required frequent visits to the emergency room.  (P-33; Andler VIII, 105-07).

34. On November 25, 2024, Dr. Andler wrote a letter recommending that Student be placed at a residential school to instruction and support “24 hours a day” so that he can receive an appropriate education.  Dr. Andler explained that Student had “failed years of outpatient management”, and there were “significant safety concerns” for both Student and Mother, particularly over the past 2 months, as well as “ongoing behavioral and safety challenges at home and frequent hospitalizations keeping him out of school”.  The letter also noted Student’s diagnoses of ADHD, PTSD, and Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder.  Dr. Andler believed Student’s hospitalizations during that fall had been more frequent than in the first two years he had known him.  He was particularly concerned with the hospitalization in October 2024 that had occurred after what he understood was an attempted medication overdose[31], as this caused concern about Student’s safety and impulsiveness.  According to Dr. Andler, a residential school would provide Student with greater therapeutic consistency beyond the school day, would remove Student from the home which was a “trigger location” for him, and would be better able to manage Student’s behavior and provide him with an education than a psychiatric hospital.  Further, it was Dr. Andler’s understanding that Student was unable to participate in school when he was hospitalized.  (P-11; Andler VIII, 107-14).

35. Doctor Andler confirmed that his information was all based on reports of Parent and Student when they visited him in his office and the hospital discharge summaries he reviewed[32].  Dr. Andler never spoke with either the District or Perkins or observed Student at home or at Ives House.  He also never personally witnessed any behavioral aggression by Student nor had direct knowledge of what occurred before or after any of the behavioral incidents that resulted in Student’s hospitalizations.  Additionally, while Dr. Andler was aware from Parent’s report that she had in home therapists with whom Student reportedly did not engage, he never spoke to any home providers, nor was he aware if Parent had ever refused home services, or the consistency of home services and providers.  (Andler VIII, 110-12, 117-21).

36. The hospitalization immediately preceding Dr. Andler’s letter occurred on November 19, 2024 after Student aggressed towards Mother and his Youth Villages therapist with a hammer.  After this incident, Student’s Youth Villages’ therapist was changed[33].  Police were called, and when they arrived, Student aggressed towards the police officers by kicking them, whereupon he was transported to Newton Wellesley Hospital (NWH).  Student was ultimately transitioned to a Youth Community Crisis Stabilization (YCCS) facility in Walpole on November 25, 2024, prior to returning home.  According to the December 13, 2024 Discharge Summary from YCCS, IHT was a “big trigger” for Student, and it would “typically lead[] to dysregulation when they arrive”.  At the time of discharge, YCCS was aware of Student’s plan to transfer to Perkins.  The Discharge Summary noted that Student’s primary unsafe behaviors occurred in the home, and, although Parent had indicated a desire for Student to have a residential educational placement, it recommended that if Student continued to be unsuccessful at home with the intensive IHT Youth Villages services, Parent should explore a CRA (Child Requiring Assistance application in the Juvenile Court) to access available residential supports through other agencies, like DCF, that that process provides.  Additionally, it indicated that Parent declined DMH’s offer of “exploring a long-term out-of-home residential center” due to “not wanting [Student] to be placed out of the home for extensive periods of time”.  DCF records relating to a contemporaneous 51A investigation filed while Student was still at NWH indicated that at that time, DMH advised DCF that it did not believe Student required residential care.  They also indicated that NWH had encouraged Mother to file a CRA.  (P-12; P-13; S-27; S-42).

37. On November 27, 2024, Parent’s attorneys contacted the District’s attorney to inform her that Student’s circumstances had changed since execution of the Settlement Agreement.  Based on Dr. Andler’s recommendation (provided to the District), Parent requested that the District fund a residential educational program for Student.  In her November 12, 2024 email to her attorneys explaining her desire to request a residential placement[34], Parent indicated that,

 “[Student] is not getting any better.  All these years later and it’s the same thing day after day…. Nothing works….  I talked to [Student] about it over the weekend.  I told him I’m concerned for our safety and what would he think about going back to residential school where he could be home 3 nights and at school 4 nights.  He said okay….”. 

According to Parent, she had told the District, DMH, DCF and her “new providers” that she fears Student will accidentally kill her and then have to live with that for the rest of his life, particularly as he grows and becomes stronger[35]. (S-39; Mother VI, 322-24, 346-47; Hawkins VIII, 201-03).

38. On December 19, 2024, Parent accepted a revised Placement Page that reflected Student’s attendance at Perkins commencing January 6, 2025 (Perkins IEP).  (S-1).

39. On December 20, 2024, Student became significantly dysregulated at home and assaultive towards Parent, which caused her to call the police.  Using a bar that was to be installed in the shower for support, he banged on Parent’s locked door and then his own locked door putting a hole in the door.  With police present, he grabbed the family cat and a “ball peen hammer” and sat on the couch squeezing the cat and holding the hammer.  Despite prior instructions to Parent to hide access to potential weapons, and lock medication, Student also found unknown pills, ibuprofen and THC gummies inside a couch pocket[36].  Police were able to remove all these items and decided to send Student to Milford Hospital, to be admitted via a Section 12 procedure due to his dysregulation.  Upon arriving at the hospital, however, Student was not found to need hospital-level care, was discharged, and went to the Ives House respite home.  At Ives House, Student began punching the walls in his bedroom making a small hole.  Student refused his evening medications but remained in his room until he fell asleep.  (P-5; P-51; S-42; Mother VI, 107-08).

40. Student’s December 20, 2024 behavior at Ives House was the first dysregulated behavior by Student at a respite home.  Between December 20, 2024, and June 9, 2025, Student increasingly engaged in property destruction; throwing of furniture and objects at walls and staff; aggression towards staff; eloping to the corner store to buy food without permission; disrespect to staff and peers; vulgarity; name-calling; and disobeying program rules and instructions at Ives House.  Between December 20, 2024 and March 31, 2025, the dysregulation occurred sporadically with increased severity and intensity in March 2025 (although the dysregulation in February 2025 was primarily instigated by another peer).  Between April 30, 2025 and June 9, 2025, the dysregulation occurred on at least a weekly basis.  While Student engaged in and completed Ives House’s required “repairs” necessary to regain “normal” status, on some days, despite having completed repairs, he became dysregulated anew, resulting in having more repairs, such that he did not regain normal status that day.  Additionally, due to Student’s dysregulation, he was restrained at Ives House eleven times between December 30, 2024 and May 27, 2025, sometimes multiple times during a shift[37]. (P-4; P-5; Feraud VII, 24-43).

41. Student began attending Dr. Franklin Perkins School (“Perkins”) on January 6, 2025.  Prior to starting, on January 3, 2025, Ms. Alisha Vargo-Wood, the Clinician at Perkins[38], had a pre-admission meeting with Mother, during which they completed a Risk Assessment wholly based on Mother’s report.  Student was reported to be high risk for runaway/bolting, verbal threats, threat with weapons, physical aggression, sexual commentary/behaviors/concerns, cutting/self-injury, suicidal ideation/ gesturing/attempt, psychiatric hospitalizations, preoccupation with violence/death, theft, poor boundaries, animal cruelty.  Ms. Vargo-Wood no longer considers Student to be high risk in these areas.  (P-29; Vargo-Wood VI, 166-69, 198).

42. The first two weeks of Student’s transition to Perkins were difficult, with substantial aggression and property damage that resulted in multiple restraints and closed-door-timeouts. On January 10, 2025, Parent was called to pick up Student as he remained dysregulated near the end of the school day, making it unsafe to transport him home on the school bus[39].  Ms. Vargo-Wood described Student’s behavior during this time as a “high level of intensity”.  Ms. Hawkins was informed about the restraints and contacted Perkins to discuss them.  She learned Student was struggling with transitioning, cell phone restrictions and following staff directions.  Despite the restraints, Ms. Hawkins felt Student had the appropriate supports in place at Perkins.  (P-29; Vargo-Wood VI, 169-70, 180; Hawkins VIII, 228-29).

43. Perkins issues incident reports for every instance of student dysregulation.  There are 3 levels of incident reports used:  Standard, for routine disruption or dysregulation; Critical I, for situations where a restraint or closed-door time out occurs; and Critical II, for situations that are at a higher level and involve the police or a bigger injury.  Student had 12 incident reports (one day had 2 incident reports and another day had 5) between January 10, 2025 and January 23, 2025 (7 school days), half of which were Standard and half of which were Critical I.  No incident reports were issued after January 23, 2025.  (P-29; Vargo-Wood VI, 171, 204-06).

44. Perkins follows the Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) de-escalation and restraint  program.  Restraints are a last resort but are used whenever there are situations involving an immediate danger to self or others.  Between January 10, 2025 and January 23, 2025, Student was restrained six times and had three closed-door timeouts.  Per Perkins policy and practice, whenever a student is restrained or involved in a closed-door timeout situation, the student must debrief with a clinician when the restraint or time-out event is over.  Student has not had to debrief with Ms. Vargo-Wood since January 23, 2025.  (P-29; Vargo-Wood VI, 172-76, 195).

45. DCF records reflect that during a call on January 17, 2025, Parent informed DCF she did not like the successor Youth Villages therapist assigned to her after the November 19, 2024 incident, and that she had stated previously during an in-home DCF visit on December 27, 2024 that she did not want to work with the new therapist, preferring to wait for a male therapist.  During an interagency meeting also on January 17, 2025 DMH confirmed the Youth Villages services would be changing as they were not working.  After they were officially closed out on January 21, 2025, DMH funded a new therapeutic support by Riverside (Josh and Nate) and a case manager (Tre). The goal of the new services was to reduce behavior at Perkins and in the home.  Parent also began services with The Attachment Institute around this time, although on February 20, 2025, she informed DCF that she had only had one visit with this support.  The following day, Student’s new case manager (Tre) advised DCF that he had only met with Parent twice and had yet to meet Student. 

DCF records indicate DMH continued to fund respite support for Student during this period.  In January 2025, Student attended respite four nights per week, from Sundays through Thursdays, but this was reduced to three days a week starting in February 2025 and further decreased to two nights a week in March 2025.  When it was cut to two nights a week, DMH again offered to provide Parent and Student with intensive in-home therapeutic supports (referred to as IHBTC), as they knew Parent was not accessing services at The Attachment Institute.  However, Parent declined, insisting on residential services only and claiming that intensive in-home supports had been in place for the past eight years and did not work. (S-36; S-42; Mother VI, 215-16, 251, 261-66. 280-88; Smith VIII, 70-72, 76).

46. On January 27, 2025, Student was again admitted to NWH for two days.  While at the hospital, Student became physically dysregulated, requiring a physical and medical restraint, whereupon he calmed and remained calm.  In discussing what occurred, Student advised that he had wanted to go home and was “unable to control himself amidst his heightened distress”.  He also informed NWH that he did not like transitioning weekly between the respite group home and his home and wanted to reside in one location for a long period of time.  (S-27).

47.  On January 31, 2025, based upon a screened in 51A Report filed with DCF after the December 20, 2024, incident discussed supra, a DCF case was opened and assigned to Social Worker Abby Smith to complete the initial 45-day assessment[40].  Ms. Smith has worked as a Social Worker in the Family Assessment and Action Plan Unit for DCF for two and a half years.  Between January and May 2025, Ms. Smith met with the family monthly and communicated with Parent by phone and email.   (Parent also emailed her several times before the initial visit.)  Ms. Smith also communicated with Perkins staff (primarily Ms. Vargo-Wood), in-home service providers, Student’s psychiatrist, DMH staff and OpenSky respite staff.  Ms. Smith found Parent to be open, honest, and communicative.  She signed releases and allowed Ms. Smith to communicate directly with all other entities.  Ms. Smith stopped working with the family on May 20, 2025 after completing a Family Action Plan (that determined the case should remain open) covering the period of May 6, 2025 through November 6, 2025.  Parent signed and accepted the Family Action Plan on May 16, 2025.  Ms. Smith has not communicated with the family since, although she has been informed of service updates from the subsequent DCF case worker, as the case remains open. (P-51; Smith VIII, 16-26, 28-29, 43).

48. During the initial home visit with Ms. Smith on January 31, 2025, Student became dysregulated and aggressive when the family cat scratched him, and he attacked the cat by throwing “household items” at it.  When Parent instructed Student to go to his room, he threw items at her too and tried to choke her with a blanket.  He then made smoothies for Parent and Ms. Smith to apologize.  However, DCF has never felt that Student’s behavior or the situation at home warranted taking custody of Student.  On April 4, 2025, Ms. Smith met with DMH Supervisors without Parent present and DMH questioned if DCF intended to take custody based on DMH’s concerns that Parent had fired and been “inappropriate” with clinicians in the past, as well as Parent’s ongoing health needs.  Ms. Smith explained that DCF’s decision not to take custody was based on the family’s strengths, including the close bond between Mother and Student.  DCF was concerned that taking custody would “cause strain”.  Further, Parent was cooperating with all DCF recommendations.  Ms. Smith testified that taking custody was an extreme measure and a “last resort” if a parent could not keep a child safe at home, which was never the case for Parent and Student.  (P-48; P-51; Mother VI, 112-14; Smith VIII, 29-30, 33-34, 82-83).

49. During the time Ms. Smith worked with the family, Student was hospitalized three times: on January 27, 2025 for two days due to making inappropriate sexual noises, wiping feces on Mother, and attempting to break down her door; on February 14, 2025 for ten days due to aggressing towards Mother in response to her trying to discipline Student for not completing his chores, by wrestling her, throwing objects, stealing her phone and spraying her face with hand sanitizer until she called the police; and on March 31, 2025 for one month from his respite home, as discussed below.  Student has not been hospitalized since returning home from this hospitalization on April 30, 2025.  (P-27; P-49; P-50; P-51; S-42; Smith VIII, 27, 33, 58-59, 91; Hawkins VIII, 206).

50. In February 2025, Ms. Vargo-Wood administered the BASC-3 to Student (who completed the rating scales independently), Mother and a Perkins teacher.  She also completed a clinical observation of Student and documented the results in a Clinical Psychosocial dated March 10, 2025.  Mother’s and the teacher’s responses identified similar areas of clinical significance including hyperactivity, aggression, conduct problems and attention problems.  Student also endorsed hyperactivity and attention problems, among other clinically significant concerns.  Ms. Vargo-Wood interpreted this to mean that consistent concerns existed at home and school, which reflected primarily externalizing problems.  Further, although Student’s answers showed he was at-risk for anxiety, both Parent and teacher scored anxiety in the typical range.  Ms. Vargo-Wood concluded that Student required a trauma sensitive therapeutic school environment with structure and consistency throughout the day, smaller student to staff ratios, planned transitions, clear rules and expectations, social skills models and a strengths-based philosophy.  She also recommended a slower pace for academic success, a daily search protocol to assist with transition to and from school, and consistent school-based clinical supports to address emotional regulation, safety and to increase his social skills competencies.  She noted the “vital” importance of continuing wrap-around supports outside of school including those provided by respite, DCF, and DMH and the essential need for collaboration among all providers to ensure “optimum success”.  (P-29; Vargo-Wood VI, 182-87,195-96).

51. On March 31, 2025, Student was significantly dysregulated, engaging in significant property damage and assault towards Ives House staff, necessitating them to call the police[41].  Student remained non-compliant, exhibited aggression after the police arrived, and was transported to UMass Hospital where he was admitted and then transferred to Valley Springs in Holyoke, before ultimately transitioning home via a five-day stay at YCCS in Chicopee, Massachusetts.  This was the first and only time Student was hospitalized from somewhere other than his home and Student’s last hospitalization prior to the Hearing.  (P-4; S-27; Feraud VII, 34-39).

52. During a home visit with Ms. Smith, on March 13, 2025, Parent advised that she was considering a CRA for Student.  According to DCF records, a CRA was again recommended by Valley Springs during a provider meeting on April 15, 2025[42].  This CRA recommendation was made in response to Parent’s frustration that Valley Springs was recommending that Student, who had done well without any behavioral aggressions while hospitalized, step down to YCCS rather than to an intensive residential treatment program (IRTP) as had first been discussed when Student arrived at Valley Springs.  (S-42).

53. At the time Ms. Smith started working with the family, Student had only recently begun receiving the supports of his Therapeutic Mentor (Nate).  During the time Ms. Smith worked with the family, the only provider change she was aware of was Student’s psychiatrist.  On March 3, 2025, Ms. Smith’s supervisor submitted a referral for DCF to contract with family support and stabilization (FSS) emergency services.  Ms. Smith explained that FSS is a higher-level intensive support service intended to be a short-term support, with the providers initially working with the family to identify needs and assisting with completing referrals to community-based services that accept the family’s insurance.  Ultimately, Mount Prospect Academy (MPA) was assigned as the contracted agency, and a Family Support Plan was developed by Ms. Smith.  This plan calls for Parent, among other things, to “engage with FSS through [MPA], engage in any recommended services, obtain any additional therapeutic services for [Student] as needed”, “engage in individual therapy to manage stress”, and “work with in home services to set appropriate boundaries with [Student] to develop de-escalation skills if [Student] becomes aggressive, and safety plan for any incidents”.  On April 2, 2025 MPA began to provide in-home support to Parent and Student. MPA was to report on progress in all areas.  Both MPA and the Therapeutic Mentor continued to support the family through the hearing dates.  (P-51; S-42; Smith VIII, 21, 32-37, 86-87, 90-94).

54. On July 2, 2025, MPA issued a Treatment Summary identifying significant events between April 1 and June 26, 2025, summarizing progress on its therapeutic goals, and noting a planned discharge date of July 2, 2025[43].  Satisfactory progress was reported on all three goals, and the services of family counseling (occurring twice a week), individual counseling with Student (occurring “intermittently”) and Parent Skills Training (occurring weekly) were all reported as “somewhat effective”.  The report indicates that although Student was assigned a community-based in-home therapy (IHT) clinician on June 20, 2025, Parent declined this service “until Student was enrolled in a residential program” as it would cause DMH services to cease upon its start.  Further, while Student had not been hospitalized since the start of MPA services, Parent called 911 on June 14, 2025 due to Student’s aggressive behaviors which were not ameliorated by “co-regulation strategies”.  Student was able to de-escalate after the police arrived and did not require hospitalization. No further aggressive or behavioral dysregulation was noted.  (P-52).

55. Student continues to receive respite care support at Ives House at least twice a week[44].  Student has not required a restraint since May 27, 2025.  In addition, since June 9, 2025 (after a visit from his DCF social worker and participating in group), Student has not exhibited any of intense dysregulated behaviors he had exhibited between December 30, 2024 and June 9, 2025.  (P-4; P-5; Feraud VII, 52-53, 55-57).

56. Since beginning to attend Perkins, Student has been absent only when hospitalized  for illness, or for an independent educational evaluation.  Student’s dysregulation at home that have not resulted in hospitalizations do not impact Student during the subsequent school day, and Student has been able to transition back from hospitalizations without any challenges.  He also smoothly transitioned to a new classroom this school year.  (P-29; Vargo-Wood VI, 182, 190-91, 197-98, 206).

57. Since attending Perkins, Student has both regularly scheduled meetings with Ms. Vargo-Wood as well as check-ins as needed.  However, Student has not needed any additional check-ins beyond his scheduled service time since the initial two-week transition period.  According to both the April 2025 Progress Report prepared by Ms. Vargo-Wood as well as her testimony, Student has, albeit hesitatingly, been engaging in counseling services.  Ms. Vargo-Wood describes Student as “guarded” but “compliant” with counseling, always completing the clinical check-in form, although only sometimes providing more than minimal responses.  (S-26; Vargo-Wood VI, 189-90, 193-94).

58.  Since the initial two-week transition time at Perkins, Student’s social emotional and behavioral dysregulation needs have decreased significantly.  According to Ms. Vargo-Wood, Student “is doing really well within the [Perkins] setting”; he responds well to the structure and routine; and can typically engage and participate appropriately.  Although sometimes impulsive or silly and sneaky with candy[45], he is always responsive to redirection (which occurs very rarely) and, with prompting, can utilize learned skills and strategies of asking for breaks if he needs space.  Ms. Vargo-Wood described Student as needing average to less than average clinical support during the school day but noted that he required redirection when he poked and covered the eyes of the therapy dog recently whereupon he immediately complied with her instructions to stop.

Perkins offers Student daily morning check-ins with Ms. Vargo-Wood or another clinician (to say “Hi”), a bag search (for candy), structured breaks, use of fidgets, and academic support from either the teacher or teacher assistant.  However, Ms. Vargo-Wood finds that the most effective support for Student is consistency in routines, expectations and responses to potential dysregulation.  (Vargo-Wood VI, 188-89, 192, 194-95, 197, 201).

59. Perkins’ interactions with Student’s home service providers have typically occurred only as part of large provider meetings.  Parent also sends email updates to Perkins and other service providers, but generally only Ives House staff.  Ms. Vargo-Wood has consent to speak with DCF and DMH but has had trouble getting calls back from these providers.  Additionally, a few weeks prior to the hearing, Parent requested to exclude the District from all daily email updates.  Ms. Vargo-Wood believes it would be beneficial for her or another staff member of Perkins to have direct (not through Parent) weekly email or phone calls with the providers who consistently support Student at home.  In this way, the approaches and skills that seem to be working in the school setting can be shared and generalized to the home environment.  Additionally, this will facilitate collaboration, information sharing and consistency of therapeutic approaches.  (Vargo-Wood VI, 196-97, 200, 207-11).

60. Dr. Julie Weineth is a Pediatric Neuropsychologist employed with Neuropsychology and Education Services for Children and Adolescents (NESCA) since February 2025[46].  Parent hired Dr. Weineth to conduct an independent evaluation of Student in May and June of 2025 and to prepare a report.  She was aware that Parent was seeking a residential educational placement from a BSEA due process hearing prior to beginning her evaluation.  (P-34; P-45; Weineth VII, 63, 68, 70-71, 126).

61. Dr. Weineth reviewed Student’s prior test results, particularly his 2022 privately funded neuropsychological evaluation, Ms. Hendershott’s Trauma Informed FBA, hospital records, OpenSky service records, Perkins records, DCF records and pleadings from a prior BSEA proceeding she was given by Parent’s attorneys.  Her intake interview with Parent lasted approximately one hour.  Dr. Weineth also spent 6 hours with Student administering standardized assessments and approximately an hour and a half each observing Student at Perkins and at Ives House.  (P-30; Weineth VII, 71-74, 126-129).

62. Dr. Weineth noted that Student’s developmental and complex trauma history has led him to struggle with PTSD and ADHD since the age of 6, resulting in the “very significant challenges across settings” Student experienced in the 2024-2025 school year.  (Weineth VII, 76-78).

63. Student willingly participated in the evaluation and complied with all directions.  He showed no aggression during the assessment.  Cognitively, on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition, Student performed overall below average with a Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ) of 77.  (As compared to his score on the 2022 evaluation, Student’s verbal comprehension, visual spatial and working memory scores were higher, but his fluid reasoning decreased significantly from 94 to 74).  Academically, on selected subtests of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Fourth Edition, Student demonstrated solid foundational skills in reading, writing and math, but the higher-level skills of numerical operations (73), math problem solving (72), essay composition (76), and reading comprehension (74) were below average.  Student’s language processing of basic information was also average, but he scored a 67 on Oral Discourse Comprehension, a more complex language skill measuring listening comprehension.  Since this score was obtained in a distraction-free closed testing environment this reflects the significant challenges Student would have being able to follow directions in an environment with greater distractions and language.  Thus, Dr. Weineth explained that when Student is dysregulated and his trauma responses and anxiety are heightened, his ability to process oral information is even further reduced. 

Student’s Visual Spatial processing on the Rey Complex Figure Test was in the very low range scoring below the first percentile, and his executive function testing also revealed a score of below the second percentile on the NEPSY, Second Edition (NEPSY-II) for auditory attention.  Further, according to Dr. Weineth, both Parent and Student’s responses to the BRIEF-2 revealed a clinically elevated global executive composite rating indicating that Student requires a very high level of support to regulate his emotions and behaviors and to focus on academic work.

Student’s social emotional functioning was assessed with the NEPSY-II, the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS), the Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC), the Beck Youth Inventories-2^nd edition (BECK-2), and the BASC-3 questionnaires[47]. 

Student’s anxiety scores varied among the different assessments.  BECK-2 results were in the extremely elevated range, while Parent, Teacher and Student’s ratings on the BASC-3[48] and Student’s own ratings on the TSCC did not indicate an area of concern with anxiety[49].  However, based on Student’s responses to the BECK-2, Dr. Weineth opined that Student was experiencing significant worry and anxiety fears, a change since Ms. Marineau’s testing.  In light of his trauma history, this anxiety could lead to behavioral manifestations.  Since Student usually attempts to manage his anxiety by trying to control situations, when limits are set on his attempts to do this, it will lead to trauma-based responses and dysregulation.  Based on the consistency in the BASC-3 results between both Parent and Teacher responses and Perkins testing a few months prior, it appears Student’s anxiety issues exist both at home and at respite.  Dr. Weineth concluded that Student’s overall social emotional functioning is characterized by this extreme anxiety and severe emotional and behavioral dysregulation across settings.  In her opinion, Student’s current success at school is due to the high level of structure and support in that setting which he is unable to generalize across settings.  She added that he continues to struggle with ADHD and learning disabilities in all settings. 

Student’s adaptive functioning on Dr. Weineth’s evaluation was assessed via rating scales completed by Parent, Teacher and an OpenSky staff member.  His General Adaptive Composite was rated at low average by Parent (80) and Teacher (84) and extremely low by OpenSky (69).  According to Dr. Weineth, these scores reflect Student’s adaptive needs across settings.  (P-30; Weineth VII, 79-102, 129, 137-39).

64. On June 16, 2025, Dr. Weineth observed Student at Perkins and Ives House.  She also spoke with Student’s Counselor and Teacher at Perkins during the observation and a week later with one of the Ives House staff present at her observation.  She did not do a home observation or contact Student’s home therapist as Mother offered, because she felt that her clinical interview with Mother and a record review made that unnecessary.  Student was engaged, animated, cooperative at school, smiled, and sought interactions with peers and adults.  (This is in contrast to his guarded, flat affect in the testing environment during her evaluation of him.)  He followed teachers’ directions, worked quickly, and was interested in what he could do next.  At Ives House, however, Student did not follow instructions to turn in his cell phone upon arrival, choosing to face a later consequence for not following this rule.  He also disregarded rules about asking permission to go upstairs or waiting in sight of staff to go downstairs and struggled to hand over a piece of plastic with which he was scratching himself.  While at times Student appeared restless and fidgety, he did not display any aggression and was engaged and communicative with staff.  In her subsequent staff conversation, Dr. Weineth learned that Student’s engagement that day was atypical, but his noncompliance with rules was typical.  Despite Ives House reporting to Dr. Weineth that Student required physical management or restraint weekly there, the OpenSky records she reviewed did not support this.  (P-30; Weineth VII, 102-09, 142-44, 154-55).

65. Dr. Weineth found Student to continue to meet the criteria for diagnoses of Developmental Complex Trauma, ADHD, PTSD, and returned to an earlier diagnosis of Disruptive Mood Disorder.  She concluded that Student was not making meaningful progress with his current educational programming and supports across all areas of need, including social, emotional, adaptive functioning and executive functioning.  Although he was currently doing well at school, this was contingent on high levels of adult support and structure, and high levels of staffing were necessary to ensure his safety[50].  Dr. Weineth explained that since being restrained was a traumatic experience for Student, it was not surprising that his anxiety was high when he experienced multiple restraints.  Such interactions also interrupted Student’s learning[51].  Further, since Student was struggling to follow basic directions outside school, he could not be expected to follow more complex directions such as limit setting.  (P-30; Weineth VII, 75, 112-13, 116-18).

66. As a result, Dr. Weineth recommended a structured therapeutic residential placement for Student until his behaviors outside the school setting stabilized.  In her view, a high level of structure and intervention was necessary to reach the goal of improving Student’s behavior over time.  Dr. Weineth explained that “adding one level of home-based services” would not be sufficient to support Parent and Student properly when Student’s episodes of behavioral dysregulation occur because there is no assurance the support would be present when that happened.  She also disregarded Student’s success with PACT-Y services, focusing instead on Student’s highly unsafe behaviors outside of school, at both home and his respite house, (including threatening animals), and on Parent’s inability to manage these behaviors other than hiding in her bedroom, which had proven unsuccessful.  She continued that unlike staff in a therapeutic setting, Parent could not restrain Student, although even restraint did not work to change Student’s behaviors at Ives House.  Dr. Weineth confirmed she would still recommend a residential placement even if Student had months of relative calmness following her evaluation, since this calmness would have occurred during the summer or first few weeks of the school year when demands were less.  Further, as his significant struggles had occurred for an entire year prior to her evaluation, they interrupted his ability to learn due to being out of school for extended periods of time. Finally, Dr. Weineth believes Student is currently at high risk having reached adolescence where it is harder to manage behaviors.  (P-30; Weineth VII, 114-15, 118-19, 123-24, 145-48, 155-63).

67. Dr. Craig Murphy is a Clinical Psychologist and Clinical Director of a 766-approved therapeutic day school in Massachusetts with a private practice consulting to both school districts and parents[52].  Dr. Murphy was hired by the District to perform a structured file review and a program observation of Perkins.  Parent did not consent to any evaluation of Student or to Dr. Murphy communicating with Student or Parent or any of Student’s respite or home-based providers.  Dr. Murphy did not prepare any report of his work.  (Murphy VII, 217-19, 242-43, 257-58).

68. When Dr. Murphy observed Perkins, Student was participating in English and Gym classes.  He was alert, engaged, and did not display any challenging or disrespectful behaviors.  There were 6 students in English, and 4 students in Gym, each with a 2:1 staffing ratio.  Dr. Murphy found the program to be appropriately structured, and supported to meet Student’s needs, scaffolding instruction with preview and review of material.  (Murphy VII, 220-24).

69. Dr. Murphy’s structured file review included Dr. Weineth’s evaluation, a prior MGH neuropsychological evaluation, Ms. Hendershott’s Trauma Informed FBA, DCF records, DMH reports about PACT-Y and family supports, Perkins documents, and information from the Cambridge Health Alliance the District provided to him.  Overall, Dr. Murphy found Student to be “incredibly resilient”, and similar to Ms. Hendershott and Dr. Weineth, he concluded that Student’s trauma-based PTSD and attachment needs stemmed from his history of early abuse and neglect followed by years of multiple foster home placements until being adopted, and then increased hospitalizations and behavioral safety concerns, particularly at home.  Further, despite involvement with numerous outside providers to support Student’s home-based behavioral needs, the records indicated past difficulty in consistently maintaining providers, at times due to their not being well-received by Parent.  A period of stability occurred starting in 2023 when the “all hands-on approach” involving PACT-Y services was put in place by DMH.  Dr. Murphy opined that the changes and increased dysregulation Student experienced starting in September 2024 were the result of the instability re-introduced when the PACT-Y services ended (particularly as they ended with tension and animosity) in conjunction with Student’s transition to Clearway, which did not provide him with sufficient therapeutic supports to address his social-emotional and behavioral needs and functioning.  (Murphy VII, 225-34).

70. According to Dr. Murphy, Student’s clinical profile has not changed since the 2023-2024 school year, nor have his diagnoses, and he has historically needed frequent hospitalizations when he is substantially dysregulated.  The fact that Student was hospitalized over 80 days last school year, while certainly a serious concern, does not necessarily evidence a “change” in his condition or diagnosis from the prior school year.  What was important, explained Dr. Murphy, was rather to understand what other changes in Student’s life contributed to them.  According to Dr. Murphy, these changes involved the removal of both school and home therapeutic supports that Student needed to make effective progress.  (Murphy VII, 234-36, 267-69).

71. Considering Student’s complex needs, particularly his issues with trauma and attachment, his successes at Perkins and with the PACT-Y services, as well as Dr. Murphy’s experience with students with similar profiles, Dr. Murphy recommended, reinstating the “full court press” of consistent intensive wrap-around therapeutic services in the home environment before Student undergoes yet another transition to a residential setting[53].  However, if intensive consistent wrap-around supports were reinstated and Student continued to exhibit high levels of unsafe behavior, then residential placement should be considered.  Dr. Murphy emphasized that residential placement should be avoided if possible since yet another transition to a residential placement would likely exacerbate Student’s attachment struggles.  Dr. Murphy felt it was critical not to skip the step of re-implementing stable intensive therapeutic services to minimize the trauma another transition would involve. 

Dr. Murphy also recommended updating Dr. Weineth’s evaluation to include a “clinical insight” element to assist the Team with programming discussions.  This would include clinical interviews with Mother and Student, administration of a clinical inventory measure such as the Millon [54] or the Sentence Completion Test (CSPRI), and projective measures.  Although Dr. Murphy generally found Dr. Weineth’s evaluation to be appropriate, he opined that “clinical insight” is an essential element for a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation and obtaining such updated information about Student’s clinical needs was important for planning and support purposes.  (Murphy VII, 228, 236-40, 252-53, 263, 270-73).

72. During cross-examination, Dr. Murphy confirmed he was unaware if there was frequent turnover of PACT-Y providers[55], that there is currently an in-home therapist and family partner, that Youth Villages provided services to the family from July 2024 to January 2025, or that Student currently has a therapeutic mentor.  In forming his opinions and recommendations, Dr. Murphy relied on the District’s information that no commensurate wrap-around supports were put in place when PACT-Y services ended.  However, Dr. Murphy explained that this information did not change his opinion; if there have been stable service providers for the last several months, the next appropriate step would be to evaluate what Student looks like now, and if he is doing better, this would suggest these services are working.  (Murphy VII, 243-44, 251-53, 264-65).

73. A Team meeting was held on September 4, 2025 to review Dr. Weineth’s evaluation.  Dr. Murphy attended and questioned Dr. Weineth, although he limited the number of questions he asked given the attorney participation that created tension rather than facilitating collaborative Team discussion.  Dr. Weineth confirmed that the N-1 Form for this meeting was accurate and that Parent’s legal counsel restricted the District staff from asking questions of her[56].  The Team agreed to amend the IEP only to include a summary of Dr. Weineth’s report. Perkins also did not propose any changes to the IEP.  Dr. Weineth did not agree that this amendment was appropriate based on Student’s current needs, as the IEP, even with a summary of her results, continued to fail to provide Student with the residential educational setting he requires.  (S-41; Weineth VII, 122, 165-69; Murphy VII, 260-62).

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

1. Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment

Both federal and state special education laws guarantee all students with a disability a right to a FAPE[57].  A FAPE is “special education and related services [consisting of] both ‘instruction’ tailored to meet a child’s ‘unique needs’ and sufficient ‘support services’ to permit the child to benefit from that instruction”[58] that must be provided in the “least restrictive environment[59]”.  Provided the proposed IEP is “reasonably calculated” to deliver “educational benefits”, and “to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances” the school district has met its IDEA obligations[60].   To constitute a FAPE, a student’s educational program must be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances”[61] and the student’s educational potential[62].  

Under the IDEA, “to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular education environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily”[63].  In determining the least restrictive environment (LRE), the available educational placement options for eligible students exist along a continuum of programs and settings with residential placement more restrictive than day programming[64].   According to the First Circuit, residential educational placement is warranted only if the educational program and related services to which a student is entitled must be provided on an “round-the-clock” basis[65].

2. Settlement Agreements and Jurisdiction of BSEA

The BSEA has limited jurisdiction over disputes in which the Parties have previously executed a binding settlement agreement.  While the BSEA has consistently recognized the “authority and responsibility to consider [a settlement] agreement and determine whether and to what extent the [settlement] agreement alters the rights and responsibilities of the parties with respect to [a s]tudent’s special education services and related procedural protections”[66], enforcement of a settlement agreement is the responsibility of the Courts[67].  The BSEA has historically declined to take jurisdiction over issues of interpretation of settlement agreement terms,[68] and no Massachusetts federal or state Court has addressed whether, or to what extent, administrative hearing officers, rather than the Courts, have such jurisdiction[69]. 

Notwithstanding, the First Circuit has explicitly acknowledged the potential preclusive effect of settlement agreements on subsequently filed IDEA disputes between parties to such agreements[70].  According to the First Circuit, settlement agreements “… release any right to additional [services] that [a student] may have had, except when [the] request … arises from a change in the conditions that prevailed at the time [the parties] signed the [a]greement”[71].  S. Kingstown involved requests for new evaluations made less than six months after the school district agreed to perform evaluations pursuant to a settlement agreement[72].  Reasoning that “consent would be meaningless if [the parent] could nonetheless turn around the next day and demand the foregone [terms] anew”, the Court acknowledged that “[w]e cannot accept [this] reading of the [settlement a]greement, as we find it difficult to suppose the parties intended such a meaningless outcome of their negotiations” [73].  Rather, adopting the Third Circuit’s construction of settlement agreements, the First Circuit reasoned that a change in conditions standard, “reflects both the role settlements may play in resolving IDEA disputes and the legitimate concern with allowing IDEA settlements to bargain away—potentially for all time and without regard to the change in conditions that may arise in the course of a child’s development—the statutory right to a [FAPE]”[74].

What constitutes a “change in conditions” involves an analysis of what existed at the time of execution of a settlement agreement as compared to what exists after such execution[75].  Moreover, the existence of “new” information is not necessarily enough evidence to prove a “change in conditions” either[76]. 

3. Burden of Persuasion.

In a special education due process proceeding, the burden of proof is on the moving party[77].  If the evidence is closely balanced, the moving party will not prevail[78]. 

DISCUSSION[79]:

Student’s eligibility for special education is not in dispute.  Rather, this matter involves a determination as to whether there was a change in conditions for Student since execution of the Settlement Agreement by Parent and the District, and, only if so, whether Student’s current educational needs require that he be educated in a residential program to receive a FAPE.  After careful consideration of the relevant evidence and the Parties’ thoughtful arguments, I find that Parent has failed to meet her burden on the first issue in this matter.  No change in conditions has occurred, and thus the terms of the Settlement Agreement calling for the District to fund Student’s day program for both regular school year and extended school year services at a DESE-approved special education school (i.e., Perkins) must be enforced until the expiration of its term (through the summer of 2026).  My reasoning follows.

At the outset, I address reliability and credibility issues raised regarding certain witnesses in the instant matter.  First, Parent contends that I should disregard Dr. Murphy’s testimony and opinions based on his limited knowledge of Student.  While Dr. Murphy’s opinions and conclusions were based primarily on a single observation, a record review of District-provided documents, and his attendance at the September Team meeting, his lack of more direct knowledge of Student was primarily due to Parent’s refusal to consent to making more information available to him.  I find that despite these limitations, Dr. Murphy’s opinions and recommendations were balanced and drawn from his own extensive clinical experience working with students who, like Student, have experienced complex trauma and are diagnosed with co-morbid disabilities.  Dr. Murphy presented reasoned and rational suggestions for what would be needed to support Student, while also acknowledging that, should ongoing progress monitoring indicate that Student continues to demonstrate unsafe behaviors despite implementation of his suggested supports, residential programming should be considered.  His testimony was also supported by the testimony of Ms. Marineau and Ms. Vargo-Woods.  Despite being the District’s expert witness, Dr. Murphy’s recommendations were student-centered and focused on Student’s historical, current, and reasoned potential future needs.  Thus, I rely on his opinion both as to the absence of a change in conditions for Student between the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years and as to the impact of Student’s ongoing attachment issues on prospective programmatic planning. 

Parent instead asks that I rely on the recommendations of Dr. Weineth.  Dr. Weineth’s summary and opinions of Student’s historical background and its present impact on his functioning was consistent with Dr. Murphy’s, and the evaluation scores she reported appear reliable and supported (Dr. Murphy agreed he did not find them to be objectionable) [80].  However, Dr. Weineth and Dr. Murphy reached differing conclusions and recommendations.  For the reasons that follow, I do not credit the conclusions and recommendations reached by Dr. Weineth.  First, Dr. Weineth was fully aware before starting her evaluation that it was sought for the purpose of the Hearing and to support Parent’s request for a residential placement.  Further, unlike Dr. Murphy, she struggled to justify her recommendations, and her rationale was internally inconsistent.  For instance, her testimony and conclusions were in large part based on Student’s significantly elevated anxiety scores from the BECK-2.  However, she failed to address the two other assessments she administered in June 2025 which did not reflect concerns with anxiety, including the ratings by Parent, Teacher, and Student in this area on the BASC-3[81].  Additionally, while Dr. Weineth stressed that her recommendation for a residential placement was necessary to support Student’s needs as he presented “now”, her explanation as to why she discounted the absence of behavioral dysregulation and aggression at home, Ives House and Perkins since June 2025 was that Student’s complex trauma “history” meant he was at high risk for significant struggles in the future.  Dr. Weineth also failed to explain adequately why she did not conduct a home observation despite her recommendations that Student not remain at home, and why she believed that providing more home services would not be sufficient to meet Student’s needs “now”.  Although she explained that she had observed Student at his respite home as he had shown a period of behavioral dysregulation there and acknowledged that Parent’s report and the records she reviewed indicated that Student was consistently dysregulated at home, she was unable to justifiably explain why it was not necessary to observe him at home.  Further, she declined Parent’s offer to speak with Student’s current home therapist.  Thus, when they differ, I rely on Dr. Murphy’s opinions over Dr. Weineth’s. 

Finally, I address Parent’s credibility.  Parent indisputably knows Student best, and it was clear throughout the hearing that Student and Mother love and care for each other deeply.  Parent also has consistently demonstrated a focused and driven commitment to advocating for and improving Student’s circumstances since first fostering and subsequently adopting him.  However, during the course of Parent’s testimony, despite confirming under oath several times that she understood the requirement that even during breaks that spanned hearing days she was not to communicate, electronically, verbally or otherwise with anyone about the substance of her testimony, she did, in fact, communicate with others.  Specifically, Parent shared and invited electronic communications about her testimony on social media between the hearing days spanning her testimony, while still under oath[82].  Further, Parent’s testimony did not always reflect the information contained in the documentary record.  In addition, at times, Parent’s testimony minimized or exaggerated information in ways that supported her position. (By way of example, she testified that when she signed the Settlement Agreement, Student was in the midst of a two-day stay in the emergency room, rather than the actual month-long hospitalization; and she testified that Perkins called her to pick Student up due to an alleged “limit” about being restrained three times, when Ms. Vargo-Woods confirmed no such limit existed.)  As the foregoing factors raise substantial credibility concerns, I rely on Parent’s testimony only to the extent that there is additional documentation or testimony to support it[83]. 

Having addressed these credibility concerns, I turn to the first issue before me, namely, whether there was a change in conditions to Student since execution of the Settlement Agreement in May 2024.  The extensive evidence by witnesses and evaluators for both Parent and District demonstrate that Student’s behaviors in the fall of 2024 were not “new” or different and were consistent with Student’s trauma history and diagnoses. 

Parent herself acknowledged that Student’s behaviors in the fall of 2024 were not new.  On November 7, 2024, Parent informed Student’s then-psychiatrist that Student has engaged in behaviors that have caused her to be concerned for her life since he was 4 years old, and she had “become desensitized to a lot of this”.  Parent’s November 12, 2024 email asking her attorneys to pursue a residential school placement also noted that Student’s behaviors “all these years later [are] the same thing day after day”.  Further, Parent’s October 27, 2023 independent evaluation by BCSC addressed Student’s ongoing, highly dysregulated, aggressive, and often unsafe behaviors at home, and the resulting impact on his educational progress.  It recommended that if these struggles in the home were not able to be successfully addressed, Student would require a residential placement to access an appropriate education.  However, despite this recommendation, the December 2023 and January 2024 emails between attorneys for Parent and the District evidence that Parent only used this evaluation during her negotiations with the District as support for her request for a day-school placement, not a residential placement.

Of most significant consequence is that at the time Mother and the District executed the Settlement Agreement, Student was in the midst of a hospitalization due to engaging in violent and aggressive behavior toward Parent (attempting to break down Parent’s door with a hammer).  This hospitalization spanned nearly the entirety of the month of May 2024 (commencing May 5, 2024), resulting in Student’s absence for 18 school days, preventing him from taking the Math MCAS, and impeding the reporting of progress on three IEP goals.  This evidence was not disputed or contradicted and indicates clearly that at the time of execution of the Settlement Agreement, Parent was aware that Student’s home behaviors were sufficiently severe to require extended in-patient hospitalization and that such hospitalization directly impacted Student’s schooling and educational progress.

Parent contends that the “change in conditions” that occurred since the time of execution of the Settlement Agreement involves a shift from a “successful” school year (2023-2024) to a school year (2024-2025) characterized by almost monthly hospitalizations over the course of seven months, resulting in much missed school and intense dysregulation at home, Perkins, and Ives House.  I agree with Parent that during the 2023-2024 school year Student performed “close to grade level work”, did not demonstrate any violent, aggressive or self-harming behaviors, did not need any restraints in school, and was not hospitalized “between June 2023 and May 2024”[84].  However, Parent’s position that the behaviors manifested in the 2024-2025 school year were a change in conditions to Student is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.  Contrary to Parent’s argument, Student’s behavioral dysregulation starting in the fall of 2024 was primarily contained to the home, as had been the case since enrolling in the District.  During that time, Student was also struggling, albeit not involving intense behavioral dysregulation, at Clearway, which all parties and witnesses agreed lacked the necessary therapeutic supports for Student to be successful in school. Unfortunately, at the same time, Student’s PACT-Y services were discontinued based on animosity between Parent and the providers.  Although DMH replaced PACT-Y with services by Youth Villages, the evidence indicates that this service was never fully implemented, and Student and the initial Youth Villages therapist did not develop a successful therapeutic relationship. 

Student did not exhibit any behavioral dysregulation outside the home until at Ives House on December 20, 2024 when he was transported there from Milford Hospital after being intensely dysregulated at home requiring police involvement[85].  Student’s first restraint at Ives House was on December 30, 2024, during a time when he was aware of and anticipating another transition from Clearway to Perkins.  However, Parent made her initial request for residential services a month earlier, on November 27, 2024 (having emailed her attorneys on November 12, 2024), when Student was not displaying any dysregulated or severe behaviors in any setting other than the home[86].  Parent acknowledged on cross-examination that her request for residential services was based on Student’s behaviors in the home and at Clearway.  Thus, Parent’s argument at hearing that Student’s changed conditions was due to his displaying, for the first time, highly aggressive behavior necessitating hospitalization from a setting other than home is not supported by the record as to conditions that existed when she actually made this initial placement change request.

While Student’s transition to Perkins was particularly difficult for the first two weeks, once he became accustomed to the structure and support that Perkins provides, the behavioral issues stopped.  Ms. Vargo-Wood confirmed that since the first two weeks, Student has not engaged in any aggressive behaviors or needed a restraint, time out or even an extra session with her.  I also note that he was then in the midst of a transition to a new therapist from Youth Villages, who Mother did not like and who only met with him once.  Further, Dr. Hendershott was clear in her recommendations that anyone working with Student should be trauma-trained, noting the potentially contraindicated risks of treatment strategies (including the use of physical touch and time-outs) that were not likely to be successful with Student.  Student’s escalating behaviors both at Perkins and at Ives House during this time in response to their use of these types of behavioral strategies are therefore not surprising.  Dr. Murphy also testified about the need to utilize trauma-informed strategies in supporting Student, and he opined that there was not anything new, per se, about Student’s behaviors starting in the fall of 2024, given his history and diagnoses.  Indeed, Dr. Weineth acknowledged that Student’s historical needs and diagnoses must be taken into consideration in developing his treatment and programming.

Further, the evidence reflects that Parent resisted DMH’s consistent recommendations for intensive home therapeutic supports, starting in the fall of 2024.  As Dr. Murphy explained, and the record pertaining to the DMH PACT-Y services and the DCF MPA services demonstrate, when such supports were/are consistently in place for a sufficient period of time, Student can be successful at home.  This is in line with Student’s demonstrated successes at school when provided with consistent therapeutic supports[87].  

The evidence was uniform, both before and after the execution of the Settlement Agreement, across providers, evaluators, and hospitalizations, that consistent, intensive home supports were beneficial and essential for Student’s mental health and educational progress as he was often guarded and slow to develop trusting therapeutic relationships.  There was no dispute that Student had difficulty with transitions particularly if therapeutic supports and structures were not involved.  Student acknowledged to NWH his dislike of transitions and his desire to remain at home consistently.  He struggled initially at the YMCA (an unstructured after school setting) at Clearway (which had minimal if any therapeutic supports) and at Perkins (when intensive therapeutic supports were initially reinstated in school).  Similarly, there was no dispute that Student was slow to develop trusting relationships.  Dr. Hendershott’s Trauma Informed FBA referenced Student’s hesitancy and caution to form trusting relationships with providers, particularly therapeutic providers, as did Ms. Vargo-Wood’s April 2024 progress report on Student’s counseling goal.  This was also supported by the testimony of Ms. Marineau, Ms. Knox, and Ms. Vargo-Wood, staff who together worked with Student both before (Ms. Knox and Ms. Marineau) and after (Ms. Vargo-Wood) execution of the Settlement Agreement. 

I, therefore, conclude that Student’s behavioral challenges after the execution of the Settlement Agreement were not a change in condition.  Instead, they were an unfortunate but not unpredictable result of the shifted educational and home services that occurred pursuant to, and contemporaneously with, the execution and implementation of that Agreement.  As such, the Settlement Agreement governs Student’s educational services and placement through expiration of its term (August 2026).  Given this conclusion, I need not address the second issue in this matter.

I note that Student is currently experiencing a period of relative success and stability.  He has not shown any behavioral aggressions since the first two weeks at Perkins (January 2025), has not had a hospitalization since April 2025 and has ceased all behavioral dysregulation at Ives House since mid-June 2025.  Although this success covered some summer months when Student has historically had fewer behaviors, he has also been attending school with appropriate therapeutic supports since January 2025, receiving a consistent Therapeutic Mentor and Case Manager from DMH since January 2025, receiving consistent intense home MPA services contracted by DCF since April 2025, and spending two nights a week at Ives House since June 2025.  This behavioral progress and decrease in aggression not only support the maintenance of Student’s current therapeutic and educational programming in every setting, but it also may provide the right environment for Student’s Team to consider beginning to work on goals to generalize Student’s social, emotional and behavioral strategies being used in school to other settings, including the home.  However, any change to Student’s current services or supports must involve a thoughtful, trauma-informed transition plan that is data driven with planned progress monitoring as well as coordination and collaboration among all services providers including home, school, Ives House staff, DCF and DMH.    

The Parties are therefore strongly encouraged to continue to work collaboratively to support Student through the term of the Agreement and to implement Dr. Murphy’s recommendation of updating Dr. Weineth’s evaluation to include a “clinical insight” element.  Additionally, I encourage the Parties to ensure that consistent wrap-around supports are provided to Student and Parent at home (via the ongoing services provided by DCF and DMH), utilizing consistent providers and with no less than bi-weekly direct collaboration and communication between the school and in-home providers as Ms. Vargo-Woods recommended.  Further the Parties are urged to consult, share with all providers, and update, if needed, Dr. Hendershott’s Trauma Informed FBA, particularly her identification of contraindicated procedures[88].    

In this vein I underscore that it is critical that the Parties engage in collaborative communication and information sharing.  Continuing to refuse assessments in the home setting; limiting questions posed to evaluators and experts at Team meetings; restricting therapeutic supports from operating consistent with their practices; controlling the information sharing process with the District through refusing to sign consents for the District to speak with outside providers; requiring all communications between home and school providers to occur through Parent; and keeping the District from being current as to day to day updates on Student, do not serve Student’s best interests or allow his needs to be met.  Neither does refusing offered services because they are not exactly the specific services sought (e.g., refusing in-home services because extended school day programming was requested; refusing group home support by DMH because a residential educational program was being pursued).  While this certainly does not mean that Parent should cease vetting providers, proposed placements or care facilities, or advocating or declining to accept services from one agency if it means existing successful services cease, refusing services wholesale does not inure to Student’s benefit.  Rather, collaborative communication, intensive therapeutic structure, and consistency in therapeutic supports, approaches, messaging, and responses to Student’s behavioral dysregulation across settings have been shown to be essential to his progress and success in all areas of his life. 

Finally, I turn to DCF and DMH.  Both agencies elected not to present evidence (other than agreeing to the joint exhibits submitted during the Hearing), ask fulsome questions of witnesses, and made limited (if any) arguments during the Hearing.  As such, the evidence of the services and supports these agencies have and have not provided Student was unrefuted.  Given the number of providers and agencies working with Parent and Student in all his settings, and the struggles Perkins has had connecting with DCF and DMH, these agencies are strongly urged to assist with coordinating regular communication with Perkins, the District, and their in-home contracted providers while Student remains a client of DCF and DMH.

ORDER:

I find that there was no change in conditions to Student since Parent executed the Settlement Agreement in May 2024, and therefore said Agreement remains binding on the Parties through the expiration of its term.  At least until such expiration, provided Student remains a client of each agency, and with parental consent, DCF and DMH is strongly urged to ensure regular communication between Perkins, the District and their respective in-home contracted providers.  In light of this determination, I need not reach the second issue presented in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

By the Hearing Officer,

/s/ Marguerite M. Mitchell

Marguerite M. Mitchell

November 21, 2025

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

EFFECT OF FINAL BSEA ACTIONS AND RIGHTS OF APPEAL

Effect of BSEA Decision, Dismissal with Prejudice and Allowance of Motion for Summary Judgment

20 U.S.C. s. 1415(i)(1)(B) requires that a decision of the Bureau of Special Education Appeals be final and subject to no further agency review. Similarly, a Ruling Dismissing a Matter with Prejudice and a Ruling Allowing a Motion for Summary Judgment are final agency actions. If a ruling orders Dismissal with Prejudice of some, but not all claims in the hearing request, or if a ruling orders Summary Judgment with respect to some but not all claims, the ruling of Dismissal with Prejudice or Summary Judgment is final with respect to those claims only. 

Accordingly, the Bureau cannot permit motions to reconsider or to re-open either a Bureau decision or the Rulings set forth above once they have issued. They are final subject only to judicial (court) review.

Except as set forth below, the final decision of the Bureau must be implemented immediately. Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 30A, s. 14(3), appeal of the decision does not operate as a stay.  This means that the decision must be implemented immediately even if the other party files an appeal in court, and implementation cannot be delayed while the appeal is being decided.  Rather, a party seeking to stay—that is, delay implementation of– the decision of the Bureau must request and obtain such stay from the court having jurisdiction over the party’s appeal.

Under the provisions of 20 U.S.C. s. 1415(j), “unless the State or local education agency and the Parent otherwise agree, the child shall remain in the then-current educational placement,” while a judicial appeal of the Bureau decision is pending, unless the child is seeking initial admission to a public school, in which case “with the consent of the Parent, the child shall be placed in the public school program.” 

Therefore, where the Bureau has ordered the public school to place the child in a new placement, and the Parent or guardian agree with that order, the public school shall immediately implement the placement ordered by the Bureau.  School Committee of Burlington v. Massachusetts Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359 (1985).  Otherwise, a party seeking to change the child’s placement while judicial proceedings are pending must ask the court having jurisdiction over the appeal to grant a preliminary injunction ordering such a change in placement. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988); Doe v. Brookline, 722 F.2d 910 (1^st Cir. 1983).

Compliance

A party contending that a Bureau of Special Education Appeals decision is not being implemented may file a motion with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals contending that the decision is not being implemented and setting out the areas of non-compliance. The Hearing Officer may convene a hearing at which the scope of the inquiry shall be limited to the facts on the issue of compliance, facts of such a nature as to excuse performance, and facts bearing on a remedy. Upon a finding of non-compliance, the Hearing Officer may fashion appropriate relief, including referral of the matter to the Legal Office of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education or other office for appropriate enforcement action. 603 CMR 28.08(6)(b).

Rights of Appeal

Any party aggrieved by a final agency action by the Bureau of Special Education Appeals may file a complaint for review in the state superior court of competent jurisdiction or in the District Court of the United States for Massachusetts. 20 U.S.C. s. 1415(i)(2).

An appeal of a Bureau decision to state superior court or to federal district court must be filed within ninety (90) days from the date of the decision. 20 U.S.C. s. 1415(i)(2)(B).

Confidentiality

In order to preserve the confidentiality of the student involved in these proceedings, when an appeal is taken to superior court or to federal district court, the parties are strongly urged to file the complaint without identifying the true name of the Parent or the child, and to move that all exhibits, including the transcript of the hearing before the Bureau of Special Education Appeals, be impounded by the court. See Webster Grove School District v. Pulitzer Publishing Company, 898 F.2d 1371 (8th. Cir. 1990). If the appealing party does not seek to impound the documents, the Bureau of Special Education Appeals, through the Attorney General’s Office, may move to impound the documents.

Record of the Hearing

The Bureau of Special Education Appeals will provide an electronic verbatim record of the hearing to any party, free of charge, upon receipt of a written request. Pursuant to federal law, upon receipt of a written request from any party, the Bureau of Special Education Appeals will arrange for and provide a certified written transcription of the entire proceedings by a certified court reporter, free of charge.

---

[1]   This was a re-filing of a prior Hearing Request filed by Parent on February 10, 2025 against the District, DMH and DCF (BSEA No. 2508203), that was withdrawn without prejudice on May 30, 2025.

[2]   As noted in Exhibit J-2, the following pages (at times over objection) were admitted: Exhibit P-4, pages 94-95, 122-25, 146-47, 156-57, 162-63, 180-81, 206-07, 216-17, 222-23, 228-29, 232-33, 238-39, and 242; and Exhibit P-5, pages 1, 24-25, 32-33, 44-45, 58-59, 64-65, 70-73, 102-05, 126-27, 144-47, 158-59, and 162-63. 

[3]   Exhibit S-39 was admitted with the stipulation that its admission did not constitute a waiver of Parent’s attorney client privilege for any other documents or communications, and Exhibit S-44 was admitted with the stipulation that neither Parent nor the District filed a reply to the final email in the chain. 

[4]   As noted in Exhibit J-2, the following pages (at times over objection) were admitted: Exhibit S-28, pages 534-42, 568-72, 574-75, 577, 580-82, 590-92, 595-97, 600-03, and 605-06; Exhibit S-40, page 700; and Exhibit S-42 pages, 737-782, 797-29, 840-41, 844-53, 931-64, 1003-28, 1472-74, 1487, 1494, 1496, 1498, 1509-12, 1520, and 1530-31.

[5]   On November 6, 2025, the record was reopened for limited purposes to allow filing of limited supplemental closing arguments through November 12, 2025.  Only the District filed one, whereupon the record again closed.  No change to the decision issuance date occurred as a result of this limited reopening of the record. 

[6]   This precise wording is being utilized as it reflects the standard established by the First Circuit in the matter of S. Kingstown, 773 F.3d 344 (1^st Cir. 2014).

[7]   The District also argues the “unanticipated or catastrophic illness or injury” provision of the Settlement Agreement constitutes a “specific test of a change in circumstances” and must be applied, relying on a BSEA case that predated S. Kingstown, 773 F.3d at 344, infra.  However, nowhere in the Settlement Agreement in this matter is there an explicit waiver of S. Kingstown’s “change in conditions” standard.  S. Kingstown was silent on whether parties can explicitly waive this standard and given its express adoption of the D.R. by M.R. v. E. Brunswick Bd. of Educ., 109 F.3d 896 (3d Cir. 1997)  holding, infra, it is unclear if doing so would be permissible.

[8]   I have carefully considered all the evidence and testimony presented in this matter.  I make findings of fact, however, only as necessary to resolve the issue(s) presented.  Consequently, all evidence and all aspects of each witness’ testimony, although considered, is not included if it was not needed to resolve said issues.

[9]   Ms. Hawkins holds a master’s in special education and a CAGS in educational leadership, with licensure in moderate special education (PreK–12), special education administration, and superintendent/assistant superintendent. Before joining the District, she served as a special education coordinator for grades 8–12, assistant principal, and a high school special education teacher. She also taught at a 766-approved private special education school for students ages 18–22. (Hawkins, Supp. 2-3).

[10]   On May 5, 2022, the District first convened a Team for Student.  Although the psychologist who completed Student’s 2022 Neuropsychological evaluation attended the meeting and recommended Student be placed in the District’s language-based program, the Team rejected this as Student’s primary disability was emotional, thus the therapeutic program was deemed more appropriate.  (S-14).

[11]   Notably, despite noting Student’s “long-standing challenges with emotion/behavioral regulations, executive functioning, and at times aggressive/violent behaviors (especially toward mother)”, his “ongoing significant challenges with mood, reactivity, self-regulation and safety (aggressive behaviors at home)” particularly in the mornings before school and in the afternoon and evenings back at home, and that Student does “significantly better in structured settings outside of the home, where he can receive guidance and therapeutic support in a close trusted setting”.  Dr. Chen’s only recommendation was for a daily after-school program with weekend supports, if available.  (S-8).

[12]   Ms. Marineau possesses a graduate degree in Psychology and a CAGS in School Psychology.  She holds a state educator license and national licensure as a school psychologist.  (Marineau VII, 180-81).

[13]   Ms. Marineau performed a clinical interview and administered the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition, selected subtests from the Woodcock Johnson, Third Edition, selected subtests from KeyMath-3, Form A, Test of Written Language, Fourth Edition Behavior Assessment System for Children, Third Edition (BASC-3) and projective testing.

[14]   Ms. Hendershott has a master’s in special education and Massachusetts licensure as a behavior analyst.  Prior to working for her current employer, she worked for eight years as a 766-approved private special education school as a Level II teacher and lead teacher and consultant.  (Hendershott VIII 129-30).

[15]   In addition to completing a record review, and performing clinical interviews of Parent and Mr. Mespelli, Ms. Hendershott administered the Assessment of Functional Living Skills (AFLS), the Functional Assessment Screening Tool (FAST) and the Vineland Behavior Scales – Third Edition (Vineland -3).  Ms. Hendershott also observed Student four times, to wit: at school in June and September, 2023, at his after-school program in June, 2023, and at home in June 2023.  (S-16).

[16]   Despite Parent reporting concerns on the AFLS with Student in the community around boundaries, stranger awareness and knowing who to go to for help, on the Vineland-3, Parent reported Student stays with her in public places, respects community rules and can make small purchases at a community store.  (S-16).

[17]   Ms. Hendershott felt more in-person observations were needed to confirm the function of Student’s aggressive behaviors at home and to develop a suitable BIP for home (S-16).

[18]   Camp Wediko was funded by the District as a compensatory service for a clerical error on Student’s IEP.

[19]   The 2023-2024 school year was Ms. Knox’s first year in that position.  She had worked the previous 12 years as a Team Chair/leader and a special educator in three separate public-school districts.  Ms. Knox holds a master’s degree and a CAGS in Special Education, Massachusetts licensure as a Special Educator, grades Pre-K to 8, and Special Education Administrator grades Pre-K to 8 and 5-12.  (Knox VII, 278-79).

[20]   Ms. Caputo holds a master’s degree in special education and licensure in intensive special education, birth to 22 years old.  She has been the District’s middle school language-based special educator for 15 years, teaching Math and ELA.  Prior to that she worked for several residential 766-approved schools as a curriculum coordinator, working in the residence and providing wraparound supports between home and school on a contracted basis.  (Caputo VII, 306-11).

[21]   During the fall open house, however, Student eloped from the area he was supposed to be in, but not from the building. (S-5; Hawkins, 193).

[22]   The other independent evaluation was noted in the Team meeting notes to be a Lindamood Bell report, but it was not provided as an exhibit and there was no testimony given with regard to this evaluation.

[23]   It is unclear from the record if this subsequent review with the evaluators ever took place. 

[24]   For instance, Parent reported that in October 2023, Student wrote in his journal that his thoughts are taken up by Mother dying and worrying about being mean to Mother and “fighting people”, and this causes him to feel depressed and sad. Parent shared a copy of this journal with Ms. Hendershott and the School Psychologist, by email on October 2, 2023.  While Parent was not then seriously ill, in December 2023, she was diagnosed with a benign brain tumor.  (P-6; P-7; P-8; P-26; S-28; Mother VI, 55, 58-60, 77).

[25]   Despite having extensive details about Student’s hospitalizations and their antecedents between 2022 and 2025, Mother’s testimony about this hospitalization was vague, advising that she only recalled Student staying in the emergency room for two days prior to her signing the Agreement.  However, school witnesses and school records indicate Student missed 18 school days in May 2024 due to this hospitalization.  (S-4; S-25; S-26; Mother VI, 79-80, 325; Knox 301-02).

[26]   Although no testimony was provided by Parent or the District about this, the Team meeting notes from this re-entry meeting indicate that the Team discussed ongoing concerns with Student’s inappropriate use of school technology, and his violation of the District’s Acceptable Use Policy that had “led to defiant and disruptive behaviors” at school.  The Team, including Parent, agreed that Student would not use a Chromebook in school or take one home.  The Team also agreed, based on Parent’s advocacy, that due to ongoing mental health concerns, Student would have limited access to his cell phone but would need to put it away or in the School Psychologist’s office when asked.  (S-4).

[27]   The Progress Report confirmed that Student had an elopement Safety Plan in place at school. 

[28]   Student was rejected at Learning Prep due to the school’s not having trauma-informed clinical and therapeutic staff and at Dearborn due to not having an appropriate cohort.  Parent then requested that packets be sent to five other programs with social emotional and therapeutic supports.  According to emails between attorneys for the District and Parent, the District initially was hesitant to agree as these schools differed from the terms the Parties had been discussing and did not have language-based instructional programming as their emphasis.  They were ultimately not explored as Clearway accepted Student.  Ms. Hawkins, however, testified that she did not support Clearway as an appropriate program for Student due to its limited therapeutic supports.  She shared this only with her attorney and asked this not be shared with Parent.  She explained that she spoke with Clearway to support its acceptance of Student as she felt this was what Parent wanted, and she could not say anything to change that position.  (S-32; Mother; VI 78-79; Hawkins VIII, 198-200, 212, 219-20).

[29]   Also, according to Parent, Clearway informed her that in September 2024,Student drew a violent cartoon and told his classmate he was “going to dig a hole and bury [Parent] in it”.  (Parent VI, 85).

[30]   Dr. Andler has a private practice as a Pediatrician in Weston, Massachusetts seeing patients from birth until after college.  In recent years he has primarily focused his practice on addressing mental health and behavioral consults.  (He has undergone a REACH training consisting of 30 hours over 30 days of virtual training involving medication management, mental health assessment, and addressing physical illness and injuries regarding mental health including ADHD, anxiety and depression).  (Andler VIII, 103-05 ).

[31]   A December 13, 2025 letter from Ashland Police Department indicates Student intentionally ingested multiple Adderall to try to harm himself on this occasion. According to Ms. Vargo-Wood’s Risk Assessment on January 3, 2025, discussed below, however, Student spit out the Adderall when directed.  (P-13; P-29).

[32]   Although Dr. Andler was treating Student in April and May of 2024, he did not have a distinct memory of Student’s hospitalization during that time.  (Andler VIII, 124).

[33]   Parent believed the service provider change had been made because the provider felt Student’s behaviors on that November day were too much for her.  Parent shared this belief with both DCF and DMH.  The new therapist met with Student only one time.  (S-42).

[34]   Parent directly quoted this email in Paragraph 24 of her Hearing Request, thereby making it discoverable.  Notwithstanding, it was admitted without Parent waiving her right to attorney client privilege for any other documents, as noted supra. 

[35]   Further, according to Psych Progress Notes of September 2024 to January 2025, from Student’s then Psychiatrist, Dr. Karin Raaberg, at his November 7, 2024 visit Mother reported on Student’s recent hospitalizations, his ongoing perseveration on Mother’s death and worrying about what will happen when she dies.  Dr. Raaberg asked Mother what she thought about a residential school.  Mother discussed Student’s prior Walker placement and respite, but did not state she wanted a residential school placement despite detailing her personal safety fears due to Student’s aggressions towards her (i.e., throwing things at her and trying to strangle her with a sweater from behind her neck), and the family cat (i.e., poking it with poles and chasing it around the house); all behaviors which had “been going on since he was 4 years old and she [felt] desensitized to a lot of this”.  By the follow-up visit on December 19, 2024, however, Mother requested a “letter for court” with a recommendation for Student to be in a residential school due to his behaviors, safety issues, difficulty managing settings, multiple hospitalizations, and missing school.  (P-16; P-31).

[36]   Parent explained that, despite her best efforts it is very difficult to hide all items that could be “potential weapons” as this covers most household items.  Further, while she does secure medications, this is also challenging given the number of medications in the home for both Student and herself.  With regard to the THC gummies, she had forgotten they were in that couch pocket and had been put there during a period when Student was out of the home for a long hospitalization.  (P-51; S-42; Mother VI, 114-15, 156-57, 331-32).

[37]   OpenSky follows the SOLVE restraint technique when initiating a restraint, which Mr. Feraud advised was a “last resort” to address dysregulated behavior if other de-escalation strategies have not worked.  Student was restrained once on December 30, 2025 following an incident where he kicked out the banister spindles and used them as weapons against staff; restrained three times on February 5, 2025; restrained twice on March 17, 2025, one for one minute and one for over eight minutes, following incidents of flipping chairs, attempting to throw tables and couches, putting an electrical cord down his clothing and ripping posters from walls; restrained once on March 18, 2025 for three minutes after trying to climb over the banister to get downstairs; restrained once on March 31, 2025 prior to being hospitalized; restrained once on May 19, 2025 for destroying property, overturning furniture and scattering trash which was subsequently discontinued as it was found not to be working; restrained once on May 20, 2025 for destroying wooden fittings on the stairwell which was considered significant damage and created a safety hazard; and restrained once on May 27, 2025 for being aggressive with staff, although he immediately stopped and began to clean up all messes he had also made when staff informed him they would call 911 if he did not de-escalate.  (P-22; Feraud VII, 23-42).

[38]   Ms. Vargo-Wood has worked for Perkins for 22 years.  For the past 17 years she has been Perkins’ Clinician.  Ms. Vargo-Wood’s therapeutic approaches involve anxiety management, and applying principles of ARC (Attachment, Regulation, Competency), Trauma Informed Care and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).  She holds Massachusetts licensure as a School Counselor and is certified as an Anxiety Specialist.  (S-26; Vargo-Wood VI, 164-65).

[39]   Parent testified she had to pick Student up that day as he was restrained three times, and Perkins had a set limit for the number of daily restraints reaching three.  However, Ms. Vargo-Wood testified to the contrary, explaining that Parent was called solely due to the timing of Student’s dysregulation making it unsafe for him to travel home.  To her knowledge, no set limit for restraints exists at Perkins.  The final restraint incident report from that day supports Ms. Vargo-Wood’s testimony.  (P-29; Mother VI, 111; Vargo-Wood VI, 205-06).

[40]   Ms. Smith prepares an Action Plan if it is determined that the case will remain open after the 45-day assessment period, which Action Plan is then implemented by a subsequent social worker. (Smith VIII, 16).

[41]   Ives House also contacted the police on February 4, 2025, when Student and a peer were not behaving properly, refusing to return a doorknob they had broken from a door.  Student called the police officer a vulgar name but otherwise calmed and was able to remain at Ives House that day.  (P-5).

[42]   There is no record this was ever filed by Mother.

[43]   Despite the discharge date noted, Ms. Smith confirmed that MPA continues to support the family at this time.  No MPA staff testified at the Hearing.   

[44]   According to the OpenSky records, at the June 23, 2025 treatment meeting with OpenSky and DMH, DMH explained that its goal of decreasing respite services to two nights a week was so that they could be replaced with more time with in-home services in which Student could engage.  DMH felt it was “unrealistic for [Student] to not be in the home and still get home-based therapeutic work done and practice the skills”.  (S-4; Mother VI, 300-303).

[45]   Ms. Vargo-Wood attributes Student’s current behaviors to be due to his desire to make connections and relationships.  (Vargo-Wood VI, 194).

[46]   Dr. Weineth holds a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology and has been licensed as a Clinical Psychologist in Massachusetts since 2007.  She worked for Children’s Hospital evaluating children with complex needs and for the Center for Children with Special Needs (part of Tufts New England Medical Center) as a research scientist focusing on integrating parent training into interventions.  She thereafter worked in the capacity of a staff psychologist for 14 years at two different private 766-approved day and residential programs supporting students of all ages, providing clinical supports to students and families, participating in Team meetings, performing psychological evaluations for IEPs and assisting with IEP development.  For the past three years, Dr. Weineth has been a clinical psychologist in private practice performing private neuropsychological evaluations and consulting.  (P34; Weineth VII, 63-70).

[47]   Student provided his answers orally to Dr. Weineth, rather than completing the TSCC and BASC-3 independently.  None of these tests is a projective measure.  During testimony, Dr. Weineth explained that she typically does not do projective testing as she prefers to rely on valid and reliable measures.  Further, projective testing is not warranted for students with a history of trauma who are not in a regulated state as it is more appropriate to delve into the trauma projective testing asks about in a regulated, safe environment such as at a full-time residential setting.  However, during the Team meeting held to review Dr. Weineth’s evaluation, she advised she had not done projective testing because she had prepared her evaluation for this BSEA proceeding and wanted all results to be “face valid”.  She also explained that since projective tests, while scoreable, were subject to clinical interpretation and judgment, she was concerned they would be less reliable at the hearing or subject to misinterpretation.  (P-30; Weineth VII, 95-96, 120-21, 140, 151-52, 169).

[48]   Although Parent and Teacher ratings indicated clinically significant scores for hyperactivity, conduct problems, externalizing problems, depression, and behavioral symptoms index, Student’s responses on the BASC-3 did not indicate any areas of concern.  Parent also indicated clinically significant scores for attention problems and activities of daily living, and Teacher indicated clinically significant scores for aggression and internalizing problems which were rated at-risk by Parent. (P-30).

[49]   Dr. Weineth was not surprised that Student’s anxiety ratings on the BECK-2 differed from his ratings on the TSCC as the TSCC requires Student to respond to some very intense questions, and about halfway through his oral responses he began to respond “never” to every question.  Dr. Weineth did not, however, explain why Student’s responses on the BASC-3 showed no anxiety concerns.  (Weineth VII, 137-38, 141, 150).

[50]   Consistent with this position, Dr. Weineth also agreed that if Clearway was not providing Student with therapeutic supports it would affect his behavior.  (Weineth VII, 133).

[51]   However, Student’s second quarter report card at Perkins reflected solid grades in all classes other than reading and social studies, and indicate that he put in satisfactory effort, had satisfactory attendance, participated regularly, and worked independently.  (S-25).

[52]   Dr. Murphy  primarily consults to school districts, and he has previously testified at the BSEA on behalf of districts only.  Dr. Murphy has a Ph.D. in School Psychology and has worked in this capacity for 25 years, with the last 10 years focusing on students impacted by PTSD, reactive attachment disorder, ADHD and specific learning disabilities.  He has performed over 100 clinical evaluations a year for students between grades 3 and 12 and has run special education programming.  (Murphy VII, 216-17, 241-42). 

[53]   Dr. Murphy was not necessarily recommending reinstatement of PACT-Y services.  He agreed other approaches such as CBHI would be appropriate, provided the services involved an in-home clinician for Student and Parent, a mentor that would be a direct support for Student (separate from the clinician), a family partner to support Parent, interplay between Student’s psychiatrist and these providers, and therapeutic supports multiple times a week.  (Murphy VII, 237, 265-67).

[54]   According to Dr. Murphy, the Beck-2 that Dr. Weineth administered is different than the Millon, as the Beck-2 is only a rating scale.  (Murphy VII, 273).

[55]   No evidence in the record supported a frequent turnover of PACT-Y staff, only of Youth Villages staff.

[56]   Specifically, the N1 states in relevant part that “… the District attempted to discuss some of the finer details of the report (such as home services, review of DCF and hospital discharge records, and home observation) however, the legal representation for [Student] prohibited those questions stating they should only be raised at the hearing”.  (S-41).

[57]   20 USC 1400, et seq.; M.G.L. c. 71B; 34 CFR 300.000, et seq.; 603 CMR 28.00 et seq;  see 20 U.S.C. §1400 (d)(1)(A) (The first purpose of the IDEA is “to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a [FAPE] that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living”).

[58]   20 USC 1401(9), (26), (29); C.D. v. Natick Pub. Sch. Dist., et al., 924 F.3d 621, 624 (1st Cir. 2019), quoting Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 580 US 154, 158 (2017).

[59]   20 U.S.C § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 CFR 300.114(a)(2)(i); M.G.L. c. 71B §§ 2, 3; 603 CMR 28.01 and 28.06(2)(c).

[60]   C.G. and B.S. v. Five Town Cmty. Sch. Dist., 513 F.3d 279, 284 (1st Cir. 2008) quoting Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207 (1982); see Endrew F. ex. re. Joseph F. v Douglas County Sch. Dist., RE-1, 580 US 386, 399-403 (2017).

[61]   Endrew F., 580 US at 399-400, 403; see Johnson v. Boston Pub. Schs., 906 F.3d 182, 194-95 (1st Cir. 2018) (holding that Massachusetts’ “meaningful educational benefit” standard adopted in D.B. ex rel. Elizabeth B. v. Esposito, 675 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2012), comports with the Endrew F. standard).

[62]   See Lessard v. Wilton Lyndeborough Coop. Sch. Dist., 518 F.3d 18, 29 (1st Cir. 2008).  

[63]   20 USC 1412(a)(5); 34 CFR 300.114(a)(2)(i); 603 CMR 28.06(2)(c).

[64]   See Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F.2d 983, 992-93 (1^st Cir. 1990).

[65]   Abrahamson v. Hershman, 701 F.2d 223, 228 (1st Cir. 1983) (finding a residential educational placement was appropriate for a student whose “unique condition was found to demand that he receive round-the-clock training and reinforcement” but recognizing that under the IDEA, “a local school committee [is not required] to support a handicapped child in a residential program simply to remedy a poor home setting or to make up for some other deficit ….  It is not the responsibility of local officials … to finance foster care as such: other resources must be looked to”); see Gonzalez v. Puerto Rico Dept. of Ed., 254 F.3d 350, 352 (1st Cir. 2001) (while “educational benefit is indeed the touchstone in determining the extent of governmental obligations under the IDEA” problems that are “truly ‘distinct’” from learning problems do not support residential educational placement); Rome Sch. Comm. v. Mrs. B.,247 F.3d 29, n.3 (1^st Cir. 2001) (behavioral disturbances that interfere with a child’s ability to learn must be addressed in an IEP); In Re: Dennis-Yarmouth Reg’l. Sch. Dist., BSEA# 2105659, 27 MSER 305 (Figueroa, 2021);  In Re: Nauset Reg’l Sch. Dist. & MA Dept. of Developmental Services, BSEA# 1300562, 19 MSER 152 (Crane, 2013).

[66]   In Re: Longmeadow Pub. Schs., BSEA# 0702866, 14 MSER 249 (Crane, 2008) (collecting authorities) (internal citations omitted). 

[67]   See In Re: Student R. and Lincoln-Sudbury Pub. Sch., BSEA# 1102546, 16 MSER 424 (Figueroa, 2010) (noting that “[e]ven if Parties agree between themselves that the BSEA will have authority to ‘enforce’ agreements, such language is insufficient to bind the BSEA where it otherwise lacks statutory authority, and enforcement of agreements is not one of the powers specifically granted to BSEA Hearing Officers…”).

[68]   In Re: Milford Pub. Schs., BSEA# 1601412, 21 MSER 219 (Berman, 2015) (holding that “the BSEA does not retain subject matter jurisdiction over contract law disputes, cannot grant relief under contract law claims, and has no particular expertise in interpreting and applying contract law”); see In Re: Newburyport Pub. Sch., BSEA# 2508136, 31 MSER 149 (Reichbach, 2025).

[69]   S. Kingstown, 773 F.3d at n.3 (explaining that “We need not address the separate issue whether the Hearing Officer in the course of performing her statutory duties had the authority to consider the Settlement Agreement as a defense, a question that seems to have divided lower courts”)(internal citations omitted); In Re:  Andover Pub. Schs., BSEA# 2007733, 26 MSER 137 (Berman, 2020); Milford, 21 MSER 219 (Berman, 2015); see Michelle K. v. Pentucket Reg’l Sch. Dist., 79 F. Supp. 3d 361, 371 (D. Mass. 2015);  In Re: Lexington Pub. Schs., BSEA# 1701925, 22 MSER 204 (Figueroa, 2016).

[70]   S. Kingstown, 773 F.3d at 356 (“in addition to providing an administrative process for addressing [IDEA] disputes, Congress also expressly allowed parties to resolve them through settlements. And when parties do so, the settlements must be given appropriate effect”); see Lexington, 22 MSER 204 (Figueroa, 2016); In Re: Lynn Pub. Schs. BSEA# 1500643, 21 MSER 53 (Figueroa, 2015).

[71]   S. Kingstown, 773 F.3d at 354; see E. Brunswick, 109 F.3d at 901 (a settlement agreement is “binding on the parties” unless based on changed circumstances); see Lynn,21 MSER 53 (Figueroa, 2015) (dismissing with prejudice parents’ subsequently filed hearing request during a term of a settlement agreement where no change in circumstances claim was raised). 

[72]   S. Kingstown, 773 F.3d at 347-48, 354.

[73]   Id. at 354 (internal citations omitted)); see Lexington, 22 MSER 204 (Figueroa, 2016).

[74]   Id. citing E. Brunswick, 109 F.3d at 900-01. 

[75]   S. Kingstown, 773 F.3d at 355 (no changed conditions based on general claims of “past and present behavior conditions” that do not identify changes to a student’s behavioral presentations after settlement, a potential dyslexia diagnosis a parent was aware of at settlement, or extended absences starting a month prior to settlement); E. Brunswick, 109 F.3d at 900-01 (needing more staff support for a student’s unchanged conditions does not justify setting aside a settlement agreement); see J.G. v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., No. LACV2001593JGBEX, 2023 WL 8125847, at *6 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2023) (“it is not that Javiar’s parents consented to the [prior] IEP, …. [i]t is that the circumstances that formed the basis of [that] IEP—of which Javiar’s parents were aware—had not changed when they challenged [that] IEP in the second due process complaint”) (emphasis in original); Newburyport 31 MSER 149 (Reichbach, 2025) (although “…there may have been a material change in Parents’ opinions and beliefs regarding the efficacy of the services to which they had agreed, and/or a material change in expert recommendations for how to best teach Student and Newburyport personnel’s beliefs regarding same”, this does not evidence a sufficient change to a student’s “educational profile and needs” to “overcome a bar imposed by” a settlement agreement).

[76]   Mr. Catling v. York Sch. Dep’t, No. 2:19-CV-00110-DBH, 2020 WL 6309743, at *6 (D. Me. Oct. 28, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:19-CV-110-DBH, 2020 WL 7233351 (D. Me. Dec. 8, 2020) (denying parents request to void a settlement agreement on the basis of potential new information until the date the IEP Team met and authorized additional services, as “several of the potential sources of new information after [execution of] the … settlement agreement do not constitute changed conditions”); see Lynn,21 MSER 53 (Figueroa, 2015).

[77]   Schaffer v. Weast, 546 US 49, 56-57, 62 (2005).

[78]   Id. (placing the burden of proof in an administrative hearing on the party seeking relief).

[79]   In making my determinations, I rely on the facts I have found as set forth in the Findings of Facts, above, and incorporate them by reference to avoid restating them except where necessary.

[80]   In fact, other than directly assessing Student and speaking with Ives House staff (actions which, as noted above, Dr. Murphy was unable to undertake due to Parent’s refusal to provide consent), the rest of the assessment process and results by both Dr. Weineth and Dr. Murphy were fairly similar.  They spent approximately the same amount of time observing Student, both solicited feedback from Perkins staff, and reviewed similar records (as given to each of them by the party who retained them).  Student displayed similar behavior during both of Dr. Weineth’s June observations (at Perkins and Ives House) and Dr. Murphy’s subsequent observation (at Perkins).  Student never demonstrated aggression, property damage, or intensive behavioral dysregulation nor did he require restraint or time outs during any of the observations of Drs. Weineth and Murphy. 

[81]   Moreover, in late February 2025, both Parent and Teacher scores reflected Student had typical anxiety (although Student self-reported anxiety to be at-risk) on the BASC-3 administered by Ms. Vargo-Wood, despite that BASC-3’s administration occurring when Student was in the midst of multiple hospitalizations and dysregulation at home, Perkins, and at Ives House. 

[82]   At the request of the District, supported by DCF and DMH, Parent was sanctioned for this behavior over her objection, in the form of not being allowed to provide any further testimony on the second hearing day due to the valid concern that such testimony may now be tainted by the interim communications Parent had with others about her testimony. (VII, 172-76).

[83]   Such corroborative witness testimony cannot only be that of Dr. Andler, who, despite treating Student before and after execution of the Settlement Agreement, obtained all his information from Mother and potentially from his review of hospital discharge reports, some of which he did not recall having received, if at all.  Dr. Andler acknowledged he never personally observed Student in any setting other than his office and did not have direct knowledge of Student’s social, emotional or behavioral presentation in any setting.

[84]   Parent’s timeframe with respect to this argument is somewhat misleading as it implies that Student was not hospitalized during the 2023-2024 school year prior to her signing the Settlement Agreement, when, in fact, the hospitalization starting May 5, 2025 spanned 18 school days during which time period Parent executed the Settlement Agreement as discussed above.

[85]   He did, however, present calmly by the time he arrived at the hospital.

[86]   Also, confusingly, despite Parent’s repeatedly expressed concerns to DMH and DCF about the impact that the multiple transitions among Perkins, Ives House, and home had on Student, she specifically requested a residential educational placement that would allow Student to attend school Monday through Thursday outside the home and return home every Friday to Sunday.  Such a schedule would perpetuate rather than resolve Student’s multiple transitions and was the same schedule (i.e., 4 nights out of the home and 3 nights at home) that was in place when Student initially began to become dysregulated at Ives House.  Thus, it does not appear that the residential educational placement Parent sought would have necessarily served to address Student’s needs at home.  Further, although this request was made to support Student’s in-home needs, as DMH explained to Parent when it began to decrease Student’s respite home scheduled, placement outside the home would limit the amount of Student’s in-home therapeutic work.

[87]   Such successes were evidenced in his in-district elementary and middle school programs and at Perkins after the initial transition period.

[88]   The Parties may also want to consider contracting with Dr. Murphy as a third-party progress monitor as he may be able to provide recommendations for Student’s supports once the Settlement Agreement term ends.