Division of Administrative Law Appeals
Bureau of Special Education Appeals
In Re: Brenton M. v. Springfield Public Schools
BSEA #24-07295
Ruling on Parent’s Request for Postponement, Request to Amend the Hearing Request, Request to Change the Status of the Case to Expedited and Other Orders
On October 28, 2024,[1] Parent’s advocate requested a postponement of the Hearing scheduled to begin on November 6, 2024, on the basis that the in-camera review of a video or videos, had not taken place. On Sunday October 27, 2024, the advocate also requested that a telephone conference call be conducted on Monday October 28, 2024.
The conference call held at Parent’s advocate’s request on October 28, 2024, addressed Parent’s informal verbal request to change the second date of hearing and possible alternative dates were discussed.[2] The in-camera review of videos which Parent may intend to offer as exhibit/s for hearing was also discussed. The Parties were advised that the Hearing would not be continued on account of the in-camera review, which if needed, would occur before the Hearing.
Via email on October 29[3], 2024, Parent requested to Amend the Hearing Request, and also requested that the matter be assigned expedited status.[4]
Parent’s requests of October 28 and 29, 2024, are addressed below:
Video/ videos in-camera review:
As reflected in the undersigned Hearing Officer’s Ruling of August 26, 2024, the District offered to arrange for Parent’s advocate to view at Springfield certain video/s the advocate had requested to view before deciding whether she would submit them as an exhibit at Hearing. Despite being available for such viewing since August 26, 2024, until October 29, 2024, Parent’s advocate had not clearly identified which specific video or videos she wished to view, nor had she viewed them. Therefore, although the advocate’s request for an in-camera review of any videos that are sought to be submitted by Parent as exhibits for Hearing was initially granted, the in-camera review will not occur until Parent has complied with the process described herein.
Given Parent’s request for a public hearing and FERPA concerns regarding protecting the confidentiality of other minors who are not the subject of this proceeding, Springfield is Ordered forthwith to blur the faces of any minor not connected to this Hearing prior to showing any video to Parent’s advocate.
If Parent still intends to offer a video or videos as exhibits for hearing, she must arrange to view them in Springfield by the close of business on November 1, 2024. If after viewing them Parent chooses to offer any of them as exhibits for hearing, Parent, through her advocate, must so inform the Hearing Officer in writing by noon on Monday November 4, 2024. The advocate must also identify the specific video(s) she wishes to have introduced into evidence and must make an offer of proof as to the contents of the video(s) by describing what occurred in the video and identifying what specific portion of the video supports which of her specific claims.
Only one copy of any video or videos proposed by Parent to be submitted into evidence will then be made by Springfield and provided in-hand by the District to the Hearing Officer on the morning of the first day of Hearing. The Hearing Officer will thereafter conduct an in-camera review of the video(s) prior to the commencement of the Hearing to determine admissibility. While portions of any admitted video may be discussed in testimony, no video will be shown during the Hearing itself. Moreover, because of FERPA considerations, and since this is a public hearing, the Parties are placed on notice that no other student may be identified by name, gender or any other identifiable information that could cause the student’s identity to be revealed. If a discussion regarding other students is necessary, the party offering this testimony shall inform the Hearing Officer prior to questioning the witness and the public will be excused during that portion of the Hearing. Failure to strictly adhere to these instructions may result in sanctions including closing the Hearing to the public.
Any video or videos admitted in evidence will be impounded through the appeal process in case either side appeals the decision. At the conclusion of the 90-day period, if neither party appeals the decision, all video exhibit(s) will be returned to Springfield.
Amendment of the Hearing and Request for Expedited Status:
On October 29, 2024, Parent requested to amend the Hearing Request “with the new issues”, purportedly consisting of a recent incident that allegedly caused an injury to Student’s face. Parent’s request further noted that
… what is happening now to him is the most important piece to focus on. No child should be beaten up almost daily, therefore we need to ensure it is before you, safety being requested as expedited. [sic]
This most recent incident alluded to existing allegations contained in the Hearing Request regarding Student’s safety and the inappropriateness of the Springfield’s programs for Student. Parent seeks to include this most recent incident at Hearing to support her position that since 2022 Student’s program/s at Springfield have been inappropriate and have denied Student a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). Parent seeks public funding for an out-of-district placement for such FAPE denial.
The new incident, as it is being offered to establish that Student’s safety remains at risk, does not constitute a new claim, but rather provides an additional factual bases to support Parent’s initial claim that Springfield’s programs are inappropriate for Student; compromise his safety; and deny him a FAPE. (I note that the District vehemently opposes Parent’s allegations.) As such, Parent’s request to Amend the Hearing Request is DENIED. However, Parent may present evidence at Hearing regarding the most recent incident alleged to have occurred on or about October 28, 2024.
Regarding Parent’s request that this matter be granted expedited status, this request is also DENIED. Expedited status is reserved for very specific instances involving discipline under the IDEA, Massachusetts law and Rule 2C of the BSEA Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules). See 20 USC §1415(k) et seq. Parent’s allegations do not involve discipline and as such, the case may not be considered expedited.
Change of venue:
Two decorum orders have previously been issued in this matter because of the tenor of the conference calls and communications between the Parties. Despite numerous attempts to facilitate communication, the Parties continue to interrupt one another or speak at the same time, and Parent’s advocate continues to address Springfield’s attorney in a disrespectful manner. Most concerning is the advocate’s refusal to communicate directly with Springfield’s counsel during conference calls or respond to her questions (this has also come up in emails). The level of animosity displayed during the calls is concerning and appears rooted in the advocate’s previous experiences with Springfield, unrelated to the instant matter, which she keeps raising during calls and emails. This conduct will make it difficult to manage the forum in the context of a remote hearing. Therefore, the hearing will proceed in person, in Springfield, Massachusetts, on November 6 and 8, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. The specific location will be determined at a later time.
As such, exhibits and witness lists are due by the close of business on October 30, 2024, with the exception of any proposed video(s) Parent seeks to have admitted in accordance with the provisions of this Ruling. Parent is granted an extension through 12:00 p.m. on November 3, 2024, to submit any such video(s) as an exhibit.
So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,
Rosa I. Figueroa
Rosa I. Figueroa
Dated: October 29, 2024
[1] Parent’s request was filed via email at 6:51p.m. on October 25, 2024, and thus, deemed received the following business day.
[2] During the conference call Parent raised additional reasons to change the second day of Hearing and the undersigned Hearing Officer offered to advance the second day to November 7, 2024, if a new request for postponement citing the new reasons was filed.
[3] Parent’s submission was filed via email at 6:51 p.m. on October 28, 2024, and thus, deemed received the following business day.
[4] Parent’s advocate’s requests were made as narratives in the context of emails. While the undersigned Hearing Officer would not normally accept such informal submission for consideration, given the proximity of the Hearing and imminent deadlines, I am making a one-time exception. The advocate is advised that any future request must be made in the form of a proper motion.