DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v Dudley-Charlton Regional School District
BSEA# 26-03713
CORRECTED RULING ON DUDLEY-CHARLTON REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT’S CHALLENGE TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE HEARING REQUEST; AND PARENTS’ TWO MOTIONS TO COMPEL
On September 26, 2025, Parents’ advocate filed a Hearing Request naming only Dudley-Charlton Regional School District as respondent. The Hearing Request consisted of a completed Hearing Request Form (that identifies information pertaining only to Student, the District, Parents and Parents’ advocates) with a three-page attachment containing a caption that reads as follows:
To: Reece Erlichman and Hearing Officer Figueroa(sic)
From: Kelly LaRoe and Ben Tobin, on behalf of [Student’s last name]
BSEA: New filing for complaints in the Dudley v [Student’s last name] hearing. (Emphasis Added).
Several of the claims in the body of the Hearing Request involve allegations related to a separate District-initiated BSEA proceeding, BSEA # 2601884, involving Parents and the District, which matter proceeded to Hearing on October 9, 2025 (Prior Matter). A decision is currently pending on the Prior Matter.
On, October 14, 2025, after the BSEA issued a Notice of Hearing, Dudley-Charlton Regional School District (District or Dudley-Charlton) filed a Response to and Motion Challenging the Sufficiency of Parents’ Hearing Request, consistent with Rules I.B, I.D and I.E of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules), 20 U.S.C. §1415 (c)(2)(B)(i)(II) and 20 U.S.C. §1415 (b)(7) respectively. Dudley-Charlton challenges the sufficiency of Parents’ Hearing Request asserting that it fails to meet the requirements under Section 615(b)(7)(a) of the IDEA 2004, codified as 20 U.S.C. §1415 (b)(7)(A)(ii). Dudley-Charlton further argues that Parents’ Hearing Request “failed to raise any new substantive allegations/ claims in relation to [Student] other than the claims/ defenses which Parents already raised in their Response” to the Prior Matter.
The issues in the Prior Matter involved the District’s request for a finding that its evaluations are comprehensive and appropriate and therefore, the District is not responsible to fund Parents’ request for independent evaluations.
Parents filed a Response in Opposition to the Dudley-Charlton Regional School District’s Challenge to the Sufficiency of the Hearing Request on October 16, 2025, disputing the District’s assertions.
On October 10, 2025, Parents filed a Motion to Compel the Bureau of Special Education Appeals to Respond to the Hearing Request, to Remove Assigned Hearing Officer, and to Address Discriminatory Conduct that has Resulted in a Denial of FAPE. Thereafter, on October 23, 2025, Parents filed a Second Motion to Compel the Bureau of Special Education Appeals to Respond, Correct Procedural Defects, and Remedy Continued Denial of FAPE.
This Ruling addresses the District’s October 14, 2025, Challenge to the Sufficiency of Parents’ Hearing Request, and Parents’ Motions of October 10 and 23, 2025.
- Sufficiency Challenge:
Dudley-Charlton asserts that since Parents’ Hearing Request does not comply with Section 615(b)(7)(A) of the IDEA 2004,[1] it should be dismissed. In the alternative, Dudley-Charlton seeks an order that Parents should withdraw the instant matter with prejudice.
A sufficiency challenge requires careful review of the Hearing Request and the allegations of insufficiency, to ascertain whether the Hearing Request satisfies the requirements of 20 U.S.C. §1415 (b)(7)(a)(ii).
As with the federal rules of civil procedure, the purpose of the pleading rules under the IDEA is to provide fair notice to the opposing party. The United States Supreme Court has explained that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to detail all the facts upon which said claimant bases his claim. The Rules only require that “a short and plain statement of the claim” that constitute the grounds upon which the claimant relies be set out, so as to give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is.[2]
With this guidance, I review the facts delineated in the instant case’s Hearing Request to determine whether it meets the requirements necessary to withstand a sufficiency challenge.
Parents’ Hearing Request, as it was filed by Kelly LaRoe and Ben Tobin, both advocates who appear regularly before the BSEA, is not entitled to the deference that would otherwise be warranted for a hearing request filed by a pro se party.[3] The Hearing Request alleges under the Heading “Due Process Complaint Alleging Denial of FAPE, Procedural Violations, Discrimination, and Denial of Fair Hearing” that “the District, in concert with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA), has committed multiple violations that have denied the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and prevented Parent (sic) from meaningful participation in the IEP process”. It then proceeds to make 9 separately numbered allegations, summarized as follows:
- The District and the BSEA’s failure to respond to Parents’ advocate LaRoe’s four requests for telephone conference calls in the Prior Matter which was claimed to “violate Parent’s (sic) procedural right to meaningful participation under IDEA 20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(1), and 34 C.F.R. §300.501, and has delayed timely resolution of Student’s needs”.
- Unequal treatment in the Hearing Officer’s responsive communication to the District and the Advocate in the Prior Matter, evidencing bias, impairing Parents’ ability to prepare and advocate, and causing harm to Student’s timely access to services.
- Improper ex-parte communications by an attorney of the District and “BSEA leadership (the Hearing Officer’s supervisor)” regarding seeking assistance to oppose use of a memory aid by the Parents’ advocate which was claimed to “compromise the neutrality of the tribunal and prejudiced Parent’s (sic) rights” in the Prior Matter.
- Disregard and failure to engage in the required ADA interactive process by the BSEA related to requested reasonable accommodations made by Parents’ advocate which was claimed to be “discrimination under the ADA and Section 504 and resulted in the Parent (sic) being unable to fully participate in the IEP and hearing process” in the Prior Matter.
- Inaccessible hearing location in the Prior Matter that was claimed to “create[] a substantial hardship, preventing Parent’s meaningful participation and undermining the statutory right to request a public hearing”.
- Appearance of collusion and improper influence because the District’s law firm “maintains close ties with” the BSEA as they both participate in “workshops and publications aimed at restricting parents’ rights”, and because they further engage in “ex-parte communications” creating “the appearance of collusion and compromis[ing] the impartiality of the tribunal, and prejudic[ing] Parent’s right to a fair hearing” in the Prior Matter.
- Improper conduct by the District during a Team meeting resulting from the District’s counsel and the District’s staff using a “private Zoom chat to communicate outside the record”, which “excluded Parent and the Advocate from full participation” in violation of the IDEA’s procedures and causing Student’s access to services and supports to be delayed.
- Failure to accommodate advocate LaRoe’s request to attend the hearing in the Prior Matter remotely to support her service animal needs which denial of the requested accommodation “disregards ADA protections and is cruel to the service animal, which functions as an extension of the Advocate’s disability access” and “forced unnecessary barriers to Parent’s (sic) representation” in the Prior Matter.
- Ignoring a request for postponement due to illness of one of the Parents’ advocates[4] that “required two weeks to recover” in the Prior Matter which “prejudiced the family’s ability to adequately prepare and secure representation, undermining the Student’s right to a FAPE”.
20 U.S.C. §1415 (b)(7)(A)(ii)(III), requires hearing requests to provide a “description of the nature of the problem of the child relating to such proposed initiation or change, including facts relating to such problem”.[5] To the extent that Parents’ Hearing Request fails to provide this, the request is insufficient.
On its face, only one of the nine allegations in the Hearing Request involves allegations outside the Prior Matter.[6] Allegation number seven specifically claims that the District violated Parents’ procedural due process rights during a Team meeting depriving Parents of full and meaningful participation during the IEP process, resulting in a denial of FAPE to Student and a delay in “Student’s access to services and supports”. The specific procedural violation allegation involves use of a private Zoom chat by the District’s counsel and its clients to communicate during a Team meeting.
Parents’ Hearing Request fails to state the date of the Team meeting or whether it occurred within the IDEA two-years statute of limitations. It also offers no context for the meeting. It fails to describe how the District’s actions (i.e., allegedly privately communicating with its legal counsel who was also attending the meeting) deprived Student of a FAPE, specify what the alleged delay to “access services and supports” was or set forth the specific services to which Student was entitled that were impacted by the alleged delay. The Hearing Request not only lacks the necessary description of the “nature of the problem of the child” consistent with 20 U.S.C. §1415 (b)(7)(A)(ii)(III), but it offers only minimal description of the facts relating to the alleged procedural violation without any factual context.
Additionally, sub-section IV of the aforementioned section of the IDEA, requires a statement as to the “proposed resolution of the problem to the extent known and available to the party at the time” of filing of the Hearing Request. Here, Parents’ seek: 1) immediate implementation of accommodations for the advocate at the Hearing in the Prior Matter; 2) reconsideration of hearing location or approval of remote attendance (presumably by the advocate and the parents) in the Prior Matter; 3) placement of all alleged ex-parte communications on the record in the Prior Matter and an investigation into alleged improper contacts between BSEA leadership and an attorney in the District’s law firm; 4) assignment of a new Hearing Officer in the Prior Matter; 5) assurance of equal treatment for Parents and Advocate in all communications in the Prior Matter; 6) a finding that the District’s and the BSEA’s actions in the Prior Matter denied Student a FAPE and an order for corrective measures; 7) finding that procedural violations under the IDEA occurred and an order for compensatory education services if necessary; and, 8) a referral for review of the District Attorney’s professional conduct in the Prior Matter.
While Parents do set forth their requested relief, all the stated remedies fall within the context of the Prior Matter except for their request for compensatory services. Regarding the compensatory services relief sought by Parents, their request fails to include the nature or duration of the specific compensatory services to which Student is allegedly entitled.
General allegations of District misconduct at an unspecified Team meeting, lacking a description of the claims, accompanied by conclusory statements that this unspecified misconduct impacted Student’s receipt of a FAPE, or the services owed, allegedly entitling Student to compensatory education, are insufficient to withstand a sufficiency challenge. I find that with respect to allegation number seven, Parents’ Hearing Request fails to comply with sub-sections III and IV of 20 U.S.C. §1415 (b)(7)(A)(ii), and as such, is INSUFFICIENT.
I next turn to the remainder of Parents’ eight claims involving the Prior Matter. I note that all eight allegations relate to the Prior Matter and fail to set forth any description of the nature of a problem for Student pertaining to an initiation or change that the District has proposed or refused, as required by the IDEA to be included in any due process complaint. As such, these allegations also fail the sufficiency standard.
Moreover, as the remainder of Parents’ eight claims pertain to the Prior Matter, I further address those allegations under separate standards.
First, allegations pertaining to alleged procedural misconduct by the BSEA or its employees in the Prior Matter, may potentially be viable grounds for appeal in the Prior Matter but are not appropriate in the instant case.
Second, given that the Prior Matter was heard on October 9, 2025, Parents allegations regarding dissatisfaction with the determinations entered in that matter and/ or with the conduct of the hearing or employees of the BSEA may be properly raised as grounds for an appeal following issuance of the decision in that matter. As stated above, such allegations, however, do not give rise to a new or separate hearing request. In accordance with the IDEA, any party aggrieved by the decision in the Prior Matter may only appeal the decision within ninety days to State or Federal District Court as indicated by the Hearing Officer in the opening statement in that matter. No other procedural recourse is available.
Third, I note that any attempt by Parents to file a Hearing Request raising the same claims, allegations or defenses addressed in the Prior Matter, would be subject to dismissal under principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
Parents may file an Amended Hearing Request consistent with this Ruling involving only viable claims, on or before November 7, 2025 (fourteen days from the date of this Ruling).[7] The BSEA Hearing Request Form may again be used for this purpose, but it is not required.
Failure to file a timely Amended Hearing Request may result in dismissal without prejudice of this matter. Any scheduled events in this matter, including the Hearing on October 31, 2025, are cancelled and will not be rescheduled until Parents’ Amended Hearing Request is received at which time a Notice of Recalculated Timelines will be issued.
- Parents’ Motion to Compel:
Both of Parents’ Motions to Compel seek a Response to the Hearing Request by the BSEA. Parents’ Hearing Request however, does not name the BSEA as a party and any filing by Parents’ advocates naming the BSEA and or any of its employees would be subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter[8] and party jurisdiction over the BSEA.[9] The BSEA is not the proper forum for Parents to raise claims against its employees, rendering any such attempt by Parents futile.[10]
Given the finding that Parents’ Hearing Request is insufficient, and that the BSEA is not a party to this action, Parents’ Motions are DENIED.
So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Rosa I. Figueroa
Rosa I. Figueroa
Dated: October 27, 2025
[1] Section 615(b)(7)(a) of IDEA 2004 (codified as 20 U.S.C. §1415 (b)(7)(A)(ii)) provides, in relevant part, that the Hearing Request must include the following:
“(I) name of the child, the address of the residence of the child (or available contact information in the case of a homeless child), and the name of the school the child is attending;
(II) in the case of a homeless child or youth (within the meaning of section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)), available contact information for the child and the name of the school the child is attending;
(III) description of the nature of the problem of the child relating to such proposed initiation or change, including facts relating to such problem; and
(IV) proposed resolution of the problem to the extent known and available to the party at the time. [Emphasis Supplied].”
[2] Leatherman v. Tarrant County N ICU, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993).
[3] Compare Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997) (“The policy behind affording pro se plaintiffs liberal interpretation [of their hearing request] is that if they present sufficient facts [to state a claim], the court may intuit the correct cause of action, even if it was imperfectly pled”).
[4] As in the instant matter, in the Prior Matter, both Advocate LaRoe and Advocate Tobin represented Parents.
[5] The phrase “such proposed initiation or change” in sub-section III relates back to §1415(b)(3) which provides, in relevant part, that the state educational agency must establish and maintain procedures including a requirement for “Written prior notice to the parents of the child, in accordance with subsection (c)(1), whenever the local educational agency—(A)proposes to initiate or change; or (B)refuses to initiate or change, the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to the child”.
[6] See 20 USC 1415 (c)(2)(D); 34 CFR 300.508(d)(2) and BSEA Hearing Rule I(E) which requires that upon receipt of a sufficiency challenge, a Hearing Officer must, in writing, “… make a determination on the face of the notice” if the hearing requestcontains all the statutory requirements (Emphasis Added).
[7] The filing of an Amended Hearing Request re-starts all timelines and procedural requirements relevant to an original Hearing Request, including the 30-day informal resolution session. See Section 615(c)(2)(E)(ii) of IDEA 2004.
[8] The jurisdiction of the BSEA is limited by 20 USC §1415(b)(6) to complaints “with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child”. See M.G.L. c. 71B §2A, establishing the BSEA, and authorizing it to resolve special education disputes concerning, “…(i) any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, education program or educational placement of a child with a disability or the provision of a free and appropriate public education to the child arising under this chapter and regulations promulgated hereunder or under the [IDEA], 20 U.S.C. section 1400 et seq., and its regulations; or (ii) a student’s rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. section 794, and its regulations”.
[9] See In re: Zeke, Sua Sponte Dismissal of Bureau of Special Education Appeals Director as a Party, BSEA #2300305 (Reichbach, 8/18/2022); see also In Re: Student v. Division of Administrative Law Appeals & Bureau of Special Education Appeals, BSEA #2303901 (12/02/2022).
[10] See In Re: Student v. Division of Administrative Law Appeals & Bureau of Special Education Appeals, BSEA #2303901 (12/02/2022) citing Chute v. Walker, 281 F.3rd 314, 319 (2002).