Connecticut State Department of Education

Teacher of the Year Ceremony
Due to inclement weather, the Teacher of the Year Ceremony has been postponed to December 16, 2025 from 5-7pm. Doors will open at 4pm. The Ceremony will take place at the Bushnell Theater in Hartford, and the order of events will remain the same.

Final Decision and Order 25-0686

October 28, 2025

Student v. Milford Board of Education

Appearing on behalf of the Parent:

Pro se

Appearing on behalf of the District:

Herbert Rosen, Esq
Berchem Moses PC
75 Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460

Appearing before:

Patrick L. Kennedy, Esq.
Hearing Officer

Final Decision and Order

Issues:
  1. Did the District commit procedural violations amounting to a denial of FAPE for the 2023-24 school year?
  2. Did the District fail to implement the IEP of the Student for the 2023-24 school year?
  3. Did the District fail to provide the Student with an appropriate program for the 2024-25 school year?
  4. Did the District commit procedural violations amounting to a denial of FAPE for the 2024-25 school year?
  5. Did the District fail to implement the IEP of the Student for the 2024-25 school year?
  6. If the District has committed any violations, should an outplacement at Woodhouse Academy or Hope Academy be ordered?
Summary and Procedural History:

Case 25-0686 was commenced by the Father1 by request received by the District on June 12, 2025.  A prehearing conference was held on July 29, 2025 and the Complaint was amended on that date.  At the prehearing conference, hearing dates were set for September 24, 2025; October 17, 2025; October 21, 2025; October 23, 20252; October 27, 2025 and November 4. 2025 and the decision date was determined to be October 10, 2025 by virtue of the amendment.  The decision date was later extended to November 10, 2025.3

The hearing commenced on September 24, 2025 as scheduled and continued on October 17, 2025; October 21, 2025 and October 27, 2025.  The Father refused to produce exhibits prior to the first hearing although he had need for them for cross-examination purposes although he did so prior to the second hearing.  The District put on several witnesses during this period.  On numerous occasions the District objected to the Father’s questions and, if the objections were sustained, the Father repeatedly became belligerent, spent long periods of time arguing the Hearing Officer’s rulings and kept asking the same questions to which objections had been sustained.  At several points, the Hearing Officer had to remind the Father of the possibility that the case could be dismissed with prejudice or cross-examination terminated in order to obtain some semblance of proper behavior from the Father.

On the morning of October 27, 2025, the District presented its final witness.  During the cross-examination, the Father started asking numerous repetitive questions to which the District objected, which objections were sustained.  Instead of moving on as instructed, the Father repeatedly spent long periods of time arguing the rulings and asking the same questions to which objections had been sustained.  After the Father was warned against this behavior, cross-examination of the witness was terminated.

Subsequently, the parties discussed scheduling of future hearings.  The Father had previously sent an email stating that he was unavailable during the month of November after the scheduled hearing on November 4 due to a “preexisting mandatory commitment”.  The District observed that some more specific offer of proof should be furnished to justify the delay.  The undersigned Hearing Officer noted that he had a high degree of availability to schedule hearings in November and questioned the Father for some more information on why the delay was necessary and was told repeatedly only that it was a “mandatory preexisting commitment”.

After the lunch break, the hearing reconvened for the Father’s testimony.  Rather than testify, the Father spent several minutes rehashing his disagreements with past rulings.  When finally induced to provide testimony, the Father proceeded to attempt to testify and produce exhibits concerning a failed resolution meeting, to which the District successfully objected.  Instead of moving on as instructed, the Father spent several minutes rearguing the matter, which metastasized into a more general airing of grievances.  Despite being warned that the case would be dismissed if the Father did not move on to actually provide testimony, the Father continued his belligerent and argumentative diatribe.  Finally, the Hearing Officer entertained a motion from the District to dismiss the case and granted the motion.

The case is dismissed with prejudice for repeated belligerent and disruptive conduct by the Father and the undue delay that has been caused and will be caused by that conduct.

Final Decision and Order:

The matter is dismissed with prejudice.

Notes

  1. Although the Mother did not sign the Complaint and did not attend the prehearing conference, she was provided notice of all proceedings at her request.  The Mother attended all hearings except the final one but only spoke occasionally and briefly. ↩

  2. This date was not in the notice which was later issued at the request of the Mother due to a scheduling conflict. ↩

  3. Although a request was made on the record at the beginning of what turned out to be the final day of the hearing, it has become unnecessary to actually order that extension. ↩