COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Division of Administrative Law Appeals
Bureau of Special Education Appeals
In Re: Student v. Attleboro Public Schools
BSEA# 26-01402
Ruling on Attleboro Public Schools’ Motion for Joinder of the Department of Developmental Services
Student in the above-referenced matter filed a Hearing Request on July 30, 2025, seeking placement in a therapeutic residential school and compensatory services for periods of time during which his educational services were not appropriate. Student also seeks reimbursement for attorney’s fees and any other remedy deemed appropriate.
On August 15, 2025, Attleboro Public Schools (Attleboro or District) filed a Motion for Joinder of the Department of Developmental Services[1](Motion), alleging that the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) is a necessary party to this proceeding pursuant to 801 CMR 1.01 et seq., 603 CMR 28.08(3) and Rule I(J) of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules). Attleboro asserts that DDS’ participation as a party is necessary for full adjudication of this matter and that complete relief cannot be granted in its absence.
On or about August 18, 2025, Student assented to the District’s Motion.
DDS filed an Opposition to the District’s Motion (Opposition) on September 2, 2025, disputing its status as a necessary party and the BSEA’s authority to order it to pay for educational placements or DDS services.
Background:
Student is an 18-year-old resident of Attleboro, Massachusetts, who is eligible to receive special education services under an Intellectual Impairment category. He also presents with complex psychiatric, social, and emotional needs that further impact his academic and vocational deficits. Student receives his educational services at the Bradley School, a separate private day school, in Providence, Rhode Island.
At present, Student is his own guardian, having been abandoned by his parents at a hospital on or about April of 2025. Following hospitalization and having nowhere to go, Student stayed at the Cambridge Health Alliance after the homeless shelter he initially entered was deemed inappropriate. He is ready to be discharged.
On June 5, 2025, a Team meeting was held at which a neuropsychological evaluation was reviewed and discussed. The evaluation recommended residential placement in coordination with DDS and the Department of Mental Health to facilitate Student’s long-term care plans. According to Attleboro, the residential placement was not recommended for educational reasons but rather to ensure the safety of Student and those around him, as well as to comply with his treatment plan. As such, the Team continued to offer placement in a separate day school.
Attleboro further asserts that Student’s Hearing Request as written seeks residential placement “based on custodial need, arguing that the Student is at risk of being homeless due to his parents’ abandonment.”
Student has been found eligible for DDS Children’s Supports Services. The agency is currently providing Service Coordination and has planned a referral to Family Support Center (including assistance with Student’s current living situation). DDS asserts that it will continue to offer Student clinically appropriate services in accordance with its rules, regulations, and policies, including 115 CMR 6.00.
Legal Standards
Rule 1(J) of the Hearing Rules authorizes BSEA Hearing Officers to join a party upon written request, in cases where: “complete relief cannot be granted among those who are already parties, or the person being joined has an interest relating to the subject matter of the case and is so situated that the case cannot be disposed of in their absence.” Pursuant to Rule I(J) several factors must be evaluated when considering joinder of a party. These include: “the risk of prejudice to the present parties in the absence of the proposed party; the range of alternatives for fashioning relief; the inadequacy of a judgement entered in the proposed party’s absence; and the existence of an alternative forum to resolve the issues.” Hearing Rules, Rule 1(J).
When considering joinder of a party, the BSEA Hearing Officer must take into consideration the limited jurisdictional authority of the BSEA and the federal and state special education laws and regulations impacting said jurisdictional authority. In Massachusetts, the jurisdiction of the BSEA is codified in 20 USC §1415(b)(6); M.G.L. c.71B §2A; 34 CFR 300.507(a)(1); 603 CMR 28.08 (3); and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
603 CMR 28.08(3) grants BSEA Hearing Officers authority to hear disputes involving
“… the eligibility, evaluation, placement, IEP, provision of special education in accordance with state and federal law, or procedural protections of state and federal law for students with disabilities. A parent of a student with a disability may also request a hearing on any issue involving the denial of the free appropriate public education guaranteed by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as set forth in 34 CFR §§104-31-104-39.” 603 CMR 28.08(3).
Moreover, in Massachusetts, G.L. c. 71B §2A and 603 CMR 28.08(3) specifically grant the BSEA Hearing Officer authority to resolve special education related disputes “among school districts, private schools, parents and state agencies” [Emphasis supplied.] Jurisdiction over state agencies “shall be exercised consistent with 34 CFR §300.154(a),” and the Hearing Officer’s determinations must be consistent with the rules, regulations, and policies of the respective agencies. 603 CMR 28.08(3) specifically names the Department of Developmental Disabilitiesas one of the agencies over which jurisdiction may be exercised in the context of a BSEA Hearing.
To prevail in its joinder motion, Attleboro must show
… at least in a preliminary way, that it will be able to present evidence at a Hearing that may result in the entity being found responsible to offer some services to the student. In Re: Emmet K. v. Gateway Public Schools, BSEA #128582 (2012), quoting In Re: Boston Public Schools District, BSEA # 024553 (2002).
Discussion
Attleboro argues that joinder is appropriate because the central issue before the BSEA is whether Student requires residential placement to access a FAPE. Student has been found eligible for DDS services, and, given his numerous diagnoses, DDS’ significant involvement is likely to continue throughout Student’s life.
Attleboro further argues that administrative efficiency and securing an adequate judgment mandate joinder of DDS. That is, if Student is found to require residential placement for non-educational reasons (or found not to require residential placement at all) absent DDS’ party status, the BSEA may not be able to fashion appropriate relief; that is, Student may still require DDS services and supports (from among those offered by the agency) to access or benefit from his special education day program. DDS involvement is thus essential to ensure that the full range of alternatives for relief is available.
DDS opposes joinder, challenging the BSEA’s authority to order the agency to provide or pay for “any form of educational placement or services to effectuate FAPE”, asserting that the BSEA has historically misinterpreted its authority, pursuant to MGL c.71B §3, relative to DDS. DDS further argues both that: its participation in this hearing is better suited to the capacity of witness; and the Parties may seek discovery from DDS by following legally prescribed procedures, without the need for joinder. Joinder would only serve to entangle the agency in disputes “outside of its statutory/regulatory authority and undermines its ability to apply its own rules consistently”.
The BSEA’s jurisdiction over state human service agencies is intended as a mechanism for assuring that special education students receive all the services to which they are entitled under federal and state law[2]. At a minimum, proper coordination of services between the agency and the District is essential to the student’s educational progress.
By its own admission, DDS’ participation in Student’s life is not theoretical but certain, and given the array of possible outcomes in this case, at this juncture DDS is a necessary party to ensure full disposition of the matter. Consistent with DDS rules and regulations, the BSEA may order it to provide services over and above those for which the district is responsible when such services are needed for Student to access and/or benefit from the special education services that the district is responsible to offer.[3]
Here, joinder is appropriate as DDS is “so deeply involved with Student that the possibility of responsibility for services ‘in addition’ to educational services is substantial and not merely speculative”[4]. This is particularly significant if Student is not able to demonstrate at Hearing that Attleboro is responsible to offer him residential placement for educational reasons but rather, another educational placement, in the context of which the types of supports typically provided by DDS could be ordered.
A FAPE cannot necessarily be “developed, delivered, declared or guaranteed” for Student in the instant case in DDS’ absence.[5] As such, DDS is found to be a necessary party to this action and as such is hereby joined.
Order:
- Attleboro’s Motion for Joinder of the Department of Developmental Services is ALLOWED.
- DDS is hereby joined as a Party to the instant case.
So Ordered by the Hearing officer,
/s/ Rosa I. Figueroa
Rosa I. Figueroa
Dated: September 26, 2025
[1] Consistent with BSEA Standing Order 20-2, Attleboro certified that it had provided DDS with a copy of Student’s Hearing Request and the District’s Response.
[2] See In Re: Medford Public Schools Motion to Join and Decision in In Re: Medford Public Schools, 7 MSER 75 (2001).
[3] See In Re: Lowell Public Schools, 107 LRP 655543 (2007).
[4] See In Re: Lawrence Public Schools, BSEA # 082804 (2007). See also, In Re: North Middlesex Regional School District and DCF, BSEA # 1612096 (2016).
[5] See In Re: Auburn Public Schools, 8 MSER 143 (Byrne).