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 Case #26-0061

October 2, 2025

Student v. Vernon Board of Education

Appearing on behalf of the Student:
Parent, pro se

Appearing on behalf of the District:
Christine Chinni, Esq.
Chinni and Associates LLC
14 Station Road
Simsbury, CT 06070

Appearing before:
Adrienne Lawston, Esq.
Hearing Officer

Final Decision and Order

Procedural History

A special education hearing was requested by Student’s Mother via request for Impartial Special Education Hearing dated August 5, 2025. The Board received the Request for Hearing on August 5, 2025. The 30-day Resolution period ended on September 4, 2025. The 45-day deadline to mail the final decision and order is October 17, 2025.

The hearing was scheduled for September 16, 2025 by Prehearing Conference Summary and Order dated August 17, 2025.1 At a subsequent Prehearing Conference conducted on August 26, 2025, the Parent was given the option of a remote hearing or an in-person hearing.

The Parent said that she wanted an in-person hearing, and the location was confirmed.

At the Parent’s request, as permitted by 34 C.F.R. § 300.512(c)(2), the hearing was open to the public.

The issues identified for the due process hearing include whether the Board provided the Student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 school years, including ESY in June/July 2025, and whether the Board complied with procedural requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for the school years at issue.2

Statement of Jurisdiction

This matter was a contested case pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) § 10-76h and related regulations, 20 United States Code (USC) § 1415(f) and related regulations, and in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), CGS §§ 4-176e to 4-178, inclusive, and § 4-181a and § 4-186.

Applicable Standards

Connecticut regulations outline the grounds for a hearing officer to enter a dismissal in the context of a due process hearing for a student with a disability, and it provides that the hearing officer may order a dismissal of a hearing with or without prejudice. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-18.

Any party may move for, or the hearing officer may order, sua sponte, an entry of default in or dismissal of a hearing for failure of any party to prosecute a hearing. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-18(a)(1).

Any party may move for, or the hearing officer may order, sua sponte, an entry of default in or dismissal of a hearing for failure of any party to comply with a ruling issued by the hearing officer before a final decision is rendered. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-18(a)(4).

Any party may move for, or the hearing officer may order, sua sponte, an entry of default in or dismissal of a hearing for failure of any party to comply with sections 10-76h-1 to 10-76h-18 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-18(a)(3).

A party may request that a hearing officer rule on a motion or take any action consistent with relevant statutes or regulations. Motions shall not be used to delay or protract any proceeding. Dilatory motions are prohibited. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-8(a).

Motion to recuse: A party to a hearing may file a motion to recuse. A motion to recuse shall be based on an assertion of bias, or a personal or professional interest that may conflict with the objectivity of the hearing officer in the conduct or disposition of the hearing. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-8(f)(1).

At least five business days prior to a hearing date, each party shall disclose to the other party all documentary evidence, including evaluations completed by that date, and recommendations based on the offering party's evaluations, that the party intends to use at the hearing. A hearing officer may bar any party that fails to comply with this requirement from introducing such evaluations or recommendations at the hearing. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-12(a).

A party requesting a postponement or extension of a previously set date, except for a party requesting an extension of the forty-five day decision timeline on account of an asserted need for additional hearing dates, shall submit a request in writing to the hearing officer no later than 5:00 p.m. five business days prior to the scheduled hearing or deadline date unless a compelling reason is shown for a later request. The request for postponement or extension shall set forth the reason for the request. It shall also indicate what efforts the moving party has made to contact the opposing party or the opposing party's representative and whether the opposing party agrees or objects to the postponement or extension. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-9(a).

The hearing, including the mailing of the final decision and order, shall be completed within the forty-five day timeline established in Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 USC 1400, et.seq., and the regulations adopted thereunder, as amended from time to time; and the hearing officer, in scheduling hearing dates, shall also set the date of such mailing. A specific extension of the forty-five day timeline may be granted by the hearing officer at the request of a party to the hearing only in accordance with the provisions of section 10-76h-9 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, except as provided in section 10-76h-10 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-7(c).

The final decision may include comments by the hearing officer on the conduct of the proceedings. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-16(b).

Summary

Section 10-76h of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies governs the procedures for impartial due process hearings and sets forth the rights and obligations of all parties. The evidentiary record in this matter supports the conclusion that on the scheduled hearing date, the Parent failed to comply with duly issued rulings of the Hearing Officer denying her motions for adjournment, and directing the parties to proceed with the hearing. The Parent’s conduct, which included delay tactics, obstructive behavior, and ongoing noncompliance ultimately resulted in her failure to prosecute the complaint.

Discussion

Parent’s Untimely Request for Adjournment

After the Hearing Officer’s consideration of the parties’ objections regarding the admissibility of exhibits, and inquiring about preliminary matters, the Parent advised that she was not prepared to proceed and requested an adjournment. Counsel for the Board was present and ready to proceed, and had three witnesses in attendance for the hearing. The Parent’s request was not in compliance with the procedural requirements set forth in § 10-76h-9 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, which provides that a request for an adjournment must be submitted in writing to the Hearing Officer no later than 5:00 p.m. five business days prior to the scheduled hearing or applicable deadline, absent a showing of a compelling reason for a later submission. Upon review, the Hearing Officer finds that the Parent failed to establish a compelling reason sufficient to warrant the granting of a late adjournment request, as further detailed below.

Parent’s Failure to Establish Compelling Reason for Late Adjournment Request

The Parent presented a litany of reasons for delaying the hearing, none of which constitute a “compelling reason,” either viewed individually or in totality. Initially, the Parent asserted that she was prejudiced because the Hearing Officer decision on her motions was provided the day before the hearing (Tr. pp. 33, 35, 48, 49, 58, 69, 73-74). The motion schedule was established by Prehearing Conference Summary and Order dated August 17, 2025. In that Order, the Parties were notified that “[a]ny motions, other than requests for extension of the timeline, must be filed on or before September 3, 2025, barring unforeseen circumstances. Responses are due on or before September 10, 2025.” September 3, 2025 was the deadline for filing motions. The Parent chose to file on the deadline instead of at an earlier date; the Board responded within seven days as required, on September 10, 2025; the Hearing Officer decision was issued on September 15, 2025.3 Given that the Parent filed her motions on the deadline date, the Board response and Hearing Officer decision were timely. It is important to note here that in establishing motion schedules, hearing dates, and considering requests for adjournment, the Hearing Officer must remain mindful of the timeline requirement under Part B of the IDEA and implementing regulations, that the hearing, including the issuance and mailing of the final decision and order, must be completed within the mandated 45-day timeline. Conn Agencies Regs. 10-76h-7(c).

Hearing Officer’s September 15, 2025 Decision

First, regarding Parent’s motion to “compel production” of the Student’s records for the 2023-2024 school year, and for “discovery” of the Student’s records for the 2024- 2025 school year, Connecticut regulations do not provide for formal discovery in a due process case. The parties have a right to five days advance notice of exhibits and witnesses to be offered at hearing, and the Board provided the required five day disclosure. See 34 CFR § 300.512(a)(3); Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-12(a). Parent does have a right to examine Student’s educational records pursuant to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Although the Hearing Officer does not have jurisdiction over FERPA issues, the following information is provided in support of the conclusion that the Student record issues presented by the Parent do not constitute a compelling reason warranting an adjournment.

Regarding the 2024-2025 school year, the Parent indicated in her August 5, 2025 Due Process Complaint that she requested the Student’s file on July 1, 2025 and that she was informed that she could pick up the documents covering the dates from April 2, 2024 through the date of the request, but she wanted them mailed or emailed. The hearing record shows that on September 3, 2025, the Parent picked up the Student’s records for the 2024-2025 school year, which is the year at issue in the due process proceeding (Board Ex. 5 at p. 12; Tr. p. 37). Regarding the 2023-2024 school year, the hearing record shows that the records were previously provided to the Parent, that she had them in a prior hearing covering the 2023-2024 school year (Board Ex. 1),4 that she was given the opportunity to review the records in person (Board Ex. 5), and that the Board previously advised the Parent that it would provide a second copy of the records for a fee (Board Ex. 11 at pp. 19-20, 22-23). In addition, the Parent offered the following historical Student records pertaining to the 2023-2024 school year that were admitted into evidence at the hearing: (1) Student’s May/June 2023 Neuropsychological Evaluation (Parent Ex. 1); (2) Prior Written Notice dated April 29, 2024 (Parent Ex. 7 at pp. 23-24); Student’s January 10, 2024 Alternate Assessment Eligibility Form (Parent Ex. 7 at pp. 1-2); Student’s May 28, 2024 Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Procedural Checklist (Parent Ex. 7 at pp. 3-4); and Student’s May 28, 2024 Individualized Education Program (Parent Ex. 7 at pp. 5-22).5

In sum, the Board provided the Parent with the Student’s records for the 2023- 2024 and 2024-2025 school year and provided opportunities for in person review of the records. As such, Parent’s claims of prejudice as a result of receiving the Hearing Officer’s decision the day before the hearing, and the need for additional time to obtain the Student’s educational records, are without merit.

Second, regarding the Parent’s assertion that she was prejudiced by the timing of Hearing Officer’s decision as it pertains to her motion to compel the Board to provide a written response to Parent’s request for hearing (Tr. p. 50), as indicated in the Hearing Officer’s September 15, 2025 Decision, under the IDEA and implementing regulations, if the LEA has not sent prior written notice under § 300.503 to the Parent regarding the subject matter in the Parent’s Due Process Complaint, within 10 days of receiving the due process complaint, the LEA must send a response to the Parent. See 20 U.S. 1415C(2)(B)(i),(ii); 34 CFR § 300.508(e),(f). Whether or not prior written notice was provided is an evidentiary issue that would have been determined at the scheduled due process hearing. Failure to provide required prior written notice would constitute a procedural violation, and would have received appropriate consideration in determining whether any procedural violation(s) rise to the level of a denial of FAPE. As such, receipt of the Hearing Officer’s decision the day before hearing on this issue was not prejudicial to the Parent and is not a “compelling reason” for the Parent’s untimely request for adjournment.

Other Parent Assertions of Prejudice

First, regarding the Parent’s assertion that she was prejudiced by the Board’s failure to provide a curriculum vitae for Board witnesses (Tr. pp. 53-55, 59, 61, 72-73, 73-78), the requirement to provide a curriculum vitae or resume for Board witnesses, only falls within the five business day requirement of Section § 10-76h-12(a) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, if the party intends to use the curriculum vitae or resume at the hearing. The Board Attorney did not intend to use such at the hearing, evidenced by the fact that she was ready for the hearing and did not have them with her (Tr. p. 54-55). The Hearing Officer’s August 17, 2025 Prehearing Conference Summary and Order provided that any witness called in a professional role, including school staff members, shall be instructed to provide a copy of their curriculum vitae; and the Hearing Officer’s September 15, 2025 Decision required that the Board provide a resume or curriculum vitae for each Board staff member to be called as a witness by either party. The intent of the Hearing Officer was to have the witness’ resume or curriculum vitae provided before their testimony. Although the Board did not have the resumes printed and ready to provide at the start of the proceeding, they provided them for the witnesses that would be testifying on that date, as directed by the Hearing Officer after a 20 minute recess.6

Second, the Parent claimed that she was unable to go forward because she did not have her “witness book”7 (Tr. pp. 49, 52), needed to submit additional motions and wanted to “amend” (Tr. p. 50), wanted to file an interlocutory appeal (Tr. pp. 52, 82-83), and she was not provided with advance information as to which of the five Board witnesses would be testifying on the first date of hearing (Tr. pp. 54, 60).8 Finding no prejudice to the Parent and no compelling reason for an adjournment, Parent’s requests were denied.

Motion for Recusal

When the Parent returned from a 21 minute recess, the Parent indicated she wanted leave to submit a motion for recusal (Tr. pp. 63-65). The Hearing Officer directed her to make her motion orally (Tr. p. 63). The Parent made the allegation of “a clear impartiality and bias that I would again ask for the ability to memorialize in writing“ (Tr. pp. 64, 66). She added that “Parent has not been afforded an adequate ability to prepare. Parent is prejudiced by going forward with an opening without fully receiving all of the ordered discovery, mainly CVs. The District has provided me resumes. I do not have access to what is necessary. And, again, the untimeliness of the Hearing Officer’s decision has further prejudiced parent from being able to respond in a reasonable time” (Tr. p. 66).9

Under the IDEA and State regulations, a motion to recuse shall be based on an assertion of bias, or a personal or professional interest that may conflict with the objectivity of the hearing officer in the conduct or disposition of the hearing. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-8(f)(1). A motion for recusal must be supported by specific facts demonstrating bias or prejudice that would cause a reasonable person to question the Hearing Officer’s impartiality. Here, the timing and context of the Parent’s motion are relevant. The motion was made only after the Hearing Officer denied the Parent’s numerous requests for a postponement of the hearing date. Given the lack of factual or legal support and the proximity of the recusal motion to these denials, the recusal request appears intended to further delay the proceedings. The Parent has not identified any extrajudicial source of bias or shown that the Hearing Officer’s conduct reflects a lack of impartiality. Procedural rulings, even if unfavorable to one party, do not establish bias or grounds for recusal. (see Chen v. Chen Qualified Settlement Fund, 552 F.3d 218, 227 (2d Cir. 2009) ("Generally, claims of judicial bias must be based on extrajudicial matters, and adverse rulings, without more, will rarely suffice to provide a reasonable basis for questioning a judge's impartiality")); (see also Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975) (administrative hearing officers are entitled to a “presumption of honesty and integrity")). Pursuant to Section 10-76h-8(a) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, as indicated above, dilatory motions are prohibited, and this motion is found to be dilatory in nature. Accordingly, the Parent’s motion for recusal is denied both on the merits and as a prohibited dilatory motion under state procedural rules.10

Parent’s Conduct During the Hearing

This hearing convened at 10:17 a.m. and concluded at 12:41 p.m. (Tr. pp. 1, 107). Upon review of the Parent’s requests/motions as indicated above, in conjunction with a reading of the entire transcript, there is a common theme. Despite the Hearing Officer denying the Parent’s requests for adjournment, and directing that the Parties commence with the hearing, the Parent made it difficult to progress to Opening Statements, by interrupting, talking over the Hearing Officer, speaking quickly and continuously at times, repeating prior arguments and diverging from the topic at hand. A review of the transcript shows that the Parent intentionally delayed and obstructed the proceedings by engaging in this conduct, and failed to comply with Hearing Officer rulings, culminating in the failure to prosecute as explained below.11

Failure to Comply with Hearing Officer’s Rulings; Failure to Prosecute

Prior to Opening Statements, as indicated above, the Hearing Officer denied the Parent’s motions for adjournment, and directed that the hearing proceed with Opening Statements. Instead of complying with the Hearing Officer’s rulings, the Parent intentionally prevented the Board from presenting its Opening Statement by repeatedly interrupting with objections that had no basis. The Parent successfully stopped the hearing from continuing past the Board’s first 13 words. At this point, the Parent’s actions and statements moved her conduct from delay and active obstruction, to failure to comply with the Hearing Officer’s rulings and failure to prosecute.

Below is an excerpt from the transcript with names omitted:

Board Attorney: This is a simple matter - -
Parent: I object.
Board Attorney: - - that covers a very short - -
Parent: I object.
Board Attorney: - - period of time.
Hearing Officer: Excuse me. Don’t - -
Parent: I object.
Hearing Officer: There’s nothing to object to.
Parent: There is. There is an improper opening that is now being provided in light of the issues that I have now addressed. Anything that the opposing party is going to say, I have not been provided any Notice of it, because they have not filed their - - they have not complied with their discovery obligations. They have not provided any written - - essentially, any written notice. So I object. This is improper and impermissible.
Board Attorney: Madam Hearing Officer - -
Hearing Officer: Your objection is overruled. Let’s hear the opening statement.
Parent: I will continue to object. (Tr. pp. 83-84).

The Parent repeated that she “will continue to object” (Tr. p. 84). When the Hearing Officer asked the Parent to refrain from interrupting during the Opening Statement, adding that she may make any substantive objections, and reminded the Parent that the Hearing Officer had already ruled that the hearing proceed with the Opening Statement, the Parent stated: “You can’t prevent me from objecting. And I can object” (Tr. pp. 85-86). When the Board Attorney indicated that she would attempt to start her Opening Statement again, she also made the application that the hearing be dismissed with prejudice if the Parent continued to obstruct the hearing. The Parent stated: “I’m able to object. There is nothing in any rules of evidence that prohibit me from interrupting or interjecting from opening speech….” (Tr. p. 86). When the Hearing Officer asked the Parent if her intent was to prevent the hearing from going forward and to keep repeating objections so that we can’t hear the Opening Statement, the Parent stated: “It is my objection to appropriately renew any objection as they come. And I do believe that if the hearing - - if the District’s counsel is proceeding with an objectionable opening, I have the ability to do so. I can object” (Tr. p. 88). When the Hearing Officer again indicated that the hearing was going to proceed, and that if the Parent stopped the hearing by disregarding the Hearing Officer’s rulings, such conduct would constitute obstruction and failure to prosecute, the Parent indicated that she needed a moment to “compose” herself (Tr. p. 88-89).

The hearing reconvened seven minutes later with the same attendees present. Instead of proceeding to Opening Statements, the Parent claimed that there were issues with going forward and she didn’t believe she would be able to go forward because she now claimed that she needed “medical attention” (Tr. p. 94). The record reflects that the Parent did not suggest that she was unwell upon arrival at the hearing, or for the approximate two hours earlier, during which time the hearing was convened (See Tr. pp. 1-93). She did not exhibit any signs of feeling unwell or illness at any time. After claiming that she needed medical attention, the Parent said that if the District objected, “I don’t know if I have to call 911” (Tr. pp. 94-95). Attorney for the Board stated that “This is a transparent, a desperate attempt to continue to try to delay this proceeding. We ask that this proceeding go forward at this time. If the Parent is not prepared to go forward, we ask that this matter be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute” (Tr. p. 95).

After some back and forth between the Parent and the Board, and the Board renewing its request for dismissal with prejudice, the Parent stated: “If I have to get 911 out on a stretcher, I mean, I think that’s going to be the liability of the District if you want” (Tr. p. 96). After a brief recess, the Hearing Officer presented the Parent with three options: (1) Go forward with the hearing; (2) withdraw the complaint without prejudice if not going forward; (3) If not going forward with the hearing and Parent does not withdraw without prejudice, the Hearing Officer would dismiss with prejudice for failure to prosecute and obstruction (Tr. pp. 99-100). The Hearing Officer presented the Parent with the option of withdrawing without prejudice three times (Tr. pp. 100-101, 102). Instead, the Parent indicated that “I will go forward. But I will be calling 911 while this continues to the extent that I’m able to participate. I am not willfully saying that I can” (Tr. p. 101).

The Parent’s statement that she would “go forward” with the hearing cannot be viewed in isolation. When considered in context—particularly her simultaneous threat to call 911—it is evident that this was not a sincere intention to proceed, but rather a calculated tactic to disrupt the hearing process. From the outset, the Parent’s conduct reflected a clear and consistent pattern of obstruction. Although she requested a recess to “compose” herself, she instead used that time to devise yet another strategy to derail the proceeding. Her actions demonstrate an ongoing and deliberate intent to prevent the hearing from moving forward.

Conclusion

The record establishes that the Parent failed to comply with duly issued rulings of the Hearing Officer (1) denying her motions for adjournment; and (2) directing the parties to proceed with the hearing. In Connecticut, the Board has the burden of proof and also must present its case first in a due process hearing. The Parent—as the initiating party—intentionally prevented the Board from presenting its case, thereby failing to prosecute her complaint. Despite being afforded multiple opportunities to cooperate with the process, the Parent’s complaint did not move forward in the proceeding as a direct result of the Parent’s conduct. Pursuant to Section 10-76h-18 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, dismissal with prejudice is authorized where a party fails to comply with the Hearing Officer’s rulings or fails to prosecute. Dismissal with prejudice is a serious measure, and is not imposed lightly. In this case, after careful consideration of the record and the procedural posture, and in the absence of any viable alternative that would protect the due process rights of both parties, dismissal with prejudice is warranted.

Final Decision and Order:

The matter is dismissed with prejudice.

Notes

  1. At the scheduled Prehearing Conference on August 13, 2025, the Parent appeared on behalf of the Student. The Board did not appear. A second Prehearing Conference was scheduled on August 25, 2025, at which time neither party appeared. Both Parties appeared for the August 26, 2025 Prehearing Conference. ↩
  2. See August 17, 2025 Prehearing Conference Summary and Order for a detailed summary of the issues; see also Tr. pp. 6-7. ↩
  3. The decision was provided by email to the parties on September 15, 2025 at 11:15 a.m. (See September 15, 2025 email). The Parent did not make a request for an adjournment the day before the hearing by email after receipt of the decision. ↩
  4. Board Exhibit One is the May 10, 2024 Final Decision and Order of a Hearing Officer (24-0355/24-0363) regarding the due process hearing of the same Parent and Student covering the 2023-2024 school year. This Decision was not appealed. In this Decision, the Hearing Officer finds that “[Board’s] Attorney represented to Student’s Mother and the Hearing Officer that [Board] provided Student’s Mother with all requested educational records pursuant to FERPA. There is no credible evidence that [Board] denied Student’s Parents access to records, impeded their ability to participate or caused a deprivation of educational benefit to Student” (Board Ex. 1 at p. 15). ↩
  5. Although not specifically raised at the hearing by the Parent, the Hearing Officer’s September 15, 2025 Decision also denied the Parent’s request to subpoena surveillance video of minibus transportation from 15 dates. Noting again that the IDEA does not provide for formal discovery in due process hearings, the Hearing Officer also found that school bus surveillance video was not necessary in order to provide the Parent with a meaningful opportunity to exercise due process rights. In addition, the hearing record shows that Parent had requested the surveillance video from the Board, and that the Board advised that “on-going bus records” were not maintained as part of a Student’s educational record, that District policy does not allow Parents to view bus video recordings when other students are visible for confidentiality reasons, and also that District personnel confirmed that “at no point is the Student the sole student visible” (Board Ex. 5 at p. 4). Thus, Board Exhibit 5 also shows that student privacy issues under FERPA weigh against granting the Parent’s request. ↩
  6. When the Hearing Officer asked the Parent if she needed time to review the two-page resume of the first witness who would be testifying, the Parent responded, “I need a continuance or a postponement,” which was denied by the Hearing Officer (Tr. p. 74). ↩
  7. The “witness book” is a duplicate binder containing a second copy of the Parent’s exhibits for use by witnesses if needed. The Hearing Officer’s August 17, 2025 Prehearing Conference Summary and Order required that each party bring a copy of their exhibit binder to the hearing to be used by the witnesses . Given that the Board, the Parent and Hearing Officer had one copy of the Parent’s exhibit binder, there was no need for an adjournment for this reason. ↩
  8. The Regulations require five day disclosure of the witnesses who will be testifying at the hearing, but do not require a breakdown of which day the witnesses are scheduled to testify. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10- 76h-12(a). ↩
  9. Other comments were made by the Parent in reference to her Motion for Recusal when the Hearing Officer said “Don’t talk while I’m talking” (Tr. pp. 75-76). In addition, the Parent specifically renewed her recusal motion when the Hearing Officer indicated that “This concludes preliminary matters,” to which the Parent responded, “It does not. Again, if you believe so, I would renew my basis for a recusal (Tr. p. 79).” When the Hearing Officer again tried to move forward with Opening Statements, noting that the Parent’s continuous interruptions were obstructing the hearing, the Parent characterized the Hearing Officer’s statement as “discriminatory” and “racial” (Tr. p. 85). The Parent also added that the failure of the Board attorney to appear at a prehearing conference without penalty imposed by the Hearing Officer supported her recusal motion (Tr. p. 77). However, the Parent also did not appear at a prehearing conference without penalty imposed by the Hearing Officer (See September 2, 2025 Prehearing Conference Summary and Order). ↩
  10. Although not the Hearing Officer’s basis for dismissing the Parent’s due process complaint, Connecticut regulations provide authority for dismissal of a hearing for failure of any party to comply with sections 10- 76h-1 to 10-76h-18 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, and the Parent’s dilatory motions were in violation of section 10-76h-8(a) of the Regulations. See Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-18(3). ↩
  11. Although selected excerpts from the transcript are illustrative of this conduct (see, e.g., Tr. pp. 61, 67, 75, 76, 79, 82-88), a comprehensive review of the transcript in its entirety offers the most accurate and complete understanding of the conduct at issue. ↩