COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMININSTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Belchertown Public Schools & Leominster Public Schools, Avon Public Schools, Hampden-Wilbraham Regional School District, & Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
BSEA# 26-04884
RULING ON LEOMINSTER PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter comes before the Hearing Officer on the Motion to Dismiss (Motion) filed by Leominster Public Schools (Leominster or LPS) on November 12, 2025 in a matter pending before the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA). On November 19, 2025, Belchertown Public Schools (Belchertown or BPS) filed an Opposition to Leominster’s Motion to Dismiss (Opposition). None of the other parties took a position. LPS and BPS offered oral arguments on the issue on December 10, 2025. Pursuant to the parties’ joint request, the record was then held open until December 19, 2025 for submission of additional relevant information, which LPS and BPS anticipated would be provided by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE or the Department) in the interim. Belchertown filed its supplemental statement on December 17, 2025. Leominster did so on December 19, 2025. On December 22, 2025, Belchertown withdrew its opposition to Leominster’s Motion to Dismiss. For the- reasons set forth below, LPS’s unopposed Motion to Dismiss is hereby ALLOWED.
RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 3, 2025, Belchertown filed a LEA (Local Educational Agency) Assignment Hearing Request (Hearing Request) against Leominster, Avon Public Schools (Avon or APS), Hampden-Wilbraham Regional School District (Hampden-Wilbraham or HWRSD), and the Department, challenging DESE’s assignment of financial responsibility for Student to Belchertown. Belchertown contends that DESE issued two LEA Assignments in the present matter, both of which erroneously assigned financial responsibility to BPS.
According to Belchertown, DESE issued an LEA Assignment on or about September 2, 2025 (First Assignment) finding that Hampden-Wilbraham was programmatically responsible for Student and that Avon was financially responsible for her, but that Belchertown remained financially responsible for the budgeted costs of Student’s day school placement, including transportation, until June 30, 2026, pursuant to the “Move-In Law,” M.G.L. c. 71B, §5.[1] Belchertown challenged this assignment, as it had indicated that Student has lived in foster care within HWRSD since May 2021 and had been enrolled in Hampden-Wilbraham since August 2022; and, further, that Student’s Mother’s parental rights had been terminated as of May 21, 2025, at which time Mother was living in Avon, Massachusetts. The information provided by HWRSD to DESE indicated that Mother had moved to Avon in September of 2024. Furthermore, Student had not moved into a district with an individualized education program (IEP) calling for a private placement; rather, Hampden-Wilbraham, as the programmatic district, had proposed a private day program while Student was there enrolled.
On October 30, 2025, DESE issued a revised LEA assignment (Second Assignment), indicating that although the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and Wilbraham initially indicated that Student’s Mother had moved to Avon in September 2024, no evidence was provided to support these claims. Avon had disputed these claims, contending that Mother did not in fact reside in Avon.[2] Belchertown had recently provided DESE with information about Father’s residence, which had previously been unknown, indicating that he had lived in Leominster, Massachusetts since March 2019, and was residing there at the time Student was determined eligible for special education. DESE’s Second Assignment assigned programmatic responsibility to HWRSD from January 9, 2024 to January 23, 2024, and assigned shared financial responsibility between Belchertown and Leominster.
In the underlying Hearing Request, Belchertown contends that Mother did, in fact, live in Avon during the relevant time frame, as DESE concluded in its First Assignment; that to the extent Avon’s information regarding Mother’s address in Fitchburg, Haverhill, or Brockton is correct, no one is contending that Mother ever lived in Belchertown or that Student was ever enrolled within Belchertown’s schools; and that the LEA assignment does not address financial and programmatic responsibility after September 23, 2024.Further, Belchertown contended that BPS was not invited to the Team meeting in May 2025, during which Hampden-Wilbraham proposed an out-of-district placement for Student.
The Hearing was scheduled for November 24, 2025.
On November 10, 2025, DESE filed its Response to Belchertown Public Schools’ Request for Hearing, asserting that the First Assignment properly applied the relevant regulations to the facts that the parties submitted in connection with its assignment. The Department noted, however, that to the extent the Hearing Request raises a question about the accuracy of the factual information submitted to the Department on which the LEA assignments were based, the Districts were welcome to engage in fact-finding, augment the record, and present it to the Department for further consideration. DESE, therefore, requested postponement of the Hearing to allow for this process.
On November 12, 2025, Belchertown filed an assented-to request to postpone the Hearing until February 4, 2026, to allow for discovery and to permit DESE to further reconsider its decision, potentially obviating the need for a hearing. This request was allowed for good cause on November 13, 2025, and the Hearing was postponed to February 4, 2026.
Hampden-Wilbraham filed its Response to the Hearing Request on November 19, 2025, acknowledging that HWRSD is properly assigned programmatic responsibility for Student and taking no position regarding fiscal responsibility. On November 23, 2025, Avon filed a letter asserting that it is neither programmatically nor fiscally responsible for Student during the relevant time period and indicating that APS would be providing additional information and requesting further reconsideration of the LEA Assignment.
In the underlying Motion, Leominster argues that LPS is not a proper party to Belchertown’s appeal and, therefore, BPS has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to Leominster. Specifically, Leominster contends that Student has been placed in a foster care setting in Wilbraham, Massachusetts and has been enrolled in HWRSD since August 30, 2022; Hampden-Wilbraham found Student eligible for special education services on or about January 9, 2024, at which time Mother allegedly resided in Belchertown, Massachusetts; and Hampden-Wilbraham subsequently placed Student in a non-DESE approved private day school through its Team process. According to Leominster, pursuant to DESE’s most recent communication, LPS bears no financial or programmatic responsibility for Student, and is therefore not an appropriate party in the instant matter.
Specifically, Leominster asserts that in in its First Assignment, DESE reported that there was no adjudicated father for Student, and that at the time Mother’s parental rights were terminated on or about May 21, 2025, she allegedly resided in Avon, Massachusetts. Leominster was not a party to the First Assignment, which included HWRSD, BPS, and Avon only. DESE’s Second Assignment, on the other hand, included Hampden-Wilbraham, Belchertown, and Leominster, but not Avon. This assignment reported Mother’s residence and identified a biological father who reportedly resided in Leominster, despite the fact that there is no adjudicated father and, to LPS’s knowledge, no evidence of paternity had been provided. According to Leominster, on October 31, 2025, DESE rescinded the Second Assignment it has issued the previous day, because “the facts needed to support the assignment are neither sufficiently reliable nor sufficiently developed to support the assignment.” DESE explained that it had received conflicting information regarding the relationship between Student and “the individual characterized as her father, who is reported to reside in Leominster,” and that until their relationship is clarified, “the basis upon which to hold Leominster responsible is neither reliable nor developed.” At this time, DESE clarified that the First Assignment remains Student’s current LEA assignment.
Belchertown’s Opposition, incorporating by reference the factual background and statement of facts included in its Request for Hearing, contends that BPS has raised facts beyond a “speculative level” regarding Leominster’s potential fiscal responsibility for Student’s education – namely, it has stated that Student’s Father possibly resides or did reside in Leominster, Massachusetts; that within the factual record of the matter, DESE at one point found Leominster fiscally responsible due to Father’s residence, citing specific addresses; that DCF indicated that Father’s rights were terminated in May 2025; and that a public records search and court records regarding Father shows his that his address during the relevant time was (and remains) in Leominster.
DESE subsequently provided discovery to all parties. On December 17, 2025, Belchertown filed a supplemental letter, noting that as the discovery DESE had produced did not include any documents clarifying the identity of Student’s Father, the email provided by HWRSD to the Department (which was itself based on information Hampden-Wilbraham had received from DCF) provided evidence beyond a speculative level that Student did have a father who resided in Leominster. On December 19, 2025, Leominster filed its own supplemental letter, contending that the same discovery actually confirms the absence of evidence to verify the identity of Student’s biological father. On December 22, 2025, Belchertown filed a letter withdrawing its previous opposition to Leominster’s Motion on the basis of the information produced by the Department on December 19, 2025.
For the reasons set forth below, Leominster’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby ALLOWED.
LEGAL STANDARDS
- Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to the Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure, 801 CMR 1.01(7)(g)(3) and Rule XVIIB of the BSEA Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (BSEA Hearing Rules), a hearing officer may allow a motion to dismiss if the party requesting the appeal fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.[3] Specifically, what is required to survive a motion to dismiss “are factual ‘allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)’ an entitlement to relief.”[4] In evaluating the complaint, the hearing officer must take as true “the allegations of the complaint, as well as such inferences as may be drawn therefrom in the plaintiff’s favor.”[5] These “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . [based] on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact). . . .”[6]
Where one party to a BSEA matter files a motion to be dismissed from the proceedings, as opposed to a motion to dismiss the entirety of the complaint, the analysis turns on whether the complaint plausibly suggests an entitlement to relief from that party.[7] In the instant matter, this requires an assessment of whether Leominster is properly before the BSEA as a party at this time. For this reason, although Belchertown initially filed its Hearing Request against LPS, Avon, HWRSD, and DESE, the outcome of Leominster’s Motion to Dismiss will be governed by the rule for joinder of additional parties.
- Joinder
The standards governing joinder in a matter before the BSEA are set forth in BSEA Hearing Rule I(J), which provides as follows:
Upon written request of a party, a Hearing Officer may allow for the joinder of a party in cases where complete relief cannot be granted among those who are already parties, or if the party being joined has an interest relating to the subject matter of the case and is so situated that the case cannot be disposed of in its absence. Factors considered in determination of joinder are: the risk of prejudice to the present parties in the absence of the proposed party; the range of alternatives for fashioning relief; the inadequacy of a judgment entered in the proposed party’s absence; and the existence of an alternative forum to resolve the issues.[8]
As such, to determine whether LPS should remain a party in the present case, I must determine – taking into account the factors above – whether complete relief may be granted among the other parties, or if Leominster has an interest relating to the subject matter of the case and is so situated that the case cannot be disposed of in its absence.[9]
ANALYSIS
Leominster bases its Motion to Dismiss on the absence of evidence to support Belchertown’s contention that the individual whom the information submitted to DESE suggests lives, or lived, in Leominster during the relevant time period, is Student’s biological father. Following DESE’s latest production of evidence, Belchertown has acknowledged the absence of such evidence.
The lack of evidence to suggest a connection between Leominster and Student indicates that LPS does not have an interest relating to the underlying LEA assignment, and that complete relief may be granted among those who are already parties.[10] Moreover, should evidence come to light in the future that does establish a relationship between LPS and Student, the proper course would be for Belchertown to request a new LEA Assignment from DESE, on the basis of newly discovered information. As such, there exists an alternative forum to resolve the issues, and there is no risk of prejudice to the remaining parties in Leominster’s absence.[11]
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I find that Leominster is not a necessary party to this matter.
ORDER
- Leominster’s unopposed Motion to Dismiss itself as a party from the pending BSEA matter is hereby ALLOWED.
- The matter will proceed to Hearing, with the remaining parties, on February 4, 2026, beginning at 10:00 AM.
By the Hearing Officer:
/s/ Amy Reichbach
Date: January 5, 2026
[1] According to Belchertown, DESE’s First Assignment specified that in the event the actual costs of Student’s day school placement and transportation exceed the costs budgeted by BPS for that placement, Avon’s financial responsibility shall include the difference.
[2] According to Belchertown, APS disputed claims that Mother lived in Avon, providing evidence that the property had been abandoned and sharing other indicators that Mother did not reside there.
[3] This rule is analogous to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and as such hearing officers have generally used the same standards as the courts in deciding motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
[4] Iannocchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)).
[5] Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404, 407 (1995).
[6] Golchin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 460 Mass. 222, 223 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011) (internal citation omitted) (“in order to ‘show’ an entitlement to relief a complaint must contain enough factual material ‘to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)’”).
[7] See In Re: Hudson, Ruling on Taunton Public Schools’ Motion to Dismiss Itself as a Party,BSEA #1810830 (Reichbach, 2018).
[8] As the party seeking dismissal of itself in the instant matter is a school district, I need not consider limitations on the BSEA’s authority to order state agencies to provide services to students, such as those set forth in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71B, § 3.
[9] BSEA Hearing Rule I(J).
[10] See id.
[11] See id.