COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

In Re: Student v. Attleboro Public Schools and Department of Developmental Services

BSEA# 26-01402

DECISION

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

Student, who is his own guardian, filed a Request for Hearing in the above-referenced matter on July 30, 2025.  The Department of Developmental Services was joined as a party to this action on September 26, 2025, pursuant to a Ruling granting a motion for joinder of said agency filed by Attleboro Public Schools.  Following four requests for postponement of the Hearing, granted for good cause, the Hearing was held remotely on October 27, 28 and 30, 2025, before Hearing Officer Rosa I. Figueroa.  Those present for all or part of the proceedings were:

Student

Kendall Poirier, Esq.        Student’s Attorney

Marisol Garcia, Esq.        Student’s Attorney

Parent

Maureen Caflisch, LICSW Community Counseling for Bristol County

Dr. Devan Mavani            Clinical Neuropsychologist, Neponset Valley Neuropsychology

Dr. Gabriela Valcea,        Psychiatrist, Community Counseling for Bristol County

Michael Joyce, Esq.          Attorney for Attleboro Public Schools

Jasmine DeBettencourt, Esq.  Attorney for Attleboro Public Schools

Ivone Medeiros               Director of Special Education, Attleboro Public Schools

Alexis Lamb, Ph.D.          Assistant Director and Team Leader, Bradley Schools

Emily Hughes                  Special Education Teacher, Bradley Schools

Elise S. Kopley, Esq.        Deputy General Counsel, Department of Developmental Services

Jennifer Casey                Transition Services Coordinator, Department of Developmental Services

Carol Kusintz                   Stenographer, Veritext Court Reporting

The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by Student and marked as exhibits PE-1 to PE-46, exhibits submitted by Attleboro Public Schools (Attleboro) and marked as exhibits SE-1 to SE-49 and SE-51 and SE-52, exhibits submitted by the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) and marked as DE-1 to DE-3, and recorded oral testimony. 

The record closed on October 30, 2025, following the Parties’ oral closing arguments.  

ISSUES FOR HEARING:

1. Whether Student is entitled to residential placement in order to receive a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive setting (LRE) appropriate to meet his needs. 

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES:

Student’s Position:

Student presents with exceptionally low intellectual abilities and adaptive behavior deficits, carries diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder, reactive attachment disorder, and schizophrenia.  During the 2024-2025 school year, he experienced significant mental and emotional deterioration inclusive of paranoia, depression, and violent homicidal thoughts, which led to a string of psychiatric hospitalizations and an inability to access his education for the majority of 2025.

Parents, who have now emancipated Student as a result of safety concerns in the home, rejected his most recent IEP, noting that Student’s inability to generalize skills across settings, requires residential placement.  Since Student cannot return home, he will be homeless when he leaves the hospital, unable to plan for himself, administer his medications or ensure his safety.  Previous short-term stays in homeless shelters have proven dangerous and inappropriate to meet his needs.  As such, Student argues that he requires residential placement in order to receive a FAPE.

Attleboro’s Position:

Attleboro argues that Student has nowhere to go as a result of parental and systems failures including DDS, psychiatric hospitals and homeless shelters.  Attleboro differentiates Student’s need for a stable place to live from his educational needs, asserting that his day placement at Bradley School (Bradley) offers Student a FAPE.  According to Attleboro, Student should be very proud of his educational progress at Bradley, noting the District’s commitment to continue to offer Student educational services there.  Attleboro disputes that Student requires residential placement for educational reasons.  Moreover, were Student to attend a residential school, he would have to leave Bradley, where he has performed well, as Bradley does not offer residential placement to students in Student’s program or age group. 

DDS’ Position:

DDS asserts that Student’s need for residential placement is the result of system failures other than DDS, noting that by statute it may not offer Student residential placement.  While DDS remains committed to providing Student Children Support Services, available through his twenty-second birthday, it asserts that any dispute regarding provision of such services should be appealed to and addressed internally by DDS, not the BSEA. 

Lastly, DDS concedes that it has been identified as the post age 22 responsible agency and while it is willing to assume responsibility for Student at that time, it is not responsible for him now.

FINDINGS OF FACT:

1. Student is a nineteen-year-old resident of Attleboro, Massachusetts, whose entitlement to special education services is not in dispute.  He is kind, curious, sociable and desires to be helpful and assist others. He enjoys working outdoors with his hands, sports, watching TV, playing video and board games, listening to music, doing puzzles, coloring, animae, everything Marvel related, going to the trampoline park and joking around (PE-11; PE-19; PE-43; SE-26; SE-42; SE-52).

2. At two years old, Student was removed from his biological parents’ home as a result of physical and sexual abuse and neglect.  Thereafter, he went to 11 different foster homes before going to live with Parents at seven years old.  Parents subsequently adopted him and have, over the years, addressed Student’s education and well-being, providing him with a structured and supportive home environment.  To ensure his safety, Parents have made numerous modifications to their home over the years (including Student’s room) by installing motion detectors and alarms, removing knives and sharp objects that could be used as weapons, placing a lock on the refrigerator to prevent overeating or access to restricted foods, use of visuals and checklists to assist with hygiene and to complete chores, and implementing a point system with rewards and reinforcements to promote compliance (PE-3; PE-11).  Parents have also arranged for Student’s individual therapy and psychiatric care with fidelity, have engaged in family therapy to address Student’s needs, and have secured numerous evaluations to better understand and address Student’s disabilities (Id.; Parent). 
3. Student has exceptionally low cognitive abilities (FSIQ of 63), and he presents with below average expressive, receptive and social pragmatic skills (PE-29).  He has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Schizophrenia, Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Mood Disorder and Conduct Disorder (PE-3; PE-9; PE-29; Mavani, Valcea, Caflisch).  He has experienced homicidal and suicidal ideation at different times and has attempted suicide by hanging (PE-3; Father, Valcea, Caflisch). 
4. Student experiences visual and auditory hallucinations and reports seeing a black figure with yellow eyes that stands on the side of his closet.  He hears multiple voices in his closet which want to hurt him and his family and to which he verbally responds, and he has been observed to have full conversations with a wall (PE-3; PE29; PE-43; SE-42; Valcea, Caflisch).  He has reported seeing a group of people stand around his bed and touch him, noting that he can feel it in his body (PE-3; PE-29).  He engages in self-injurious behavior, e.g., skin picking and scalding himself in the shower when upset/ dysregulated (PE-3; Caflisch, Valcea, Father).  He has a history of eloping, including running towards oncoming traffic, engaging in destructive and aggressive behaviors and has experienced psychotic episodes at home and in school.  At home he requires one-to-one supervision and a great deal of support across all settings as he engages in non-compliant behaviors, makes false allegations and his perception of everyday situations is distorted.  Student is more likely to engage in negative behaviors to seek attention, or when he is denied access to preferred items or activities or asked to do something he does not want to do (PE-3; PE-11; PE-23; PE-29; Valcea, Caflisch, Father).  Student has difficulty interpreting non-verbal communication and can be overly literal when presented with idiomatic or nonliteral language, resulting in social breakdowns (PE-25).  When presented with a demand during socialization time, he requires fifteen to twenty seconds of processing before producing a response (PE-23).
5. Student is easily overstimulated by everyday non-academic activities, and it is difficult for him to regulate independently (PE-23).  He is triggered by: delay or denial of access to preferred activities or items; activities with high movement; disagreements with Parents; others engaging in behaviors that he perceives to be rude or unacceptable; having to wait to gain the attention of a preferred adult or a preferred adult paying attention to another person;  interaction styles or work that he perceives as childish; transitions between settings or activities, and “anything that references violence or dangerous activities” (PE-23).  When overstimulated he interrupts, increases his vocal outbursts and yells; makes accusatory statements; he may put his head down on a desk/ table; pace around a room; make extremely violent threats; may bang on surfaces, rip or break things; exaggerates his violent tendencies and physical strength; swears and makes inappropriate gestures; references hearing voices or seeing things; and he may elope (PE-23).  He listens to music or goes on short walks as ways to calm himself, which are also helpful as proactive ways to help him stay regulated.  After incidents of dysregulation, he feels remorseful for his acts (PE-3; PE-11; PE-23).  His more significant episodes of aggression and dysregulation have resulted in multiple psychiatric hospitalizations (PE-3; Father, Caflisch, Valcea).  His psychiatric functioning has negatively impacted his ability to acquire age-appropriate skills (PE-29). 
6. Over the years, Student’s physicians/ psychiatrists have experimented with numerous anti-psychotic and mood stabilizing medications, observing that he has been very difficult to medicate because of his numerous medical diagnoses and his response to different combinations of medications (PE-3; PE-43; PE-44; SE-42; Caflisch, Valcea).  He is on Benztropine (Cogentin) 0.5 MG tablet by mouth twice a day; Risperidone (Risperdal) 0.5 MG tablet, 3 tablets by mouth twice a day; sertraline (Zoloft) 25 MG tablet, one tablet by mouth daily; and he was on Abilify LAI until sometime in 2025 (PE-42).  He has been recommended Hydroxizine 25 mg, Lorazepam 1 mg or Olanzapine Zydis 5 mg for anxiety and agitation, or in the alternative IM Haloperidol 5 mg, Lorazepam 2 mg and Diphenhydramine 50 mg (PE-3).   Student requires adult assistance not only for medication intake, but also for food preparation, travel and to manage finances.  His judgment and insight are described as poor (PE-3; PE-29; PE-44; Father, Caflisch, Valcea). 
7. Student’s progress after years of therapy has been described as marginal despite the “consistent participation and unwavering commitment of his parents” over the past several years (PE-29).  Until April of 2025, he lived with his fathers, one of whom presents with a debilitating medical condition worsening over time and toward whom Student has been particularly aggressive.  Another medically compromised adult lives in the same household (PE-43; PE-44; SE-42; Father, Caflisch).
8. Student has participated in the MCAS Alternate Assessments and is on a Certificate of Attainment track (SE-3; PE-10; PE-11). 
9. DDS was identified as the Chapter 688 agency responsible for post-secondary services, and on September 5, 2023, the District forwarded the requisite referral form to DDS (SE-9; PE-10; PE-11). 
10. Student has attended the day program at Bradley in Providence, Rhode Island since elementary school (SE-11).  At present, he attends the 18 to 22 transition program at said school as a publicly funded student (Father).
11. Student’s accepted IEPs for the periods January 18, 2023 to January 17, 2024 ,and the 2024-2025 academic year, focused on addressing his math, reading, writing, communication, work readiness, and social emotional deficits (SE-1; SE-2).  Similarly, the IEP for the 2025-2026 school year, rejected by Student in May of 2025, focused on the same goals (SE-29). 
12. While Student did well in both the academic and vocational portions of his day program at Bradley, he struggled with dysregulation in school, with at least one significant event while being transported in the van in November of 2024.  Over time, Student settled better into the structure and demands of his program at Bradley until the weeks and months preceding his hospitalization in April of 2025, after which he has not received any significant educational programming and has had zero access to the vocational portions of his program (SE-42; SE-29; SE-37; PE-43; Father).   
13. Lisa Freda, Psy.D., Lifespan School Solutions, Bradley, performed a psychological evaluation of Student on May 1, 2023.  Testing measures placed Student’s cognitive abilities broadly within the extremely low range (FSIQ 63) (SE-4; SE-6; PE-33).  Ms. Freda reported that Student expressed unusual thought content during testing[1] (SE-6; PE-33).  This evaluation was reviewed during a Team meeting on September 5, 2023, as a result of which Student’s IEP was amended to include her findings.  Parents accepted the IEP Amendment on November 27, 2023 (SE-7; SE-8).
14. On January 10, 2024, Parents consented to Student’s three-year reevaluation in all areas of need, including academic/ achievement, speech and language, occupational therapy and educational (SE-10).  Karen Ramaeka, special education teacher at Bradley, completed the educational evaluation on January 23, 2024, noting that test results showed very low skills  requiring Student to receive “moderate to maximum support to be successful” in his separate day program (SE-11).[2]  She recommended instruction and support across all curriculum areas with one-to-one support in writing (SE-11). 
15. The speech and language evaluation was completed by Hanna Weinrick, M.S., CCC-SLP on March 19, 2024, who found “below average expressive language, supra-linguistic, and pragmatic language skills”, but average receptive language skills, and that Student’s attention impacts his “receptive language, processing and comprehension skills” (SE-13).  She recommended continued services to address social-pragmatics, supra-linguistics and expressive language noting the need for supports at the functional level (SE-13).  
16. Stephanie Lancellotti, M.S., Ed, OTR/L, completed the occupational therapy evaluation revealing that Student demonstrated appropriate fine motor, bilateral coordination and visual motor skills.  Ms. Lancellotti made recommendations to help Student self-regulate, including noise reduction headphones, “move n sit cushion”, movement breaks, therapy band around desk legs and hand fidgets (SE-25). 
17. On April 3, 2024, Deven M. Mavani, Psy. D., LP, Neponset Valley Neuro-psychology, (CV at PE-39), reported the results of his independent neuropsychological evaluation of Student, which was intended “to clarify the severity and etiology” of Student’s cognitive and behavioral presentation (PE-29).  Dr. Mavani holds professional licensure as a clinical psychologist in Massachusetts and New Jersey and has performed over 500 to 600 neuropsychological evaluations (Mavani). 
18. During the intake interview with Dr. Mavani on September 26, 2023, Parents reported that Student’s self-coping mechanisms and self-regulation skills had declined, and that they had noticed declines in cognition after each of his previous three or four psychiatric inpatient hospitalizations (PE-29; PE-31; PE-32; PE-34; PE-35; PE-36; PE-37). 
19. Dr. Mavani’s neuropsychological evaluation consisted of a Clinical Interview;  Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV); Wide Range Achievement Test – 5^th Edition (WRAT-5): Word Reading, Mathematics Computation; Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST); California Verbal Learning Test – Brief Form, Third Edition (CVLT-3); Conners Continuous Performance Test (CPT-3); Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS); Trail Making Test (Condition 2, 4), Verbal Fluency; Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC-2); Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI-A); Ray- Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCFT); Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS-2), Parent; Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale (RADS-2), Parent; Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (Domain Level Parent/Caregiver); Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF-2, Parent); and Conners’ 4 (Parent) (PE-29). (Dr. Mavani indicated that his evaluation findings, below, were consistent with Dr. Freda’s psychological evaluation.) Student’s Full Scale IQ per the WAIS-IV was 63, placing him in the 1^st percentile, that is, the exceptionally low range.  In the WAIS-IV, “he scored in the exceptionally low range (2^nd percentile) for word reading and in the exceptionally low range (<1^st percentile) for mathematics computation. Crystalized Knowledge retrieval was in the below average range (5^th percentile).”  His attentional abilities were similarly compromised, as he scored between the low and the exceptionally low range on measures of working memory and processing speed per the WAIS-IV and the D-KEFS.  Executive functioning was mostly impaired.[3]  In the WCST, which measures cognitive shifting and flexibility, he scored in the below average range, as he did in the higher-order measure of verbal abstract reasoning, and in the exceptionally low range on a combined executive function/ visual spatial task that assessed organization and planning (PE-29).  Impairments were also noted in immediate and delayed memory functions per the CVLT-3 and the ROCFT, with scores in the exceptionally low range for visual recognition, immediate and delayed recall, and immediate auditory recall, although average range scores were attained on recognition (PE-29). 
20. Dr. Mavani concluded that Student presented with a moderate Intellectual disability (FIQS of 63, exceptionally low range), with impairments across his entire neurocognitive profile “[i]ncluding attention, executive functioning, language functioning, visual spatial abilities, and memory” (PE-29).  Moreover, Dr. Mavani found that Student’s behavioral screenings demonstrated severe depression, severe anxiety, impaired social awareness, impaired social cognition, impaired social communication, impaired social motivation, exceptionally low behavioral regulation, exceptionally low emotional regulation, and exceptionally low adaptive behavior” (PE-29; Mavani). 
21. Dr. Mavani noted that Student continued to be dependent on his parents/ adult assistance for activities of daily living, with no notable improvements.  Student continued to experience auditory and visual hallucinations and other psychotic symptoms such as paranoid delusions, with an uptake in aggressive behaviors, though visual hallucinations had decreased since Student started taking Paliperidone (PE-29).  Sharing the report with Student’s therapists, physicians, schools, DMH and DDS was recommended for best coordination of Student’s long-term care.  Dr. Mavani further opined that “[t]he complexity and prognosis of his diagnosis suggests that he will remain disabled for the remainder of his life and therefore it is recommended that [Parents] pursue an evaluation for SSDI” (PE-29).  The use of planners, checklists, electronic reminders or alarms, and visual aids were recommended as well as a healthy sleep hygiene inclusive of “avoiding napping, avoiding exercising at night, establishing a bedtime routine, abstaining from electronics use one hour prior to bedtime, and avoiding carbohydrate rich foods at night” (PE-29).  Exercise for cardiovascular health and stress reduction as well as a healthy diet were also recommended (PE-29).
22. Dr. Mavani testified that his evaluation revealed that Student was not capable of interacting with the community on his own, as this could place both his safety and that of others at risk given his exceptionally low cognition, daily living skills and his inability to manage his emotions and medication without assistance.  In comparing the results of his testing to previous testing scores, Dr. Mavani noted lack of notable improvement on Student’s already exceptionally low activities of daily living, for which Student continued to rely on parental support.  According to Dr. Mavani, Student’s behavioral dysregulation and significant difficulty managing his emotions was attributable to his extremely low cognitive functioning and comorbid psychiatric diagnoses.  Dr. Mavani opined that Student requires the level of support provided in a 24/7 residential facility as his presentation impacts all areas of his life and his needs are extensive and substantial (Mavani).  He also recommended that Student be evaluated for SSI/SSDI as he is not able to maintain a job and requires financial assistance (Mavani). 
23. Student’s Team convened on April 2, 2024, for the annual review and to discuss the results of the District’s re-evaluation (PE-30; SE-15; SE-17).[4]  The Team acknowledged Student’s ongoing social emotional, communication, behavior, speech and skill development needs related to vocational preparation or experiences.  Student was found eligible for special education services and an IEP was developed, covering the period from April 2, 2024 to April 1, 2025. The goals and objectives in this IEP included reading, mathematics, writing, and speech and language (focusing on social coaching and non-verbal communication skills), with objectives aiming for 70% to 95% completion accuracy and independence, respectively.  The IEP further included goals in social-emotional and task completion areas.  The social-emotional goal sought to limit disruptive episodes to an average of no more than 70% of the time by June of 2024, and no more than 55% of the school day by April of 2025.  The task completion goal aimed for Student to “complete vocational activities for up to 30 minutes in duration in three out of four opportunities”, and “appropriately request work breaks as necessary to regain focus on vocational or academic tasks with no more than two verbal prompts in three out of four opportunities” (PE-30; SE-15). 
24. The IEP proposed Student’s continued placement in Bradley’s Lifespan School Solutions, Inc., a private day program that focuses on intense academic, ADL and vocational skills development while addressing social/ emotional and behavioral skills (SE-45; PE-30). 
25. Lifespan School Solutions, Inc., is the parent company of Bradley and an affiliate of Bradley Hospital (SE-45).  Bradley s offers comprehensive, individualized programming to a wide range of students diagnosed with autism, ADHD, emotional disturbances, anxiety, developmental disabilities and behavioral disorders (SE-45).
26. The IEP offered Student extensive accommodations, extended school year programming and specialized door-to-door transportation (PE-30; SE-15).
27. On June 5, 2024, Student’s Team reconvened to discuss graduation (SE-18; SE-19; PE-25; PE-26).  The Team agreed to amend Student’s IEP covering the period from April 4, 2024 to April 3, 2025, extending Student’s educational services until his twenty-second birthday, based in part on the results of Dr. Mavani’s neuropsychological evaluation and Parents’ report of increased dysregulated behaviors in the home, including lying, threats, back-talk, manipulation, statements that he does not want to be awake, fearing hurting others and similar comments.  The uptick in Student’s dysregulation in the home, made simple activities of daily living (such as bathing) a struggle.  Moreover, Student appeared to have difficulty generalizing learned skills (SE-18; SE-19; PE-26; PE-27).  Parents further reported having sought services from the Department of Mental Health (DMH), but were denied eligibility, and that they had started the application process for DDS services.  While Parents were grateful and acknowledged the benefits of Student’s program during the day, they noted the need for increased support when he was not in school, explaining that the necessary level of support exceeded what they were able to provide (SE-18; SE-19; PE-25; PE-26; PE-27).  Parents requested that the Team consider residential placement for Student.  Attleboro rejected Parents’ request for residential services.  On or about June 21, 2024, the District forwarded to Parents an Amendment of the April 2024 to April 2025 IEP, updating Student’s graduation date to September of 2028 and offering Student services as a private day student at Bradley (SE-18; SE-19; PE-25; PE-26; PE-27).  The Team recommended a home assessment to which Parent’s consented on September 5, 2024 (SE-18).  Parents accepted the IEP Amendment on June 21, 2024 (PE-25).
28. Student turned 18 years old at the beginning of the 2024-2025 school year, and after initially being denied DDS services on June 21, 2024, Parents appealed the rejection. DDS ultimately approved adult services on November 21, 2024, on the basis of an intellectual disability (PE-43; SE-9; SE-42; SE-47; SE-51; Father). 
29. During the 2024-2025 school year Student received educational services at Bradley’s day program[5] (PE-3; PE-8; PE-23; Father).  Bradley’s day program for students ages 18 to 22 offers students a structured and supported high school transitional special education program.  Classroom instruction focuses on vocational and career readiness skills, and functional life-skills through hands-on activities.  Students have access to clinical support and school and community-based vocational opportunities (PE-23).  An incentive system is implemented in the classroom through which students earn rewards when they follow school rules and meet staff expectations regarding respect, responsibility, safety and achievement during the school day. 
30. Student has a behavior plan at Bradley, most recently revised on or about October 1, 2024 (SE-22), that addresses dysregulation, targeting disruptive/ oppositional  and off-task behaviors through prompts, redirection and positive alternative choices, stressing the staff’s need to avoid engaging in power struggles when addressing these behaviors in school (SE-22; PE-23; PE-24).  Student is known to make violent threats that, according to school staff, he cannot follow through on.  It is difficult for him to take responsibility for his actions and staff find it more effective to validate “his feelings while reminding him of expected classroom behaviors, rules and consequences” through non-judgmental, clear and neutral statements (PE-23).  He has expressed a preference for male staff.  A chart of daily incidents of off task and disruptive/ oppositional behaviors in school for the period from September 2, 2024, to March 24, 2025, shows a reduction in the number of times Student engaged in the targeted behaviors during that period of time (PE-24).  However, by February of 2025 he was still displaying five to seven behavioral issues per week in school, becoming distracted and distracting others (PE-41). 
31. At home and in the community, sometime between February 25 and 28, 2025, Student’s paranoia (e.g., looking over his shoulder, feeling like someone was watching him) increased, and he was displaying increased anxiety (PE-22; PE-41; PE-42).  As time went on, at home, Student became more argumentative, oppositional, angrier and irritable in the home, as paranoia, manic episodes and delusions continued to rise.  By March 15, 2025, he was worried about having to go out into the backyard, fearful that he would be kidnapped for ransom and hurt, and he provided graphic descriptions of these events (PE-41; PE-42).  In late March of 2025, Bradley School staff noticed changes and contacted Parents reporting that Student was becoming more obstinate, combative and that he was verbalizing suicidal and homicidal thoughts (PE-41).  At the time, Student was taking Concerta 27 mg daily, Divalproex ER 500 mg daily, Guanfacine 1 mg daily, Hydroxyzine HCI 25 mg three times per day, and Paliperidone ER 9 mg every night (PE-41; PE-44).
32. On or about March 21, 2025, Student reported to Alexis Lamb, Assistant Director and clinician at Bradley [6] (CV at PE-46; SE-49), that he sometimes had violent thoughts regarding school (PE-21).  Dr. Lamb opined that Student could exaggerate or sensationalize things and that he could go off on tangents but was easily redirected (PE-21).  
33. On April 7, 2025, Student required emergency evaluation by the Mobile Crisis Intervention (MCI) at Community Counseling of Bristol County (in Taunton, Massachusetts) as he was having increased violent thoughts of hurting family and peers without understanding the seriousness of the situation and potential negative consequences if his thoughts escalated to action (PE-9; PE-18).  By then, Parents realized that they could no longer provide the intense level of long-term support Student required (PE-9).  Parents had previously accessed MCI on April 17, 2024 and also on August 4, 2023 (following an incident of aggressive behavior in school and Student’s then reporting to Parents that he wanted to kill himself and others, and that he had a hit list, which led to his hospitalization), October 29, 2022, October 5, 2022, June 8, 2022, and on April 20, 2022 (resulting in a ten-day hospitalization) (PE-28; PE-31; PE-32; PE-34; PE-35; PE-36; PE-37).
34. The MCI Evaluation delineates Student’s statements that he kept a mental list of about five individuals he intended to and felt urged to hurt by using blunt objects to bludgeon them; he however, did not intend to hurt any other individuals outside those five.  He reported “chronic paranoid anxiety” that over the previous several months people were watching him, noting that these intrusive thoughts had recently increased.  Student had not, however, acted on his urges to hurt people (PE-18).  According to Parents, when talking about his urges he became excited and stimulated by discussing his plans of aggression. Parents also reported that Student had been having nightmares (PE-18).  At the time of the MCI evaluation, Student was on Concerta 27 mg, Divalproex ER 500 mg, Guanfacine 1 mg, Hydroxyzine HCI 25 mg, and Paliperidone ER 9 mg (PE-18).
35. On April 8, 2025, Student was admitted to the Hospital for Behavioral Medicine in Worcester, Massachusetts (Behavioral Medicine), following reports of homicidal and suicidal ideation with a kill plan and threats to Parent with a knife (PE-3; PE-17).  Student reported wanting to hurt certain female peers and a teacher, stating that he wanted to cut women and watch them bleed.[7]  His plan included killing family members before hanging himself.  Prior to the incident that caused his hospitalization, he was experiencing a great deal of paranoia and increased impulsivity and aggression with posturing and verbal threats (PE-3; Father, Caflisch). 
36. During his hospitalization at Behavioral Medicine Student engaged in aggressive behaviors several times after becoming agitated.  On April 13, he was observed pacing the halls and jumping on to his bed (he reported having struck his head after a fall); on April 14 he engaged in aggressive behaviors; and, on April 15, 2025, he punched a window and hit his hand against a wall (PE-8; PE-14; PE-15).  Several nurse and doctor notes dated April 30, June 14, 15, 16, and 24, 2025, and Psychiatric Progress Notes for the period from April 10 to July 9, 2025 describe Student’s struggles to remain regulated throughout this period, at times requiring physical holds, seclusion and mechanical holds to manage increasingly angry and threatening behavior, destruction of property, refusal to follow verbal redirection, difficulties with some peers, agitation and aggressive behavior toward staff, all while appearing distressed (PE-4; PE-5; PE-6; PE-7; PE-13; PE-16; SE-36).  He reported an inability to sleep, and having bad weeks with intrusive violent thoughts (PE-4; PE-5; PE-6; PE-7; PE-13).  The note dated June 24, 2025, reports Student’s attempt to assault a staff member resulting in a physical hold and Student being placed in the seclusion room for safety reasons as he was observed to appear tearful and expressed feelings that others perceived him as weak (PE-4).  Hospital notes describe the need to medicate Student with Thorazine 100 mg IM, or Olanzapine 10 mg IM, or Haldol 5 mg po x 1, Benadryl 50 mg po x 1 and Ativan 2mg po x 1, and his worsening after the Ativan IM was administered (PE-5; PE-6).  In addition to medication, Student also received distress tolerance coaching and supportive therapy (PE-5; PE-6).
37. While at Behavioral Medicine Student also reported attempting to commit suicide, by tying something around his neck, noting that he had been stopped by the staff.  He expressed concern that the hospital wanted him to agree to go to a shelter, which he refused.  On or about May 29, 2025, he also mentioned to his therapist, Maureen Caflisch, that he had befriended a thirty-year old former patient who was now in a group home and came back to visit him.  According to Student, this individual was “the Greatest guy in the world and he really ha[d Student’s] back”.  Ms. Caflisch became concerned given Student’s “incredible vulnerability for exploitation” and reported this to Parents (PE-41).                                                                                                                                           
38. Also, in May of 2025, Devin Woodworth, MSN, APRN at Behavioral Medicine wrote that Student “would not do well if put in the position of having to care for himself outside of an unstructured environment”, as he would not know how to care for himself or be safe in the community (PE-8).  Nurse Woodworth supported Student’s need for residential placement and suggested that the District consider the same (PE-8).
39. On May 2, 2025, Student’s Team convened to review the result of the home assessment conducted by Courtney Morgan, M.S., BCBA, LABA, on September 24, 2024, February 12 and March 30, 2025[8] (SE-26; SE-29; PE-10; PE-19).  While both parents were in attendance, neither Student (who was hospitalized) nor DDS participated in the Team meeting.  Ms. Morgan’s report notes Student’s familiarity with daily living skills and ability to complete chores with check-ins by parents and visuals/ checklists (SE-26).  Ms. Morgan recommended use of environmental strategies, exploration of ABA in-home supports, and for Student to continue counseling and psychiatric care (SE-26; SE-31). 
40. The May 2, 2025, Team also discussed Student’s then current strengths, weaknesses and performance (including his fourth-grade level reading abilities), and found Student eligible to continue to receive special education services under the categories of emotional and intellectual impairments (SE-29; SE-31; PE-10; PE-11).  The Team recognized a need for continued functional academic instruction in English language arts, writing and math, and also recognized the need for speech and language, social emotional services, ADLs and vocational exploration and experiences (SE-29; PE-10). 
41. During the meeting Parents expressed concern that given Student’s then mental health status and needs, he required residential placement.  Parents also wished for Student to be exposed to a greater variety of jobs that were better aligned with his interests and in areas not yet explored so that he could decide what interested him.  Student’s Vision Statement specifically noted his desire to “work in construction- working with [his] hands or building things…. be an FBI agent, but if that’s not possible… do a job where upon graduation [he could] help people” (PE-10).  Upon graduating, Student desired to live in a group home setting among individuals his own age (Id.; Student).  At the time of this meeting, Student shared educational decision-making power with Parents (PE-10; PE-11).  Parents informed the Team that they would not be pursuing guardianship of Student (SE-29; PE-10). 
42. The Team determined that Student responded well to the structure and therapeutic interventions offered in small group settings, noting his struggles in less structured environments often leading to off-topic conversations and distraction.   An IEP for the period from May 2, 2025, through May 1, 2026, offering Student participation in a private separate day program, to wit, the Bradley School was offered, inclusive of extended school year services and door-to-door transportation (SE-29; PE-10).  The IEP contained goals in the areas of Reading (with the expectation that Student will be able to read at the fourth grade level with 90% accuracy by October of 2025 and fifth grade level with 85% minimum comprehension accuracy by March of 2026); written language/ work readiness (expecting him to complete employment forms independently with 90% accuracy and use appropriate capitalization and punctuation 100% of the time); mathematics (expectation being able to tell time in five minute increments, to the quarter and half time 75 to 90% of the time); and speech and language/ social emotional learning (demonstrating expected language behaviors 70% of the time by October of 2025 with no more than two verbal prompts and at 80% by March of 2026).  The Service Delivery Grid called for 6.5 hours of services daily to address Student’s areas of need consistent with his IEP goals, and a fifteen-minute daily consultation among service providers (SE-29; PE-10). 
43. Via email on May 2, 2025, Alexis N. Lamb, Ph.D., (Assistant Director and Team leader at Bradley), expressed concern that Student would be homeless upon discharge from Behavioral Medicine. (PE-12).  She noted,

There is no question that this is a very challenging situation. As I noted in the IEP meeting, [Student] can often present as having more adaptive and cognitive skills than he actually does, when in actuality he has an intellectual disability in addition to his serious mental health concerns. He does as well as he does because of the intensive structure and clinical support that he receives at both home and school. However, as his father reported, his mental health situation has nonetheless worsened. I’m concerned about what could happen to him if we do not find a resolution to this situation. Homelessness is not a viable option (PE-12).[9]

44. On May 13, 2025, Devin Woodworth, MSN, APRN, Hospital for Behavioral Medicine, informed Attleboro that Student would soon be dismissed and was in need of “safe housing” to prevent him from becoming homeless (SE-33).
45. As his own guardian, on May 30, 2025, Student rejected the IEP and placement (SE-29).  Previously, on May 12, 2025, he had signed an age of consent form sharing educational decision-making with one of his parents (SE-32).  Parent had previously rejected the IEP’s proposed placement via email on May 13, 2025 (PE-10; PE-11). 
46. Maureen Caflisch, LICSW, Community Counseling of Bristol County (CCPA), (CV at PE-38)[10], has been Student’s therapist since late July or August 1, 2013.  On May 27, 2025, she authored a letter describing Student’s modest and inconsistent progress toward meeting his extensive therapeutic treatment goals and objectives.  She aimed to support Student’s capacity to develop, complete adult daily living skills and household chores, and increase autonomy and ability to express his thoughts and feelings in respectful ways (SE-34; PE-9; Caflisch).  Despite years of individual and family therapy, he continued to display high levels of emotional and behavioral dysregulation frequently seen in individuals who have experienced significant early childhood trauma.  Ms. Caflisch opined that Student had benefitted from “[t]he predictability, consistency, routine and structure provided by the highly skilled and talented team of professionals” at Bradley School (SE-34; PE-9).  She recommended Student’s participation in a structured residential setting capable of providing a safe and secure environment with supervision, where Student’s complex social, emotional, psychiatric, academic and vocational needs were met (SE-34; PE-9).  
47. Ms. Caflisch testified about Student’s difficulties with generalization, noting that transitions are very challenging as are tasks requiring higher level skills.  She stated that Student was the most compromised and damaged child with whom she had ever worked, noting that over the years his presentation became increasingly challenging as his diagnosis of schizophrenia and internal stimuli/ arousal, combined with attentional and cognitive deficits, made it difficult for him to connect with what was said and taught in therapy and generalize those tools across settings (Caflisch).
48. Ms. Caflisch opined that Student was incapable of living independently because of the impact of his numerous deficits and diagnoses, noting that he would require residential placement for the rest of his life (Caflisch).  She further raised concerns about the length of time that he has been out of school (the most he has ever been in his life), while in and out of hospitalizations, without access to the type of structure and educational and vocational instruction he requires.  Her contact with Student over the past several months has been minimal due to his hospitalizations.  She described Student’s most recent presentation as being in a high state of arousal and highly dysregulated, in great need of the support, routines and stability (Caflisch).
49. Devin Woodworth also wrote a letter, which Attleboro received on May 30, 2025, noting his clinical opinion that while Student did not

…show as much of the behaviors described by his parents while inpatient, that he would not do well if put in the position of having to care for himself outside of an unstructured environment. I do not believe that he would know how to care for himself and be safe in the community. Due to parents current inability to take him home, and DDS not being able to place student until he is 22 and out of school, I would like to support the parents ‘request that the school assess and consider his need for residential placement until the age of 22’ (SE-35).

50. During the spring of 2025 Parents determined that they could no longer care for Student in light of his aggressive outburst, which placed medically involved family members living in the same household at risk (PE-3; SE-37; Caflisch, Valcea, Father).  Unable to return to his home, Student has been homeless ever since.  Having been emancipated, he is also his own guardian (PE-3; SE-37; Father).
51. Student remained inpatient at Behavioral Medicine until July 11, 2025, when he was discharged and transferred via Uber to the Y2Y Shelter for teens, in Cambridge, Massachusetts where he had been awarded a bed for 30 days (PE-3; PE-41).  In light of the discharge, Father brought Student to Boston Children’s Hospital, but Student did not meet admission criteria (PE-3; Father).  Returning home was not an option given that there were other medically compromised individuals in the home, so Student stayed at the Y2Y Shelter (Father).  The Psychiatric Progress Notes indicate that Student did not want to be homeless and as his discharge date approached, he became anxious (PE-16; SE-36).  Student reported that his hospitalization at Worcester Behavioral Medicine had been helpful, noting that staff cared about him (PE-3).  While at this facility, he communicated telephonically with his therapist, Maureen Caflisch, who noted that Student reported being very scared, sad, unable to sleep well, not liking the food, anxious about what would happen next and missing his home (Caflisch).
52. At the Y2Y Shelter, Student was not allowed to spend the daytime hours at the shelter.  Instead, he would roam around Cambridge, alone.  On July 11, 2025, Ms. Caflisch explained to Student’s case manager at Behavioral Medicine that he lacked the “capacity to roam around unsupervised and would be at risk, confused and fearful” (PE-41).  Ms. Caflisch was horrified about the prospect of Student going to a homeless shelter, opining that this was clinically unethical, and morally wrong (Caflisch).  The case manager indicated that when creating a discharge plan for Student, she had found a placement that would have been perfect for him but neither the Department of Children and Families (DCF) or DDS would agree to fund said placement (PE-41). 
53. Parents wrote to Behavioral Medicine on July 11, 2025, expressing frustration over Student’s transfer to the Y2Y Shelter given that Student could not care for himself and required supervision.  Y2Y closed its doors after certain hours preventing individuals staying there from accessing the building until doors reopened leaving Student to fend for himself alone in the community (SE-37).    
54. On or about July 12 or 13, 2025, Student was transported from the Y2Y Shelter to Cambridge Hospital (CHA[11]) as the shelter staff reported that he could not make decisions or care for himself and would “further decompensate the longer he stay[ed] at the shelter” (PE-3; Father).  According to Student, he had spent two nights at the shelter and the first night had been difficult because it seemed to him like people wanted to beat him up.  While at the shelter, he had only eaten an apple and drank water (PE-3).  CHA found that while Student did not meet “Section 12 criteria for involuntary admission, he would benefit from voluntary inpatient admission, medication evaluation, group treatment, coordination with community resources and outpatient care” and thus admitted him on July 13, 2025 (PE-3; SE-44).
55. During a portion of Student’s hospitalization at CHA (July 15 to September 5, 2025), he received 10 hours per week of tutoring through LearnWell Education, consistent with a Physician’s Affirmation of Need for Temporary Home or Hospital Education for Medically Necessary Reasons at CHA (PE-45; SE-38; SE-40; SE-41).  Between August and September of 2025, LearnWell provided Student different combinations of tutoring in science, social studies, math, Greek philosophy, history, English language arts, grammar/ creative writing, and once per week Student spent the tutoring hour solving mysteries, playing Parchisi or Monopoly.  In August 2025 Student attended his sessions but during September he was excused from or he refused to attend some of the sessions (PE-45; SE-39).
56. Student remained psychiatrically hospitalized at CHA through September 23, 2025, when he was discharged to Ascension House, a homeless shelter in Attleboro (PE-41).  Email communications between the attorneys, the District’s Special Education Director, Doreen DeRose of Attleboro’s Transportation Department and Addison Lindley, LIWCSW (Clinical Social Worker, Inpatient Psychiatry- Adolescent Unit 5W at CHA) show that CHA and the District coordinated transportation for Student to enable him to attend his Bradley day program starting on September 24, 2025 (PE-2).  Despite Student being aware that transportation was available, and transportation arriving daily at Ascension House, by September 30, 2025, he had not yet accessed transportation despite being ready and desirous to attend Bradley.  Somehow, he could not get to the meeting point, or was at the wrong pick-up spot, and had no telephone to communicate directly with the transportation services (PE-1).
57. Gabriela Valcea, M.D., Student’s Psychiatrist at Community Counseling of Bristol County, has worked with Student since 2014 (CV at PE-40).  She is a board certified, child and adolescent psychiatrist, licensed in Massachusetts since 2004, who has seen Student once per month to prescribe, monitor and adjust his numerous medications; if Student is in crisis, she will see him more often.  She noted that Parents were very good about keeping her informed of developments and they were very involved with Student’s therapies (Valcea). 
58. Dr. Valcea met with Student on or about October 2, 2025, at the CCB crisis unit, noting that he was in panic about what was going to happen to him and his living arrangement insecurity.  Student shared that it was better for everyone if he was away from home because he was feeling unsafe and might hurt people.  Dr. Valcea opined that Student requires a high level of care in a residential facility staffed by clinicians but did not think that he belonged in a locked unit (Valcea). 
59. Student testified that he ultimately wishes to live in a group home or a campus where he also attends school.  He likes thinking and learning about different jobs noting that he would like to work in construction or at a restaurant later in life, although working for the FBI has always been his dream, even when he knows that this is not possible.  He testified that he enjoys the structure Bradley offers during the day, as it is hard for him when structure is not provided.  While he likes the teachers at Bradley, he does not like some of the people there.  He is aware that he does not have a place to live and this scares him (Student).
60. A comparison of Student’s progress report for the periods from January 2022 through January 2025, present marked contrast in the manner in which Student’s progress is quantified and reported.  The initial reports offer specific, measurable and quantifiable information that directly relates to the expected percentage benchmark to be attained in any given quarter.  In contrast, the 2024-2025 progress reports state the expected percentage for each benchmark but fails to make said correlation when describing the progress made by Student.  (This makes it difficult to ascertain whether Student had achieved the objectives in a given goal, thereby requiring those objectives to be modified or eliminated when reviewing the IEP.)

By way of example, the third and fourth quarter progress reports for the period from January 18, 2022 to April 4, 2023 state that for work readiness, Student was expected to identify the knowledge and skills required for different careers and complete documentation in his vocational binder with 70% accuracy, however he was able to identify knowledge and skills for a specific career 44% of the time and, with staff assistance, completed 100% of the documents and tasks in his vocational binder (SE-5).  The social/ emotional goal required him to limit daily disruptive behavioral episodes to no more than seven (7) by April 2023, five (5) by June 2023, three (3) episodes by November 2023 and one (1) by January 2024, and demonstrate coping strategies in 70% of the opportunities; by the first quarter he had 267 disruptive behaviors identifying coping strategies 36% of the time and utilizing them 29% of the time.  The speech and language goal required him to filter his thoughts versus verbalizing them in 80% of the opportunities with minimal or verbal support, read and adjust his behavior and communication style according to the environmental demands during structured and unstructured activities, and demonstrate sportsmanship and appropriate language during social activities in 80% of the opportunities with minimal verbal or visual support.  In this area, he was able to achieve his goals during structured activities in 58% of the opportunities, he was able to read the room and adjust accordingly in 52% of the opportunities.  The speech and language pathologist attributed the decrease in accuracy to “a decrease in prompting level and introduction of this skill into unstructured situations” (SE-5).  She further noted that with minimal support during social board game activities he used appropriate language and sportsmanship in 66% of the opportunities (SE-5).

In comparison, progress reports for the period ending on June 14, 2024 note that Student had not yet met the benchmarks in his reading or writing goals, despite receiving maximum support to complete the tasks (SE-20).  Similarly, in math, he encountered difficulties meeting the benchmarks even when accessing visual supports.  Progress reports addressing work readiness goal and objectives calling for Student to complete vocational activities for up to 30 minutes in three out of four opportunities, and to appropriately request breaks with no more than two or three verbal prompts to regain focus on academic and vocational tasks, with supervision, indicate he could complete vocational activities around the school building for 20 minutes, and 50% of the time was able to identify the skill required for different jobs (SE-20).  Regarding the social-emotional goals and objectives, Student was expected to limit his disruptive episodes to no more than 70% of the school day on average (with continued expected reduction to 65% by November 2024, 60% by January 2025, and 55% by April  2025) and by June 2024 he was engaging in disruptive behaviors at an average of 55% of the school day surpassing his benchmark in this area.  Lastly, the speech and language goal called for Student to use appropriate contextual language in structured and unstructured situations with a variety of people, in 80% of the opportunities, identify and interpret nonverbal cues and use “Context clues to decode indirect, take, and or non-literal language in both hypothetical and real life situations” in 75% of the opportunities presented, all the preceding with minimal or moderate cues respectively (SE-20).  By June 14, 2024, the speech and language provider noted that Student was,

Super supportive of his peers during speech and language sessions. [Student] has maintained his progress this quarter, and has generalized his skills from a small group (1-2 peers) to a larger group (classroom setting). In highly structured scenarios, when he is well regulated, [Student] filters his thoughts and identifies phrases that should be thought versus said with 73% of measured opportunities. When well regulated, Student matches the mood of the group with 66% accuracy.  When regulated, during generalized scenarios (e.g., playing basketball with peers).  Student demonstrates good sportsmanship and appropriate language in 78% of measured opportunities (SE-20).

61. Also by way of comparison, reports for the quarter ending on November 6, 2024, January 24, 2025, and on April 4, 2025, in some areas, note Student’s capabilities regarding some of the benchmarks/ objectives without providing quantifiable descriptors for attainment of the goals such as with the social-emotional learning and the writing goal (SE-24; SE-27).  The social emotional progress report states that he displays 7.8 disruptive behaviors in 9 of 10 weeks in November, 7.7 disruptive behaviors in 10 of 10 weeks in January, and he averaged 6 disruptive episodes per week in in 9 of 9 weeks by April 4, 2025, but the notes do not mention whether he achieved the 65%, 60% or 55% targeted benchmark (SE-24; SE-27).  Student’s writing goal does not state how close he was to meet the targeted 70% independence and 80% accuracy benchmark creating a four to five sentence paragraph.  In other goals, such as work readiness, the progress notes state that Student had surpassed the “15 minute in three out of four opportunities” benchmark by January 2025 and exceeded them by April when he was able to complete up to 45 minutes of vocational activities in three out of four opportunities with only verbal reminders to stay on task (SE-24; SE-27).  In speech and language, he was noted to be making slow but steady progress toward meeting the benchmarks[12], and his progress in math for the period through January of 2025 appeared stagnant (SE-24; SE-27) At Hearing, Emily  Hughes, (CV at SE-48), Student’s special education teacher at Bradley, could not quantify whether Student had met the objectives in areas where the percentage was not noted and neither could she provide an off- hand estimate.  Upon further inquiry, she testified that Student had met his benchmarks and objectives in some areas (Hughes).     
62. Student’s work readiness goal included supervised job training opportunities in school and in the community (Hughes).  Community opportunities are not paid but rather volunteer work (SE-52).  In-school opportunities include volunteer work at the school store and delivering mail around the school (SE-52; Hughes, Lamb).  In general, Student did well with job training (SE-49).
63. During the 2022-2023 school year his community work readiness exposure took place at Piezoni’s Pizza on 10/14/2022, and 6/09/2023 (during which he needed prompting to stay on task and was only able to complete half the job);   Student worked at Patio Restaurant (Patio) on 6/8/23, wiping tables, sweeping, setting up chairs and umbrellas, and putting out the silverware; he also worked at Patio on 6/15/2023, 6/17 (year missing) and 6/22/2023.  On 9/22/2023 he went to Gusto Restaurant (Gusto); the notes for that day indicate that he walked down the street safely and paid for the food (SE-49).  The entries were made by three different job trainers (SE-49).   (Many of the job training evaluation forms presented at Hearing provided no description of the tasks Student actually performed and some did not identify the job trainer (SE-49)).
64. During the 2024-2025 school year Student’s community job training occurred at Rhode Island Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RISPCA) on 11/25/2024,12/09/2024 and 3/2/2025, where he safely completed housekeeping/ sweeping, washing pet dishes and exercising pets (SE-46).  He worked at Amos House Restaurant on 12/3/2024, and 12/10/2024, where he was able to follow directions and had a steady pace breaking eggs and panning chicken patties (SE-49).  He worked at Patio on 6/13/2024, 12/12/24, 12/19/2024, 1/2/2025, 1/9/2025, 1/13/2025, 2/27/2025, 3/6/2025, 3/13/2025, and 4/3/2025 (scratched his hand washing dishes) supervised by three different job trainers.  Their notes indicate that at times Student was distracted and he rushed through tasks.  However, he performed well in tasks involving stocking shelves, breaking down boxes, window cleaning, waste/ trash disposal, cleaning tables, and observing while meals were prepared, and he helped with meal preparation once (SE-49).  At Patio his demeanor was described as positive and appropriate in his interactions and he followed instructions and produced good quality work.  During December of 2024 and the beginning of January 2025, he performed best at Patio, greeting workmates and following directions (SE-46).
65. Student also worked at Peg Studio on 10/18/2024, 11/8/2024, 12/6/2024, 1/3/2025, 1/09/25, 1/16/2025, and 1/24/2025.  He did well during orientation on the first day and he remembered what he had learned on the second day, but later in December he required reminders regarding procedures, he continued talking while recordings were in progress requiring re-recordings, and he was constantly distracted by other students.  In January he required prompts to initiate tasks and needed reminders to stay focused when editing film related tasks.  Student’s job training also included folding boxes at Piezoni’s Pizza on 11/18/2024, and11/25/2024.  On seven additional occasions he attended a job talk presentation (mostly remotely), he toured the Coca Cola factory on November 14, 2024, and visited the Rhode Island School of Design Museum on 1/7/2025 (SE-49).
66. At home, Student completed chores for which his fathers had created a checklist, including cleaning up after the dogs, cleaning the bathroom, vacuuming, loading and unloading the dishes, taking out the trash, shoveling and cutting the grass.  With adult supervision, he can prepare a simple lunch (SE-52; Father).  At times, he has difficulty complying with expectations such as completing his hygiene routine, requiring continuous, consistent prompting.  His emotional, behavioral and paranoia issues prevent him from having much social interaction outside of school as he gets very nervous in large crowds.  He also lacks awareness of his surroundings, compromising his safety when in the community, for instance, he does not look both ways when crossing the street or walking in parking lots (SE-52).  
67. Student’s academic report card for the 2023-2024 school year reflects that he attained Bs in his academic classes, A s in integrated art, health and visual arts, and he passed career exploration, computer applications and life skills, attaining similar grades up to the third quarter of the 2024-2025 school year (SE-21, 28). (He had also obtained similar grades during the 2022-2023 school year (SE-21).)
68. Student benefits from a high teacher to student ratio classroom that offers supervision, structured routines and access to sensory breaks throughout the day.  In the future, he will continue to require a job coach for completing work related tasks in the community (SE-52; Hughes).
69. DDS’ Transition Timeline provides parents and students guidance regarding the process to be followed from the time a student potentially seeking services turns fourteen years old, to the time he/ she turns twenty-two (DE-2).[13]  Parents and Attleboro completed the process between age fourteen and age seventeen, and DDS was identified as Student’s post twenty-two 688 responsible agency (Casey).[14]   
70. A DDS guide offering families information regarding transition to the agency recognizes age eighteen as the Massachusetts age of majority.  At eighteen, students “are considered adults regardless of the severity of their disability” and deemed “competent to make their own decisions”. The only exceptions to a student having sole educational decision-making power are if a court appoints a guardian or the student has chosen to share educational decision-making with a parent (DE-2). 
71. An essential component in transition services is completion of a Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment Process (MASSCAP) comprised of the Inventory of Client and Assessment Planning (ICAP) and the Client and Caregiver Assessment (CCA), both of which are conducted through interviews without the student being present (DE-2).  The MASSCAP “helps determine an individual’s needs for services and the priority for services with consideration of health and safety factors” (DE-2).  While the ICAP assesses a student’s functional skills and behavioral limitations typically obtained from a caregiver for family member, the CCA, developed by DDS is used to better understand resources available to the student, including the family member’s or caregivers’ capacity to provide care in the home.  Both of these assessments can be re-administered at any time upon DDS staff recognizing that the student or the caregiver has experienced significantly changing needs (DE-2). 
72. DDS does not pay for residential placement for individuals under 22 years old, and DDS funds cannot be used to supplant school services (DE-3).
73. Individuals accessing DDS services may also undergo prioritization assessments to access 24/7 residential supports.  These “require a thorough review of health and safety factors during the MASSCAP process”.  Prioritization services do not begin until a student turns 22, or the student’s special education entitlement ends.  DDS provides different models of residential services, to wit, 24-hour support in a residential setting, shared living with a host family, or individual supports outside the family home, helping individuals live in and maintain a household (available to individuals who do not need 24/7 residential services).  DDS also offers Adult Family Care (AFC) to disabled individuals 16 years old or older, who are Medicaid-eligible, who cannot safely live alone, and thus require a trained, paid caregiver that is not a legally responsible relative (DE-2).
74. In partnership with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), DDS also offers the “Medically Complex Program” which helps families “access information, resources and emotional support” needed to care for individuals with complex medical needs between the ages of three and twenty-five with potentially life-threatening medical conditions requiring daily in-home medical or nursing services.  Student does not meet the criteria for this type of service and he is also ineligible for the “Children’s Autism Waiver Program” (Casey).
75. Jennifer Casey, Student’s DDS Transition Coordinator (TC), has been responsible to assist Student with his transition into adulthood.  Student was found eligible to receive DDS adult services in November of 2024, which enabled a referral for family support through ARC of Bristol County (Casey).  
76. Ms. Casey attended two virtual meetings while Student was hospitalized at Behavioral Medicine and was aware of the plan to discharge him to a homeless shelter as he could not return home.  She agreed that this was not an ideal situation given Student’s need for a higher level of supervision (Casey).  At the end of August 2025, following Student’s second hospitalization discharge, Ms. Casey made a referral for Student to receive Family Support Services through ARC of Bristol County (ARC), which services were available once per month (Casey).  Student may access the flexible uinding (IFFS) program through ARC.  The array of services available to Student through DDS must flow through Family Support (Id.).
77. Ms. Casey testified that she first visited Student sometime after September 23, 2025, at Ascension House, a homeless shelter for adults, to which he had been transferred after the second hospitalization.  Ms. Casey was accompanied by her supervisor Frank Cuña.  She testified about Student commenting that he preferred females to males, did not like the food at the shelter, that someone had tried to jump him while in the bathroom and discussed an incident in the library.  Since then, she has met with Student in person four times.  The day following the first visit, Student was told to leave the shelter after starting a fight (Casey).  Student was neither approved for child services nor for under age twenty-two services, although the latter was raised with Mr. Cuña (Transition Area Supervisor) or the head of the Management Team, Danielle De Rosso.  There was also no consideration of emergency provision of supports for Student despite everyone agreeing that a homeless shelter was not a good option for him (Casey).  
78. Ms. Casey testified that planning for residential placement could take years and was not guaranteed by DDS (Casey).[15]  Ms. Casey was unaware as to whether an application for SSI had been filed on behalf of Student.  She noted that for individuals like Student (over the age of majority and who are their own guardian), recommendations for services may come from a systems team member.  Members of Student’s system team include representatives from the school district, Student’s attorneys, hospital placement officials, individuals who have worked with Student, the therapeutic team at CCBC and the DDS area office management team.  Ms. Casey testified that DDS has a referral process for naming a guardian for individuals in Student’s predicament; when the systems team determines that guardianship is needed, the referral is submitted.  There are however limitations to what can be done at DDS for students 18 to 22, so the determination regarding whether to pursue guardianship on behalf of Student must be made by the management team.  Ms. Casey testified that she had followed up with her management team regarding guardianship for Student and was advised that Student was hospitalized at the time the discussion took place, and DDS does not typically initiate said process while the individual is receiving a higher level of care (Casey).  Decisions regarding guardianship planning for Student, are made by DDS management, not the Transition Coordinator.
79. Student’s Parent testified that over the years they have sought numerous support services to address Student’s needs, including approximately one year of in-home services through Justice Resource Institute, Therapeutic Assistance Program (TAP) to address Student’s self-injurious behaviors (pinching and punching himself) and property destruction (Parent).  Over time, Student’s behaviors intensified presenting as suicidal ideation and paranoia; for a period of time when he was younger (around 14 years old), he was urinating and defecating outside the window despite the bathroom being located next to his room.  Student’s presentation made it difficult and unsafe to be in the community.  He understood what his choices and consequences were, but in the moment, he could not follow through.  Student also received therapeutic mentorship, but that too was short lived (Parent).
80. Student has also experienced visual and auditory hallucinations, first at night and later, also during the day.  He did not talk about this with numerous people fearing to be thought of as crazy (Parent).  In school, over the years, Student did well at the beginning of his placements, including at the Home for Little Wanderers and in specialized social emotional classrooms in Attleboro, but after a period of time his behaviors and overall presentation deteriorated, requiring that his placements be changed.  According to Parent, Student always had difficulties with transitions. In elementary school he attended summer camp, but struggled while there. 
81. Parent described Student’s numerous hospitalizations over the years.  He also spoke of Student’s difficulties with activities of daily living for which he continues to require assistance/ supervision; for example, he would turn the water temperature up to the point of scorching himself and does not dress himself appropriately for the weather.  Despite numerous interventions and years of constant support and structure at home, Student is still unable to fend for himself, as he cannot manage administering his own medications, following through with activities of daily living or job tasks independently, manage his finances, transportation or accessing the community without compromising his safety.  Parent and Dr. Valcea noted that Student is very gullible and easily influenced by others; he complies because he is a people pleaser and wants to be accepted (Parent, Valcea).  This makes him vulnerable to getting into legal trouble because he may go along with what others tell him to do without thinking about the consequences of his actions.  He also misunderstands his own situation; for instance, his mindset is that he is from the streets because he listens to hip-hop with lyrics to that effect (Parent).
82. Dr. Alexis Lamb has worked with Student at Bradley over the past three or four years.  She discussed the structure in Student’s class, activities and structured vocational opportunities in school and in the community.  She noted how well Student did within Bradley’s structure, as he is very routine oriented. Dr. Lamb opined that Student lacked the life skills and capacity to live by himself or perform a job without assistance and supervision; he cannot read well, is unable to manage his money independently, administer his medications, and has poor adaptive skills (Lamb). 
83. Dr. Lamb testified that during the two weeks prior to Student’s hospitalization in April 2025, he was talking faster than usual and made comments that he would strap on a bomb and blow up the school. She discussed this with him to assess if the threats were true, as he had a long history of exaggerating and making threats and inappropriate comments without an intention to follow through. Ms. Hughes also noted that Student often shared stories about events that were not true (Hughes). Similarly, his timeframes are not always accurate (Valcea).  Ms. Hughes testified that students at Bradley undergo a security search upon arriving at school to make sure that they and others remain safe (Hughes).
84. Since April of 2025, Student attended Bradley once, presenting as quite dysregulated, telling stories about girlfriends and fights, and appearing not to know where the truth lied.  According to Dr. Lamb, all of Student’s deficits and diagnoses together impact his ability to acquire skills; on days when he has better control, he is more accessible for learning (Lamb).
85. According to Dr. Lamb, Bradley was a good match for Student as he responded well to the structure of the program. She opined that Student would benefit from a group home living arrangement, but not for educational reasons (Lamb). 
86. Emily Hughes, Student’s Special Education teacher at Bradley, opined that Bradley’s program was a good fit for Student, noting that all nine students in his class had a checklist (listing tasks in their routines) and Student could get through that checklist independently. In terms of functioning, she ranked Student in the middle or the higher range as compared with his other eight classmates, opining that the grouping and the program were a good fit for Student. Overall, Ms. Hughes was of the opinion that Student’s progress in the school program had been meaningful.  She did not observe Student in the community, or on job sites, and could not comment on his progress relative to speech and language services (Hughes).  
87. Ivonne Medeiros, Director of Special Education and Student Support Services in Attleboro arranged for Student to receive educational services through LearnWell, the agency hospitals contract with to offer such services, during some of Student’s hospitalizations.  She testified that initially, she had attempted to get Student a Chrome Book, but he was denied access to it on account of his being in a locked hospital facility.  She, however, was able to arrange for LearnWell to offer Student tutoring while he was at CHA.   Ms. Medeiros testified that she had no knowledge of the instructional level provided by the LearnWell instructors. 

CONCLUSIONS:

The Parties agree that Student is entitled to special education services pursuant to federal[16]and Massachusetts special education law[17].  They further agree as to his diagnoses, complex presentation and need for an 18 to 22 transition program that focuses on activities of daily living (ADL), exploration of career opportunities, functional academic needs and addresses his emotional and behavioral issues.   The Parties’ disagreement centers on placement.  While Student asserts that he requires the structure and consistency of a residential placement for educational reasons, the District disputes this assertion, arguing that FAPE has been and can continue to be delivered through participation in a day program.  DDS states that it is neither able nor responsible to offer Student residential placement, noting that it has offered and is willing to continue to offer him adult services until such time as the agency assumes full responsibility when he turns twenty-two years old.[18]

School districts are required to offer IDEA eligible students a FAPE, through individualized education programs (IEP) tailored to meet their unique needs[19] in a manner “reasonably calculated to confer a meaningful educational benefit”[20] to the eligible student.[21]  Moreover, the program and services offered must be delivered in the least restrictive environment appropriate to meet the individual student’s needs[22], and must be  “reasonably calculated to enable [the student] to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Distr., 137 S. Ct. 988, 999 (March 22, 2017); D.B. ex rel. Elizabeth B., 675 F.3d 26, 34 (1^st Cir. 2012). 

Massachusetts has adopted the FAPE standard delineated in Endrew F., requiring that eligible students be provided with a special education program and services specifically designed to develop the student’s individual educational potential.[23] As such, educational progress is measured in relation to the particular student’s potential.[24] 

In the case at bar, Student carries the burden of persuasion pursuant to Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S.Ct. 528 (2005).  In order to prevail, Student must prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence. 

When considering the evidence in the context of the above applicable legal standards, it is clear that Student requires the structure and supports of a residential facility. The evidence is further persuasive that despite making progress at Bradley, the day program in and of itself is insufficient to afford Student a FAPE, as he is neither able to generalize his skills learned there, nor access the program currently.  In fact, he has only attended one day of school since April of 2025.  This finding is consistent with the credible testimony offered by Dr. Mavani, Ms. Caflisch and Dr. Valcea, as well as documentary evidence including, Nurse Woodworth’s communications in May of 2025, supporting Student’s need for residential placement. 

Moreover, given the length of his psychiatric hospitalizations and the history of cognitive delays following previous hospitalizations, the level of dysregulation presented during the one day he attended school since April of 2025, and the extent of his deficits, once placed residentially, he will require an evaluation to better understand the impact of the significant disruption in services he has experienced.  By virtue of his extremely low cognitive abilities and psychiatric presentation, Student also requires a competency evaluation to determine DDS’ responsibility regarding guardianship of this student who is now beyond the age of majority.

In rendering my determination, I rely on and incorporate by reference the facts delineated in the Facts section of this Decision, focusing only on the most salient points in my analysis. My reasoning follows.

I first note that the fact that Student is currently homeless is completely irrelevant to my evaluation of the instant case, as his homeless status neither affords him greater nor lesser legal entitlements and protections pursuant to the IDEA and Massachusetts special education law.  Therefore, it is not in the context of his living situation that I address the matter before me.  Rather, I assess, as I would in any case, the evidence before me in the context of applicable state and federal law, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard in order to determine whether Student is entitled to residential programming for educational reasons.  This analysis must not be, and is not here, influenced by extraneous information regarding Student’s living situation.  My determination herein would be the same if Student was currently living with his parents.

As noted above, Student’s profile, presentation and constellation of complex, significant needs are not here in dispute.  He has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Schizophrenia, Reactive Attachment Disorder, ADHD, Mood Disorder and Conduct Disorder (PE-3; PE-9; PE-29; Mavani, Valcea, Caflisch).  

In addition, with a FSIQ of 63 (1^st percentile), he possesses exceptionally low cognitive abilities with impairments across his entire neurocognitive profile, impacting “attention, executive functioning, language functioning, visual spatial abilities, and memory” (PE-29; Mavani).  His adaptive, behavioral and emotional regulation skills are exceptionally low as are his social communication abilities, social awareness and social cognition skills. Depression and anxiety have also been noted by evaluators. (PE-29; Mavani; Caflisch).  He is unable to manage administering his own medications.  His gullibility makes him a target for victimization as he is a people pleaser and can be easily persuaded by others to act in ways which could have negative legal implications (Caflisch, Valcea, Parent).

His extremely complex profile has made it difficult to find the right balance of medications to address his complex symptomatology, including his mental health issues[25], and therapies have not always proven successful because of his limited cognitive ability and constant internal state of vigilance and arousal (Valcea, Caflisch). 

Student’s dysregulated behaviors have been displayed in every setting including home, school, community, homeless shelters and during psychiatric hospitalizations.  These have included aggressive behaviors toward others, destruction of property and inappropriate language and comments (Parent, Valcea, Lamb, Caflisch).

Just as Student’s diagnoses, behaviors, and significant needs are not in dispute, neither is the fact that that he cannot independently care for himself and requires the type of consistency, structure and supports available in a residential placement.

All agree that a structured, supervised residential setting, capable of providing a safe and secure environment and access to clinicians that can address his complex social, emotional, behavioral, and ADL skill deficits (inclusive of medication management) are required.  Moreover, as discussed supra, he needs access to a structured, educational, academic and vocational program that offers consistency and predictability, while addressing his emotional and behavioral needs (SE-34; PE-9; Lamb, Hughes, Valcea, Caflisch, Mavani).  The Parties’ dispute herein is limited to the issue of who is responsible to provide such residential placement.

In this regard, the evidence demonstrates that Student has indeed benefitted from “the predictability, consistency, routine and structure provided by the highly skilled and talented team of professionals” at Bradley (SE-34; PE-9; Caflisch, Lamb, Hughes).  Ms. Caflisch, Dr. Lamb and Ms. Hughes agreed that Bradley had met Student’s academic and vocational needs and that it offered the type of educational environment required for him to make educational progress.  Ms. Lamb and Ms. Hughes specifically testified about Student’s responsiveness to the Bradley program’s environment and his progress over the past few years, also evidenced to some extent, by comparison of his progress reports[26].

Student’s inability to generalize his skills outside of the structured day school environment was evidenced by Parents testimony regarding his dysregulated behaviors and struggles with ADLs in the home, owing to which they requested residential placement while he was living with them.  In 2025, they determined that Student (by then an adult), could no longer live at home given his presentation and their inability, despite providing a structured home setting, to effectuate generalization of the above-noted skills[27].

In June of 2024, Attleboro agreed to extend Student’s educational services until his twenty-second birthday and offered Student continued placement at Bradley’s day program (PE-25; PE-26; SE-18; SE-19). By then, the Team had Dr. Mavani’s neuropsychological report corroborating previous diagnoses, noting that Student continued to be dependent on Parents and on adult assistance for activities of daily living with no notable sign of improvement.  The Team also had Parents’ reports of Student’s difficulty generalizing skills across settings, an uptick in his dysregulated behaviors (inclusive of lying, making threats, back talking, manipulation, and not wanting to be awake for fear of hurting others) all of which made activities of daily living a struggle.

During the 2024-2025 school year, Bradley appropriately delivered the day program services accepted by Parents focusing on functional academics, vocational opportunities and ADLs, in a structured, consistent safe setting.  However, his progress in generalizing these skills was stagnating, and his goals and objectives remained the same (SE-5; SE-20; SE-24; SE-27).  It is clear he required more than what Bradley was able to offer within the confines of a day program; he required residential placement. 

The evidence shows that despite Parents’ and Bradley’s best efforts, during the 2024-2025 school year and thereafter, Student continued to struggle, requiring the first of a series of psychiatric hospitalizations starting in April of 2025, culminating in his release to a homeless shelter. The record is further clear that Student has been unsuccessful every time he was released to a homeless shelter.  

The record is replete with recommendations for residential placement to enable Student to generalize behavioral, social, emotional and ADL skills, as discussed below.  These are the very skills targeted in his IEP, and their inclusion in the IEP as goals speaks to the fact that they are educational in nature.

In May of 2025, Nurse Woodworth, of Behavioral Medicine, wrote letters warning that Student would not know how to care for himself or be safe in the community and would not know what to do if he did not have access to care in a structured environment (PE-8). Nurse Woodworth’s letter of May 30, 2025, supported Parents’ request for residential placement of Student until his twenty second birthday when DDS assumed responsibility for him (SE-35).

Ms. Caflisch was adamant about Student’s need for residential placement, and she expressed consternation over the dangers associated with Student being in a homeless shelter as he is incapable of making the right decisions, managing his medications, accessing school or the community safely, and he would be vulnerable for exploitation. Student simply would not know what to do.  Ms. Caflisch opined that Student required the consistency and structure of a residential environment where he could receive the level of supervision and support he requires.  This opinion was shared by Dr. Valcea who testified about the complexities involved in administering Student’s numerous medications (some requiring administering multiple times per day), to address Student’s numerous diagnoses.  She too recommended residential placement.  I particularly credit the expert opinions of these two professionals owing to the longevity of care they had provided him.

Dr. Mavani’s 2024 test scores demonstrated Student’s profound impairments in cognition, ADLs and emotional regulation (SE-29).  Comparing Student’s performance in previous testing to his own, Dr. Mavani noted lack of notable improvement on Student’s already exceptionally low activities of daily living, for which he continued to require adult support.  He attributed Student’s behavioral dysregulation and significant difficulty in managing his emotions to his extremely low cognitive functioning and comorbid psychiatric diagnoses, inclusive of ADHD.  According to Dr. Mavani, these difficulties made it challenging for Student to interact with the community on his own, as he could compromise his safety and that of others.  He explained that Student’s needs were substantial and they impact all areas of his life; without the appropriate 24/7 support, Student would continue to struggle.  Dr. Mavani opined that Student would require the structure of a long-term residential facility for life (SE-29; Mavani).

Dr. Lamb, asserted that Student had performed as well as he had at Bradley because of “the intensive structure and clinical support that he received at both home and school”, further expressing concern over the Parties’ inability to find a solution as “homelessness is not a viable option” (PE-12). 

By the time of the Hearing Student had twice been placed in homeless shelters, at Y2Y and Ascension House from where he was asked to leave shortly after entering as he was unable to care for himself and became significantly dysregulated.[28]  While at the Ascension House homeless shelter, he was only able to access Bradley on one occasion (despite being ready to attend school), due to his difficulties in getting to the correct meeting point where transportation awaited him over a six-day period (PE-1; PE-2). 

The District’s argument that Student requires residential placement because he is homeless is unpersuasive and inconsistent with the credible evidence.  If that were the case, he would have been able to generalize his skills while living at home with his parents, which did not occur; or he would have been able to regularly access his educational program at Bradley while staying at Ascension House shelter.  Student has not demonstrated ability to generalize many of the very skills targeted in his IEP to other settings, and the evidence is convincing that he cannot function independently. Further, it is very likely that the significant interruptions in programming have caused him to regress even in areas covered by his IEP where he may have demonstrated some mastery in the past.

The confluence of Student’s deficits, and the nature and severity of his current presentation mandate that he be placed residentially in order to make meaningful educational progress in the areas identified in his IEP, which includes generalization of skills and his ability to access the day portion of his educational program.  Such needs are not “separable from [the student’s] educational problems.”  Gonzalez v. Puerto Rico Dept. of Education, 254 F.3d 350, 352-353 (1st Cir. 2001)[29].   FAPE for Student cannot occur in a less restrictive setting.  School Committee of Town of Burlington v. Dept. of Education of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (1985).

I find that Student met his burden of persuasion to demonstrate that in order for him to receive a FAPE and make effective progress, he requires wrap-around, 24/7 educational services with opportunities for learning, practice and reinforcement of skills across settings.  Further, in light of Student’s emotional, behavioral and psychiatric needs the location selected must be able to provide the level of therapeutic and behavioral interventions he requires and arrange for psychiatric oversight. 

Moreover, as noted above, given that Student has not had access to any meaningful education over the past several months, his presentation on the only day he accessed Bradley following his initial hospitalization in April of 2025, and his history of experiencing cognitive decline following psychiatric hospitalizations, it is likely that he has experienced considerable regression in all, if not most of the areas of need identified in his IEP (PE-29; PE-31; PE-32; PE-34; PE-35; PE-36; PE-37; Mavani, Caflisch).  I find that he requires an evaluation once he is placed residentially, in order that appropriate educational planning and decisions are made going forward regarding what services will constitute FAPE for this severely disabled student.  

Attleboro is ordered to provide Student residential placement in order that he may receive a FAPE and shall pursue an evaluation of Student at his residential placement to assess all areas of need, including ADL skills and exploration of viable vocational opportunities that align with his interests. 

Lastly, DDS remains committed to providing Student services, possibly including residential services, but not until he turns 22 years old (Casey).  The evidence, however, is persuasive that DDS’ responsibilities extend beyond what the agency must do for Student when he turns 22.  At present this nineteen years old student is his own guardian.  As Ms. Caflisch persuasively testified, given his deficits, diagnoses, and limitations, including his inability to manage his medications and/or make appropriate decisions on his own, allowing him to continue to be his own guardian is irresponsible and places him at great risk (Caflisch). 

Ms. Casey and DDS provided little guidance regarding the process for DDS to pursue guardianship of Student.  When asked, Ms. Casey noted that the determination to pursue guardianship was made by individuals holding higher positions in the agency.  No other DDS witness able to describe the process was called to testify.  However, review of 115, CMR 5.00 et seq., the regulations applicable to DDS, offers guidance regarding the ability of the Department’s head to approve the agency’s pursuit of guardianship for: individuals who have reached the age of 18; find themselves in need of a guardian; and an appropriate nominee does not exist because among other things, the nearest living relative is not interested in making decisions on behalf of the individual.  

In In Re: Chelsea Public Schools, Ruling on Student’s Motion for Interim Services, BSEA #01-2623 (Crane, 2001), the hearing officer describes the process to be followed when an agency needs to pursue a guardianship.  A competency evaluation by the student’s doctor, licensed psychologist, social worker and other relevant professionals must be obtained to ascertain an individual’s competency and whether appointment of a guardian is recommended.  If so, the agency may proceed with initiation of a court proceeding for the purpose of obtaining guardianship for that individual.

According to Ms. Casey, the issue of guardianship has been raised with her supervisor and other individuals responsible for making this determination.  She, however, offered no insight as to the status of the determination.  DDS’ entire case focused on its inability to fund residential placement for students that had not yet reached 22 years of age.  Given the overwhelming weight of evidence regarding Student’s limitations, and Parents’ statement that they are not interested in pursuing guardianship, DDS is responsible to pursue this process in accordance with its rules, regulations and policies. 

DDS is ordered to proceed with a referral to the appropriate authorities within the agency to address Student’s competency and the need for appointment of a guardian immediately, including the need to proceed with a competency evaluation of Student.    Once the competency evaluation is completed, if Student is deemed incompetent and a recommendation for guardianship is made, DDS shall proceed with the necessary court process to have a guardian appointed for him. 

ORDER:

1. Attleboro shall provide and fund residential placement for Student.  Upon entering said residential placement, an evaluation shall be conducted.  
2. DDS shall immediately proceed with the internal referrals necessary to pursue consideration of guardianship for Student, including obtaining a competency evaluation.  Once the evaluation is completed, if warranted, DDS shall pursue the legal process for obtaining a guardian for Student, consistent with its policies, rules and regulations.

By the Hearing Officer,

/s/ Rosa I. Figueroa

Rosa I. Figueroa

Dated: February 4, 2026

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 parents 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 parents, 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 parents 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 parents 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.

     February 4, 2025

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

STUDENT

&

ATTLEBORO PUBLIC SCHOOLS

&

DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES

BSEA # 26-01402

 

BEFORE

ROSA I. FIGUEROA, HEARING OFFICER

KENDALL POIRIER, ESQ. AND MARISOL GARCIA, ESQ., ATTORNEYS FOR STUDENT

MICHAEL J. JOYCE, ESQ., AND JASMINE A. DE BETTENCOURT, ESQ, ATTORNEYS FOR ATTLEBORO PUBLIC SCHOOLS

ELISE S. KOPLEY, ESQ., ATTORNEY FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES

---

[1]   Student’s “description of his relationship with one of his peers suggested tendencies to distort and misperceive situations, consistent with his history. His thought process was tangential and circumstantial. He expressed some unusual thought content. For example, in the middle of a timed task, [Student] asked if zombies are taking over the world… and said he knows that zombies are real because he smelled them in a haunted house once…adamant that the smell of death he experienced could only be attributed to zombies being present” (PE-33).

[2]   See also the Eligibility Determination, SE-14, and the Educational Assessment Part A, SE-12, noting eligibility and continued need for special education services.

[3]   Some of the testing in this area had to be discontinued as Student could not complete the tasks within the allotted time period (PE-29).

[4] The Meeting Notes reflect an increase in “angst” and delusional incidents, and Student making up stories at home and in school at times, as a way to escape non-preferred expectations (SE-17). 

[5] According to Parents, Student was the highest functioning individual in his class (PE-41; Parent).

[6]   Dr. Lamb holds a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology.

[7]   The Hospital for Behavioral Medicine summary noted Student’s statements that “he attacked a staff member and tried to crack her skull in an attempt to kill her; yet, the MCI report indicated rather that he had thoughts of doing so.  [Student] also stated that he has attempted to sexually assault young girls and that he gets excited and that this happens when they make him angry. In addition, [Student] stated that he had thoughts of slicing women across their abdomen” (SE-17). 

[8]   In mid-October 2024, an extension for completion of the home assessment was agreed (SE-23).

[9]   See also PE-23.

[10]   Ms. Caflisch has also acted as a Juvenile Court Clinician at Fall River Trial Court since 2006.  Parents referred Student to her and thereafter she consistently met with Student every other week (Caflisch).

[11]   Cambridge Health Alliance.

[12]   Data collection in speech and language was limited during the third quarter owing to “changes in SLP caseloads and methods of service delivery following a short-term staffing shortage” (SE-27).

[13]   From that point on, DDS’ Transition Timeline provides:

Age 18–  DDS Adult Eligibility process should be completed and eligibility determined.

SSI application should be submitted and determination complete. Transfer of parental rights occurs, unless formal guardianship process has been done.

Pending adult eligibility, students and parents will be contacted by their assigned DDS Transition Service Coordinator.

Review MCAS, MassCap prioritization materials sent by DDS. Discuss with DDS Transition Service Coordinator if you have any questions.

Apply for Section 8 Housing.

Age 19–  Refine and strengthen vision statement.

Update and strengthen the IEP Transition Planning Form by reviewing data from previous year.

Revise and update IEP goals and objectives to build on previous years’ success and change what is ineffective.

Make sure [goals and objectives] are measurable.

Age 20–  Refine and strengthen Vision Statement.

Update and strengthen the IEP Transition Planning Form by reviewing data from the previous year.

Invite the DDS Transition Coordinator to the IEP [Team meeting] this year.

Work with the Transition Coordinator to learn about DDS service option at age 22.

Age 21–  Refine and strengthen Vision Statement. 

Invite Transition Coordinator to ITP if DDS Transition Plan is not done.

Receive DDS generated and approved ITP. Revisions can be made if necessary.

Work with the Transition Coordinator to become acquainted with service options at age 22. View potential vocational and/ or day habilitation programs.

Receive Prioritization letters from DDS Area Director identifying the student’s priority of need and subsequent DDS commitment to provide adult services during your 21st year.

Select services options (vocational, etc.) with DDS Area Office/ Service Coordinator.

Age 22–  Eligibility for adult services begins.

Meet Adult Services Coordinator and anticipate setting up an individual Service Plan (ISP), if applicable.  The ISP usually occurs after a 60-day period of the individual being in a new program.

The Transition Coordinator Assures that programming has begun and gives family and individual the name and contact of Adult Service Coordinator (DE-2).

A student’s Transition Planning Form (TPF) should include the student’s vision, goals and objectives reflective of what the student’s life should be like upon turning 22 years old, and must address education, independent living skills, social skills, community experiences and vocational skills.  TPF must focus on goals that will make the “biggest difference” in the individual’s life and enable the individual to “become as independent as possible” (DE-2). 

[14]  As noted earlier in the Facts, DDS found Student eligible on November 21, 2024.

[15]   It appears that Student has also not accessed Section 8 or Rental Assistance Programs, for which he would need help to complete the applications.

[16]   20 USC 1400 et seq.

[17]   MGL c. 71B.

[18] As noted in the Ruling joining DDS as a party to the instant matter, 603 CMR 28.08(3), grants Massachusetts BSEA Hearing Officers authority to hear IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 special education related disputes “among school districts, private schools, parents and state agencies” (emphasis supplied).  Said jurisdiction over state agencies “shall be exercised consistent with 34 CFR §300.154(a)” and the determinations must be consistent with the rules, regulations and policies of the respective agencies.  603 CMR 28.08(3) specifically grants the BSEA jurisdiction over the Department of Developmental Disabilities.   

[19]   20 USC 1400(d)(1)(A) (purpose of the federal law is to ensure that children with disabilities have FAPE that “emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs . . . .”); 20 USC 1401(29) (“special education” defined to mean “specially designed instruction . . . to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability . . .”); Honig v. DOE, 484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988) (FAPE must be tailored “to each child’s unique needs”).

[20]  See D.B. v. Esposito, 675 F.3d 26, 34 (1^st Cir. 2012) where the court explicitly adopted the meaningful benefit standard.

[21]  Sebastian M. v. King Philip Reg’l Sch. Dist., 685 F.3d 79, 84 (1^st Cir. 2012), (“the IEP must be custom-tailored to suit a particular child”); Mr. I. ex rel L.I. v. Maine Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 55, 480 F.3d 1, 4-5, 20 (1^st Cir. 2007) (stating that FAPE must include “specially designed instruction …[t]o address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability”) (quoting 34 C.F.R. 300.39(b)(3)).  See also Lenn v. Portland Sch. Committee, 998 F.2d 1083 (1^st Cir. 1993) (program must be “reasonably calculated to provide ‘effective results’ and ‘demonstrable improvement’ in the various ‘educational and personal skills identified as special needs’”); Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Committee, 910 F.2d  983 (1^st Cir. 1990) (“Congress indubitably desired ‘effective results’ and ‘demonstrable improvement’ for the Act’s beneficiaries”); Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 736 F.2d 773, 788 (1^st Cir. 1984) (“objective of the federal floor, then, is the achievement of effective results–demonstrable improvement in the educational and personal skills identified as special needs–as a consequence of implementing the proposed IEP”); 603 CMR 28.05(4)(b) (Student’s IEP must be “designed to enable the student to progress effectively in the content areas of the general curriculum”); 603 CMR 28.02(18) (“Progress effectively in the general education program shall mean to make documented growth in the acquisition of knowledge and skills, including social/emotional development, within the general education program, with or without accommodations, according to chronological age and developmental expectations, the individual educational potential of the child, and the learning standards set forth in the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and the curriculum of the district.”).

[22] 20 USC 1412 (a)(5)(A).

[23] Johnson v. Boston Pub. Schs., 906 F.3d 182, 194-95 (1^st Cir. 2018) (holding that Massachusetts’ “meaningful educational benefit” standard adopted in D.B., 675 F.3d at 34, comports with the Endrew F. standard); see MGL c. 69, s. 1 (“paramount goal of the commonwealth to provide a public education system of sufficient quality to extend to all children the opportunity to reach their full potential… ”); MGL c. 71B, s. 1 (defining “special education” as “…educational programs and assignments…. designed to develop the educational potential of children with disabilities….”); 603 CMR 28.01(3) (identifying the purpose of the state special education regulations as “to ensure that eligible Massachusetts students receive special education services designed to develop the student’s individual educational potential…”).  See also Mass. Dep’t of Educ.’s Administrative Advisory SPED 2002-1: [Guidance on the change in special education standard of service] from “maximum possible development” to “free appropriate public education” (“FAPE”), effective January 1, 2002, 7 MSER Quarterly Reports 1 (2001) (appearing at www.doe.mass.edu/sped) (Massachusetts Education Reform Act “underscores the Commonwealth’s commitment to assist all students to reach their full educational potential”).

[24]   Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 199, 202 (court declined to set out a bright-line rule for what satisfies a FAPE, noting that children have different abilities and are therefore capable of different achievements; court adopted an approach that takes into account the potential of the disabled student). See also Lessard v. Wilton Lyndeborough Cooperative Schl. Dist., 518 F3d. 18, 29 (1^st Cir. 2008), and D.B., 675 F.3d at 36 (“In most cases, an assessment of a child’s potential will be a useful tool for evaluating the adequacy of his or her IEP.”).

[25]  Student’s mental health related symptomatology includes “markedly disordered thinking” and “frightening” auditory and visual hallucinations (SE-6; PE-33; Valcea, Caflisch, Parent).  He has experienced violent homicidal and suicidal ideation, attempting suicide by hanging at least once (PE-3; Father, Valcea, Caflisch).   

[26] I note, however, that a comparison of Student’s progress reports shows that his most recent reports do not properly measure his progress in accordance with the benchmarks and objectives delineated in each goal as previous progress reports had done.  At Hearing, Ms. Hughes could not accurately calculate how much progress of the targeted benchmark Student had reached in certain areas; this calculation appears in Student’s previous progress reports. Although she could not accurately do so, she reviewed the language in the progress reports and ultimately concluded that Student had met certain objectives.

[27] From a distance, Parents have however, continued to be Student’s lifeline, never ceasing to advocate for his well-being by participating in systems meetings, making a telephone accessible, and, in the hopes of avoiding Student’s going to a shelter, at least once, having him evaluated for possible psychiatric hospitalization (Parent).  Their commitment, and the level of structure and support offered while Student lived with them is undeniable (Caflisch). 

[28]  Student also displayed dysregulation during psychiatric hospitalizations.

[29]  See Agawam Public Schools, BSEA No. 1403554, 20 MSER 1, 10-13 (Crane, 2014), finding that given the severity of the student’s behaviors these could not be managed or corrected safely in the home, further finding that, “Student’s behavioral deficits, as manifested at school, in the community and at home, are not separate and distinct from but rather are inextricably intertwined with his learning needs—in fact, his behavioral needs are presently his most critical educational needs.  I find that it is only through services that can allow Student to be safe and that reduce his aberrant behaviors that he will have the opportunity to engage in meaningful learning.  And, the only way that Student’s behavior needs can be appropriately and safely addressed is through an around-the-clock residential educational placement.”  Id., p. 13.  See also,  Boston Public Schools and Mass. Dept. of Mental Health, BSEA #1707097 (Berman, May, 8, 2017), finding that “the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that Student’s intertwined needs can only be met in the context of an appropriate residential school placement… [and] that such a placement is necessary both to keep Student safe and to enable her to generalize self-regulation, social and emotional skills from one setting to another….” [Internal quotations omitted].