COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Dudley-Charlton R.S.D. v. Student
BSEA# 26-01884
RULING ON MULTIPLE MOTIONS FILED BY PARENTS AND DUDLEY-CHARLTON REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
This Ruling addressed the motions and requests filed by Parents and Dudley-Charlton Regional School District (District or Dudley-Charlton) between September 15 and October 1, 2025.[1] Parents’ submissions were filed by one of Parents’ two advocates[2], Kelley LaRoe.
- Parents’ Submission regarding Dudley’s Harassments [sic] and Discrimination of Parents’ Non-attorney Advocate is a Denial FAPE [sic] and violation of Parents’ IDEA rights separate from the child:
On September 15, 2025, Parents, through one of their advocates, filed a document entitled “Dudley’s Harassments [sic] and Discrimination of Parents’ Non-attorney Advocate is a Denial FAPE [sic] and violation of Parents’ IDEA rights separate from the child.” (Hereafter, Motion). Parents requested a “hearing on the motions.”
On September 18, 2025, Dudley-Charlton requested a three-day extension (through the close of business on September 25, 2025), to file an opposition on the basis that lead counsel had been out of the office on a medical leave, and thus, required additional time to file her response. Arguing that there were two attorneys involved in this matter, Parents immediately objected to any extension being granted. The request for an extension was granted in part and the District was notified that its response was due by the close of business on September 23, 2025.
The District’s Opposition to Parents’ Motion was received on September 23, 2025. The District argued that Ms. LaRoe’s Motion sought relief for “harms allegedly inflicted on her, not the Student”, where “the IDEA does not create a right of action for non-attorney advocates to seek relief based on the denial of disability-related accommodations” to the advocate individually are not justiciable claims before the BSEA. The District further denied the advocate’s harassment and discrimination allegations. Regarding procedural and substantive FAPE denials, the District argued that those claims are not part of the instant case. The District seeks denial of those portions of Ms. LaRoe’s Motion falling outside the scope of the matter currently pending before the BSEA.
To the extent that Parents’ eight-page submission is decipherable, it appears that Parents, via the advocate, alleges that District’s counsel sought assistance from the BSEA to interfere with an IEP meeting that was scheduled for September 15, 2025, by “shutting down [the advocate’s] Memory Aide” during that meeting, but that the BSEA denied such assistance. Parents further alleges that this and other actions by District’s counsel are designed to obstruct the Team process, conceal alleged discriminatory conduct towards Parents, and “attempt to make the BSEA complicit.” Parents’ advocate further alludes to a new hearing request that she will file in which District counsel are named as parties.
Parents’ Motion seeks “an Order for the District lawyers to act their level of education and stop interfering with the IEP process because their action violates FAPE and Parents rights separate from the child under the IDEA.” In support of their request, Parents cite statutory and case law regarding the importance of parental participation in the Team process. Neither Parents nor the advocate presented any factual basis to support the advocate’s allegations.
Since a hearing would not advance the hearing officer’s understanding of the issues presented, Parents’ request for a hearing on the Motion is DENIED.
Parents’ advocate’s motion concerns alleged actions by the District at a Team meeting that are not the subject of the matter before me. The sole issue before me is whether the District’s evaluations were comprehensive and appropriate; and, if not, whether the District is responsible to fund Parents’ independent speech and language, occupational therapy, and neuropsychological evaluations.[3] Given that the conduct of a Team meeting scheduled or held on September 15, 2025, is not the subject of this hearing, Parents’ Motion for an order directing District counsel to “stop interfering with the IEP process”, by alleged harassment and discrimination against advocate LaRoe, and for findings of fact on alleged denials of FAPE and procedural violations is DENIED.
- Parents’ Requests for Conference calls:
On September 18 and 22, 2025, Parents emailed the BSEA informally objecting to District’s requests and asking for a conference call. I note first that there is no right to a conference call pursuant to the IDEA. Further, previous conference calls with Ms. LaRoe, who has appeared numerous times before the BSEA, have not proven to be productive,
Parents’ request for a conference call is therefore DENIED.
- Parents’ September 23, 2025, First set of Motions:
On September 23, 2025, Parents filed Motions to Reconsider, and [for] Postponement. Parents takes issue with a previous ruling issued on September 16, 2025, adopting the District’s position; asserts Parents’ right to a public hearing (which request has already been granted); seeks a hybrid option to minimize undue burden for the family in having to travel to the BSEA offices in Malden, Massachusetts, and as a matter of fairness; asserts appearance of bias regarding the previous ruling, including disagreement with timelines, failure to provide legal reasoning, enter factual findings, and denial of a hearing on the motion[4]. As such, Parents seek that the entire ruling be vacated.
Parents’ submission also alleges failure to provide Parents notice of a right to counsel and pro-bono assistance, asserting that the BSEA “has a stated policy of assisting unrepresented families in seeking pro bono counsel”. To the extent that the advocate refers to the list of free and low-cost advocacy groups and/or legal assistance, the same was mailed to Parents together with the Notice of Hearing, and it is also posted and available on the BSEA website. The advocate further demands that Parents be provided with pro-bono assistance for the Hearing. The advocate is well aware that this service has never been provided by the BSEA nor is it currently available. Moreover, Parents are already represented by two advocates who hold themselves out as having knowledge and expertise in special education matters, and at least one of whom has appeared before the BSEA on previous occasions.
Lastly, advocate LaRoe seeks a two-week postponement of the hearing, alleging that one of the family’s advocates is presently ill. Only two advocates have entered appearances in this matter: Ben Tobin (first chair) and Kelley LaRoe (second chair). To my knowledge neither of these individuals is out on medical leave.
On September 29, 2025, the District, the moving party, responded to advocate LaRoe’s motions for reconsideration and for postponement of the Hearing, opposing both. The District noted that two previous requests for postponement initiated by Parents were already granted, and that the most recent one continued the Hearing to October 9, 2025. The District further objected on the basis that District staff have already rearranged schedules and coordinated coverage for the designated hearing date and it would be burdensome to re-arrange everything a third time.
Parents’ request for postponement of the Hearing is DENIED. Parents’ other requests, excepting the request for a change of venue addressed later in this Ruling, are also DENIED.
- Parents’ September 23, 2025, Second Motion for Recusal of the Hearing Officer:
Parents’ filed a second motion on September 23, 2025, seeking recusal of the Hearing Officer, alleging bias against Parents’ advocate[5], failure to address the advocate’s and Parents’ concerns regarding venue, and questioning the appearance of impartiality. As noted earlier, the issue of venue will be addressed separately in this Ruling. To the extent that some of Parents’ allegations involved the District, the District denied those in its submission of September 29, 2025, responding to advocate LaRoe’s Motions to Reconsider and for Postponement.
A Motion for recusal requires a Hearing Officer to engage in a self-examination process taking seriously the allegations made by the moving party, so as to protect the trust and confidence of the participants in quasi-judicial proceedings at the BSEA.
To this end, the challenged Hearing Officer must establish that she possesses the qualifications and expertise to conduct the proceeding before her and ensure that she is able to conduct the hearing in a fair and impartial manner, basing her determinations on the evidentiary record and the applicable law. Moreover, in providing due process the Hearing Officer must ensure that the hearing is efficient and responsive to the interests of the parties. Thus, the recusal process requires the Hearing Officer to: 1) examine her own professional qualifications to hear the controversies before her; 2) examine her own conscience regarding any subjective biases she may have about the parties or the subject matter; 3) be aware of any objective bars in the case before her, such as potential relationship-based bias, or financial interest in the outcome of the case or residence within the school district; and, 4) anticipate how her conduct may “appear” to the parties and the public in general. See In Re: Ludlow Public Schools, Ruling on Motion for Recusal, BSEA #1509319, 21 MSER 135 (Scannell, June 30, 2015) quoting In Re: Brockton Public Schools, 16 MSER 367 (2010); In Re: Duxbury Public Schools, 14 MSER 363 (2008); In Re: Marblehead Public Schools, 8 MSER 84 (2002).
- Professional Qualifications:[6]
This Hearing Officer is a member of the Massachusetts Bar in good standing, who practiced as an attorney in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for five years before accepting a position as a Hearing Officer at the BSEA in 1993. Given the Hearing Officer’s professional qualifications, which are not challenged in Parents’ Motion, recusal on this basis is not warranted. See In Re: Ludlow Public Schools, Ruling on Motion for Recusal, BSEA #1509319, 21 MSER 135 (Scannell, June 30, 2015).”
- Subjective Biases:
In examining the record and my own conscience to determine whether I am truly capable of conducting an unbiased, impartial due process proceeding, I find that I do not have any previously acquired or extra-administrative knowledge of the matter, nor impermissible biases or pre-judgments in this case. I find that I am capable of fairly presiding over this matter without prejudice to either party and that I can render a decision based solely on the evidence presented at hearing and the applicable law.
- Objective Biases:
Objective factors that may warrant recusal include: 1) any financial interest the hearing officer may have in the outcome of the matter that might reasonably compromise her ability to render a fair decision; or, 2) any personal or professional connection the hearing officer may have with a party. Parents’ advocate raises no such challenges as to this Hearing Officer. Additionally, to my knowledge, no current or previous familial, personal, financial or professional relationship exists between this Hearing Officer and the District or their representatives. I therefore find no objective bar to continuing as a Hearing Officer in this matter.
- Appearance Factors:
A hearing officer must also examine how her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned by the participants or the general public. To grant recusal, the alleged hearing officer’s bias, prejudice, conduct or ties must arise from some extrajudicial source. In this context, objections to prior rulings, orders or instructions in the current matter that may be unsatisfactory to the party seeking recusal do not constitute a proper foundation for disqualification. 28 U.S.C. § 455; Boston’s Children First, 244 F.3d164 (1st Cir. 2001); DeMoulas v. Demoulas Super Markets, 424 Mass. 501 (1997); Commonwealth v. Gogan, 389 Mass. 255 (1983).” The Supreme Court stated in Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540, 558 (1994) that,
judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. In and of themselves… they cannot possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required when no extrajudicial source is involved.[7]
Here, Parents’ challenges stem from dissatisfaction with this Hearing Officer’s determinations and handling of the case, something that does not constitute a proper foundation for disqualification on the basis of appearance factors.
A Hearing Officer is responsible for ensuring the orderly presentation of the evidence at hearing. To do so, the Hearing Officer may assist with clarification of issues, remedies, discovery, areas of agreement and disagreement between the parties and other matters prior to hearing. These may be addressed during conference calls, pre-hearing conferences, or motions as was the case here.
The challenges based on Appearance Factors here, as alleged by Parents, do not constitute a proper foundation for disqualification, because no reasonable member of the public could point to a factor or circumstance to doubt the Hearing Officer’s impartiality in this case.[8]
A determination regarding recusal falls within the discretion of the judge or in this case, the hearing officer, presiding over the particular matter, and if later challenged on appeal, only if abuse of discretion is demonstrated may denials of such motions be reversed. U.S. v. Bremers, 195 F.3d. 221,226 (5th Cir. 1999).[9]
I find no reasonable basis for granting Parents’ request for recusal on the basis of subjective bias, objective bars, or appearance of impartiality. Parents’ Motion for recusal of this Hearing Officer, is DENIED.
- Parents’ September 25 and 26, 2025 emails:
On September 25, 2025, Parents’ advocate emailed the Hearing Officer. In the interest of time, given that the Hearing is scheduled for October 9, 2025, I address the advocate’s main concerns. The advocate’s request that the Hearing be recorded in addition to a stenographer being present is GRANTED, but her request for a conference call is DENIED.
Regarding Parents’ request that,
…a link for the public be provided to ensure the public has access, including people with disabilities who are unable to access getting there for medical reasons, for example, agoraphobia, claustrophobia, social anxiety, etc. Every person is entitled to equal access to the parents’ public hearing, and pursuant to public hearing laws it must be posted publicly in advance.
On September 26, 2025, Parents’ advocate wrote again asking for a response.
Parents’ request to open the hearing to the public was granted on September 16, 2025. Said Ruling/Order indicated that the public hearing would be conducted in person as requested by the District. As to Parents’ request for a link so that individuals who, hypothetically, may have disabilities but want to attend, such request is DENIED. The Hearing will be held at an accessible building. Individuals requiring specific accommodations must address those directly with James Rooney, First Magistrate, Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA), as was previously indicated in the September 16, 2025, Ruling/Order.
- September 26, 2025 Complaint Regarding Discrimination, Ex-Parte Conduct, Improper Influence and Denial of Rights:
On September 26, 2025, Parents’ advocates filed a Complaint Regarding Discrimination, Ex-Parte Conduct, Improper Influence and Denial of Rights. Parents alleged that the BSEA had not responded to her requests for a conference call; had communicated with the District in a timely manner while disregarding Parents’ communications and requests for accommodations, evidencing bias and discrimination; engaged in improper ex-parte communications with attorney Page Tobin regarding recording during a Team meeting; denied ADA accommodations to the advocate; established a hearing venue that was inaccessible, “creating substantial hardship and limiting Parents’ meaningful participation”; evidenced the appearance of collusion/bias, relating to relationship between the BSEA and the District’s law firm regarding participation in workshops and published articles and communications outside of the formal record; engaged in improper conduct during IEP meetings; failed to accommodate the needs of service animals; ignored requests for postponement; and denied FAPE and a fair hearing because one of the advocates has become seriously ill. Parents’ advocate reserved her right to file further motions and to pursue all rights and legal actions in connection with the aforementioned violations, including actions against the District’s attorneys in their professional capacity.
To reiterate, the Hearing before me will solely address the Distrct’s Hearing Request regarding funding for independent evaluations, a very narrow issue for which one day of hearing has been designated. The remainder of Parents’ allegations are unfounded and appear to be tactics to further delay the Hearing, and circumvent instructions previously imparted by the Hearing Officer.
Regarding Parents’ specific allegations, I note first that her barrage of requests came in via formal and informal means within a period of approximately 15 days. Parents’ contention that the Hearing Officer communicated with the District in a timely manner while disregarding Parents’ communications and requests for accommodations seems to be premised on the District’s request for a two-day extension to respond to Parents’ submission, owing to illness. In terms of the advocate’s requests for accommodations, she was instructed to direct her requests for accommodations to ADA Coordinator for DALA/ BSEA. She had done so and consideration of her requests for ADA accommodations are under review.
Ms. LaRoe alleges improper ex-parte communication between BSEA leadership and Attorney Page Tobin regarding recording during a Team meeting. The attorney of record in this matter is Attorney Marianne Peters. At no time has the undersigned Hearing Officer engaged in any ex-parte communication with either Attorney Peters or Attorney Tobin or anyone else from the Murphy, Lamere and Murphy Law firm regarding this matter. Therefore, there has been no ex-parte communication. Furthermore, nothing involving a Team meeting or conduct during said meeting is part of the Hearing before me.
A formal motion for a change of venue, alleging hardship to Parents, addressed later in this Ruling, was received on September 23, 2025. Prior to that, Ms. LaRoe’s protestations regarding the location of the hearing related to her own and her support animal’s needs, also currently being addressed by DALA’s ADA Coordinator.
Parents’ allegations involving the appearance of collusion as well as the appearance of bias by BSEA leadership and hearing officers as to the District’s law firm (citing factors such as participation in workshops, articles, as well as general allegations regarding the communications outside the formal record) are wholly without merit.
The undersigned Hearing Officer has not participated in any workshop with either of the District’s attorneys who have filed an appearance in the instant matter. Assuming arguendo that the undersigned Hearing Officer had participated in any “workshop” with counsel of record, and she has not, such claim without specific allegations of direct impropriety would be meritless. Precluding BSEA hearing officers from presiding over cases on the basis of a hearing officer’s participation at an MCLE, Federation for Children with Special Needs, law school class or other special education program would have a chilling effect on continuing legal education in the field, especially where there are only six hearing officers in Massachusetts. Collaboration by and among attorneys from both sides of the bar and hearing officers, where other personal, familial, professional or financial relationships do not exist is not disqualifying[10]
Ms. LaRoe further asserts that the Hearing Officer has ignored her requests for postponement and denied FAPE and a fair hearing to the family based on allegations that an unnamed advocate for the family is seriously ill. The only advocates on record in the instant case are Ben Tobin and Ms. LaRoe, neither of whom has informed the Hearing Officer that he or she is seriously ill. It appears that Ms. LaRoe may be referencing a third advocate who has been involved with the family in related matters but who did not file an appearance in the instant matter.
Parents do not require an order to preserve her right to pursue legal actions connected to IDEA and Section 504 violations. Such right exists by operation of law, but must be raised within the two-year statute of limitations applicable to BSEA proceedings.
- Parents’ September 26, 2025, Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Investigation Into ADA Violations:
At 7:29 p.m. on September 26, 2025, Ms. LaRoe filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Investigation Into ADA Violations involving her request for ADA accommodations. This request is DENIED as Ms. LaRoe’s accommodations are being reviewed by the ADA Coordinator. Also, Parents in this matter are being represented by Mr. Tobin, the advocate filing the initial appearance on Parents’ behalf.
- District’s September 29, 2025, Response to Ms. LaRoe’s Motions to Reconsider and [for] Postponement & Ms. LaRoe’s Rebuttal:
On September 29, 2025, the District responded to Ms. LaRoe’s Motions to Reconsider and [for] Postponement, parts of which have already been discussed supra in this Ruling. In general, the District vehemently denies Parents’ allegations and as the moving party opposes a third postponement of this matter, arguing that while Ms. LaRoe has raised allegations of impropriety she failed to cite even one example where those allegations came to fruition.
Ms. LaRoe responded later the same date and again on September 30, 2025, restating previous arguments and objections addressed elsewhere in this Ruling.
- Discovery & the District’s October 1, 2025 Motion to Compel Parents’ Answers to Interrogatories:
Consistent with the orders contained in the September 16, 2025, Ruling, the District submitted its responses to Parents’ Discovery requests on September 29, 2025.
On October 1, 2025, the District Filed a Motion to Compel Parents’ Answers to Interrogatories, asserting that Parents had failed to respond by the deadline established by the Hearing Officer and that the responses were then overdue.
Ms. LaRoe Opposed the District’s Motion incorrectly interpreting the BSEA Hearing Rules regarding Discovery and raising her own disabilities as a reason to delay production. As noted multiple times throughout this Ruling, there are two advocates representing Parents in the instant matter and nothing prevented the lead advocate from fully responding to the District’s discovery requests by the deadline established by the Hearing Officer.
The District’s Motion to Compel is ALLOWED. Parents are ordered to produce responses to the District’s Discovery Requests in its entirety forthwith, and no later than 5:00 p.m. on October 3, 2025.
Given the information here ordered to be produced, and the numerous motions and requests by the Parties addressed herein, the deadline for submission of exhibits and witness lists is extended sua sponte through the close of business on October 3, 2025. To the extent that the District may have to supplement its exhibits based on Parent’s responses to Discovery, that deadline is extended through the close of business on October 6, 2025.
- Venue:
Parents’ Motion for a change of venue is ALLOWED. The Hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m. at the Worcester Superior Court, 225 Main St., Worcester, Massachusetts. The specific room will be provided to the Parties once it is confirmed by the Court.
Given the proximity to the Hearing, no further motions will be entertained prior to the Hearing.
So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Rosa I. Figueroa
Rosa I. Figueroa
Dated: October 3, 2025
[1] The Hearing Officer was conducting a hearing on a separate matter and then out of state during a portion of the time between September 22 and 30, 2025.
[2] The first advocate to file an appearance in this matter was Ben Tobin, who sits as “first chair”. Ms. LaRoe entered her appearance as “second chair” on August 28, 2025.
[3] Parents have yet to provide any proof of Student’s eligibility to receive free and reduced lunch (entitling Student to funding for independent evaluations on the basis of income) consistent with 603 CMR 28.04(5)(c)(1), as instructed by the undersigned Hearing Officer on August 27, 2025.
[4] Not all rulings require extensive legal analysis or findings of fact, and the determination of whether a hearing on the motion would advance the hearing officer’s understanding of the issues is discretionary consistent with Rule VI.D. of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals.
[5] These allegations are based on dissatisfaction with previous rulings.
[6] Parents does not challenge the Hearing Officer’s professional qualifications
[7] See In Re: Bridget Brown Parson, No. 21-30982 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. September 15, 2021)(after considering a motion for recusal presented by a pro-se litigant, the bankruptcy judge found no basis for recusal and drawing similarities to In re Pease, No. 09-54754, 210 WL 1849919 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. May 5, 2010), saw it as a “trial tactic, or as a substitute for obtaining appellate review of adverse decisions”).
[8] See In re: United States, 158 F 3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 1998), the Court explained the “high threshold” when considering disqualification, noting that said determinations must seek to promote public confidence in judicial proceedings while also preventing parties from disqualifying an impartial judge so as to secure a preferable one.
[9] See also, Wilborn v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 401 B.R. 848 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2009) citing U.S. v. Mizell, 88 F.3d. 288, 299 (5th Cir. 1996) (noting a judge’s broad discretion when determining disqualification).
[10] United States v. Sampson, 148 F. Supp. 3d 75 (D. Mass. 2015)(a judge in a capital case denied disqualification when his impartiality was questioned because he moderated a panel that included a potential expert witness in the retrial to determine sentencing).