COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Frontier Regional & Union 38 School District
BSEA# 2603439 & BSEA# 26-03848
RULING ON MOTIONS
On September 22, 2025, Frontier Regional Public School District (Frontier or the District) filed a Hearing Request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) comprising a single issue for Hearing: Whether Student[1], “as a homeschooled student residing in Deerfield, Massachusetts, which is within the Frontier Regional School District, is entitled to a full array of B grid Services.” The District’s complaint sought the following relief: “The District is seeking an Order that the most recent proposed IEP, in June 2025 provides F APE to this student. In addition, an Order that the District is not mandated to provide Grid B services to this homeschooled student that does not participate in the general education classroom, and the District’s obligation to provide comparable services is met by providing the Student with C grid services.” The matter (BSEA # 2603439) was scheduled for an initial hearing date of October 9, 2025. Also on September 22, the District requested a postponement of the initial hearing date to allow the parties to work on an informal resolution of the matter.
On September 30, 2025, Parents filed Parent’s [sic] Response To Frontier Regional And Union 38 Public Schools’ Hearing Request And Parent’s Counterclaims, asserting procedural and substantive denials of a FAPE and seeking, in part, the following relief:
“Restore SLP to full stay-put immediately (minutes/grouping/location/provider unchanged); add separate ‘Social Skills – explicit instruction’ grid line (qualified provider, minutes, group size/ratio, setting) aligned to evaluations; reinstate a discrete Social/Pragmatic goal with progress monitoring; award compensatory SLP for minutes diverted to social instruction and compensatory social-skills minutes for the period with no discrete service; require compliant PWN for any future proposals/refusals; prohibit counting SLP minutes toward social-skills absent a lawful Team decision and separate grid entry.”
On September 30, 2025, the BSEA assigned Parents’ Counterclaim a new BSEA case number (# 2603848) and issued a Notice of Hearing thereby treating Parents’ counterclaim as a new Hearing Request.[2]
Also on October 1, the parties participated in a conference call with the Hearing Officer and agreed to schedule a pre-hearing conference in the District-filed matter. Advocate for Parents appeared to agree to postpone the initial hearing date in the District-filed complaint, # 2603439, to December 17 and 18, 2025. The parties also agreed to a pre-hearing conference on said matter on October 8, 2025, at 9:30AM.
On October 2, 2025, the District filed a request to postpone the hearing in the Parent-filed matter, BSEA # 2603848, currently scheduled for November 4, 2025 to allow the parties time to work on resolution.[3] An initial conference call is scheduled in that matter on October 20, 2025.
On October 3, 2025, Parents filed Motion to Oppose Delay for BSEA Matter Nos. 2603439 and 2603848[4]. In the Motion, Parents argue, in part, that
“delay would materially prejudice the Student: there have already been extensive delays; stay-put is disputed and not being honored; and the family is experiencing concrete hardship—the Student’s mother left a ten-year career to homeschool and to transport [Student] to outside medical appointments, and the family is hiring supplemental help to sustain homeschooling while litigating. Parents are prepared to proceed on the current schedule—or on an expedited one. Parents are concerned that the District’s recent litigation conduct reflects a continuing pattern of delay—including repeated extension requests and motion practice of limited utility—which increases cost and burden and risks prejudice to the Student.”
Parents requested that
“the Hearing Officer:
- Deny the District’s request for delay/continuance;
- Set expedited, consecutive hearing dates at the earliest mutual availability;
- Issue interim directives that (i) stay-put be implemented in full (same minutes, grouping, location, provider; no repurposing/substitution) and (ii) access to nonacademic/general-education contexts be provided via public/neutral-site comparability arrangements pending decision;
- Order prompt production of outstanding consents, PWN, service logs, and evaluation scheduling notices; and
- Direct the District to accept and respond to parent IEP/process emails (or designate an alternative reasonable channel) and to convene a Team meeting within 10 school days to address immediate implementation gaps or resolution.
If the Hearing Officer finds a brief continuance unavoidable, Parents request[ed] it be narrowly tailored and conditioned:
- Firm hearing dates set immediately
- Interim compliance orders: full stay-put implementation; neutral-site supported access to specials/lunch/recess; evaluation milestones (FBA in settings of concern; Sensory/OT supplement) by dates certain
- Weekly rolling production of service logs and updated IEP/PWN packets.”
Also on October 3, 2025, Parents filed Motion to Consolidate Proceedings and for Expedited, Coordinated Case Management for BSEA case #s 2603439 and 2603848. Parents requested that the Hearing Officer “establish an expedited, coordinated schedule with a single evidentiary record.” They further assert that
“Both matters concern the same student; the same or overlapping IEPs/evaluations (including the June 2025 IEP); the same witnesses and records; and substantially the same legal issues….Consolidation will prevent inconsistent rulings, reduce witness burden, conserve resources, and halt ongoing prejudice from delay. Parents request firm, near-term dates on an expedited basis, with only minor, date-certain adjustments as needed to ensure fairness to both parties.
The record reflects a multi-year pattern of District delay and restricted participation (limited access to meetings, refusal to accept IEP-related email communications, and denial of a requested Team meeting), coupled with a failure to pursue resolution after obtaining additional time. Consolidation with firm deadlines is necessary to prevent further erosion of stay-put, continued delay of evaluations and services, and additional harm to the student.”
Parents requested the following:
“Expedited, Coordinated Schedule
- Joint exhibit and witness lists and one unified pre-hearing conference
- Consecutive hearing dates at the earliest mutual availability;
- Pendency/Stay-Put: Direct that the last-accepted IEP remains in full force pending decision and that the District immediately implement all stay-put services without reduction, repurposing, or substitution;
- Interim Neutral-Site Arrangements: Direct that disputes about nonacademic/general-education access (specials, lunch, recess) be addressed through public/neutral-site arrangements to preserve educational benefit while the record develops;
- Continuance standard: No further continuances absent a sworn, specific showing of good cause; generalized scheduling inconvenience or self-created delay shall not constitute good cause.”
On October 6, 2025, Parents’ Advocate clarified Parents’ position via email as follows:
“The motion objecting to postponement is directed to both BSEA docket numbers. Although Parents filed an opposition and related counter in the district-filed matter, a second docket was administratively opened. Parents’ intent has been that the matters remain consolidated. For a clear, linear record, Parents propose following the timeline attached to the District’s filing for scheduling purposes.”
District’s Counsel responded on the same date, stating that the District “would like to proceed with the PHC on 10/8 on its hearing request (access of sped [sic] services for a homeschooled student). We agreed to this last week and we picked hearing dates of December 17 and 18.” According to the District, Student’s
“current IEP expires in November which means the team will propose a new IEP. Both the parents [sic] and district’s hearing requests may need to be amended at that time to include the new IEP. The District has repeatedly sent out requests for re-evaluation which parents have not responded to. The district may need to amend its hearing request to include a request for substituted consent. We are hoping to get the testing done so we can write a new IEP before the current IEP expires in November. There is no point going to hearing on an IEP that is about to expire. The only issue that is not tied to this is the issue of accessing special ed [sic] services (the District’s hearing request) because that decision will be applicable to any IEP that is proposed.”
Because neither testimony nor oral argument would advance the Hearing Officer’s understanding of the issues involved, this Ruling is issued without a hearing, pursuant to Bureau of Special Education Appeals Hearing Rule VII(D).
For the reasons articulated below, Parents’ Motion is Motion to Consolidate Proceedings and for Expedited, Coordinated Case Management is DENIED, in part, and ALLOWED, in part. Parents’ Motion to Oppose Delay is also DENIED, in part, and ALLOWED, in part.
LEGAL STANDARDS AND APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS:
- Expedited Case Management:
- Legal Standard:
Pursuant to BSEA Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules) Rule II(C)(1), a matter may be granted expedited status under circumstances involving student discipline.
- Application of Legal Standard:
Neither the District’s complaint nor Parents’ complaint satisfies the standard for expedited hearings. As such, Parents’ request for expedited timelines is hereby DENIED for both BSEA case #s 2603439 and 2603848.[5]
- Consolidation:
- Legal Standards
Although the Hearing Rules do not specifically address motions to consolidate, pursuant to 801 CMR 1.01(7)(j), where multiple proceedings involve “common issues,” the Hearing Officer may consolidate them “with the concurrence of all parties and any other tribunal that may be involved.” In addition, although not bound by the rules of civil procedure, Hearing Officers are often guided by these rules. Pursuant to Rule 42 of both the Massachusetts and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.”[6] The Hearing Officer must decide whether the “balance of considerations favors consolidation.”[7]
- Application of Legal Standards
After applying the principles set forth above to the matter before me, while balancing the need for administrative efficiency, I find that Parents’ Motion to Consolidate must be ALLOWED. As Parents stated, “both matters concern the same student; the same or overlapping IEPs/evaluations (including the June 2025 IEP); the same witnesses and records; and substantially the same legal issues….” Moreover, a consolidation of the matters would not prejudice the District; specifically, the District has sought a short delay of BSEA case #. 2603439 to seek informal resolution, and consolidation would allow the District time to do so. Therefore, Parents’ request to consolidate BSEA case #s 2603439 and 2603848 is ALLOWED.
- Postponement:
- Legal Standards:
Hearing Officers are bound by the Hearing Rules and the Standard Rules of Adjudicatory Practice and Procedure, 801 Code Mass Regs 1.01. BSEA Hearing Rule III governs requests for postponement. Pursuant to this rule, a party may request postponement of a hearing at least 6 business days before the scheduled hearing date, and the Hearing Officer may grant this request for good cause.[8] The decision whether to postpone a hearing is within the discretion of the Hearing Officer, who must give serious consideration to opposition to a request. Similarly, 801 CMR 1.01(7)(d) states that
“[f]or good cause shown a scheduled hearing may be continued to another date:
- by agreement of all Parties with the permission of the Presiding Officer, provided the Presiding Officer receives a letter confirming the request and agreement before the hearing date; or
- by written motion to continue made by a Party at least three days prior to the hearing date; or
- by the Presiding Officer on his or her own motion or upon a motion to continue made at the scheduled hearing.”
Caselaw further demonstrates that whether to continue any judicial proceeding is a matter entrusted to the sound discretion of the judge, and his decision will be upheld absent an abuse of that discretion.[9]
- Application of Legal Standards:
Here, Parents object to the postponement of BSEA case #s. 2603439 and 2603848 on the grounds that any delay would result in prejudice. I agree that possible prejudice to the Student could result from an extended delay, especially as Parents have raised stay-put concerns, which are intertwined with the District’s claim relative to the District’s obligation to provide B-Grid services to a homeschooled student.
As I have already decided that the matters merit consolidation, BSEA case # 2603439 will be postponed to and proceed on the initial hearing date assigned to BSEA case # 2603848, and both matters will proceed on November 4, 2025, unless either party articulates good cause for postponement of this initial hearing date.
ORDER:
Parents’ Motion is Motion to Consolidate Proceedings and for Expedited, Coordinated Case Management is DENIED, in part, and ALLOWED, in part. Parents’ Motion to Oppose Delay is also DENIED, in part, and ALLOWED, in part. Specifically, BSEA case #s 2603439 and 2603848 will proceed accordingly:
- The parties will participate in a pre-hearing conference via a virtual platform on October 8, 2025, at 9:30 AM. The link has been provided to the parties via email.
- Parents’ request for expedited status is hereby DENIED.
- Parents’ request to consolidate BSEA case #s 2603439 and 2603848 is hereby ALLOWED.
- Parents’ Motion to Oppose Delay is DENIED as to BSEA case # 2603439 but ALLOWED as to BSEA case # 2603848.
- BSEA case #s 2603439 and 2603848 shall proceed to hearing on November 4, 2025, unless the parties can mutually agree on new hearing dates or either party asserts good cause for a continuance. The parties will discuss this further during the conference call on October 20, 2025 at 4:00PM. The conference line # is 857-327-9245. When prompted, type in 498 093 73#.
- Exhibits and witness lists are due by the close of business day on October 28, 2025. Please send them to the Hearing Officer electronically and via mail to 49 Camelot Drive, Shrewsbury, MA 01545.
So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Dated: October 6, 2025
[1] Student is a third-grade nine-year-old student being homeschooled pursuant to an approved homeschool plan. At issue are the IEPs for the spring of 2024, the 2024-2025 school year, and the 2025-2026 school year. It does not appear that, to date, Student has enrolled in the Deerfield Elementary School, and as such, in the District.
[2] On October 1, 2025, Frontier filed Frontier Regional Motion to Deny Claims and Request for Relief. In this motion, Frontier asserted that Parents “raised a significant number of their own issues in the Counterclaim, that [went] well beyond the scope of the original hearing request. To raise new claims, the proper procedure would be to file a new, separate, due process hearing request with the BSEA. The BSEA process is not a civil court process and is designed to address specific, defined claims within a hearing request and any/all new issues should be raised in a separate filing.” The District requested “an Order dismissing the Parents’ Counterclaim and Request for Remedies and directing the Parents to file their own hearing request to address their own identified issues. In the alternative, should the Hearing Officer allow the response to be considered a hearing request, the District respectfully request[ed] that the timeline for this matter be re-set and allow the district to respond to the new issues raised in Parents’ filing.” As a new BSEA matter was already assigned to the Parents’ Counterclaim, the District’s Motion to Deny Claims and Request for Relief is moot and is not addressed in this Ruling.
[3] The District also asked to schedule a pre-hearing conference in this matter.
[4] Parents also filed Amended Response and Counter-Request in BSEA # 2603439.
[5] Neither does Parents’ request meet the standard for accelerated status. See BSEA Hearing Rule II(D)(1) (stating that accelerated status may be granted “[w]hen the health or safety of the student or others would be endangered by the delay; or [w]hen the special education services the student is currently receiving are sufficiently inadequate such that harm to the student is likely; or [w]hen the student is currently without an available educational program or the student’s program will be terminated or interrupted immediately”).
[6] Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
[7] In Re: Mashpee Public Schools, BSEA # 080998, # 081317, # 081316 (Crane 2008) (“the balance of considerations favored consolidation for the purposes of the evidentiary hearing with respect to the three students”).
[8] See BSEA Hearing Rule III (A); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.515.
[9] See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Fall River Motor Sales, Inc., 409 Mass. 302, 307 (1991); Caira v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 91 Mass. App. Ct. 374, 384 (2017); In re: Quinn, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 117, 120 (2002).