Connecticut State Department of Education

Final Decision and Order Case #26-0523

September 2, 2026

Student v. East Granby Board of Education

Appearing on behalf of the Parent:
Pro Se

Appearing on behalf of the District:
Peter Maher, Esq.
Shipman & Goodwin LLP
1 Constitution Plaza
Hartford, CT 06103-1919

Appearing before:
Patrick L. Kennedy, Esq.
Hearing Officer

Final Decision And Order

Issues:

  1. Did the District fail to offer the Student an appropriate program for the 2025-26 school year?
  2. Did the District commit procedural violations amounting to a denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) during the 2025-26 school year?
  3. If the District has committed any violations, what remedies should be ordered?

Procedural History:

Case 26-0523 was commenced by the Parent by request received by the District on March 24, 2026.1 A prehearing conference was held on April 9, 2026. At the prehearing conference, hearing dates were set for July 16, 2026 and July 17, 2026 and the decision date was determined to be June 5, 2026.2 The decision date was later extended to September 4, 2026.3

The following witnesses testified for the District:

  • [REDACTED], Administrator, Webb in the Valley School (Webb)4
  • [REDACTED], Principal, Carl Allgrove Elementary School (Allgrove)
  • [REDACTED], District Director of Student Support Services

No witnesses testified for the Parent.5

Hearing Officer HO-1 was entered as a full exhibit.

Board Exhibits B-1 through B-39 were admitted as full exhibits.

Parent Exhibits P16 through P-24 and P-28 were admitted as full exhibits.

All motions and objections not previously ruled upon, if any, are hereby overruled.

This Final Decision and Order sets forth the Hearing Officer’s summary, findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein, which reference certain exhibits and witness testimony, and are not meant to exclude other supported evidence in the record. All evidence presented was considered in deciding this matter. To the extent that the summary, procedural history and findings of fact actually represent conclusions of law, they should be so considered and vice versa. SAS Institute Inc. v. S&H Computer Systems, Inc., 605 F.Supp. 816 (M.D.Tenn. 1985); Bonnie Ann F. v. Calallen Independent School Board, 835 F.Supp. 340 (S.D. Tex. 1993).

Statement Of Jurisdiction:

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

Findings Of Fact:

After considering all the evidence submitted by the Parties, including documentary evidence and testimony of witnesses, I find the following facts:

  1. The Student, whose date of birth is February 7, 2019, is a student who was enrolled with the East Granby school district for first grade in 2025-26. (B-21.)
  2. The Student is now enrolled with the Simsbury school district. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  3. When the Student was three years old, he was given a medical diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Sensory Processing Disorder. (B-1.)
  4. In 2022, while enrolled in the Capitol Region Education Council (CREC) preschool program, a Planning and Placement Team (PPT) meeting was held which found the Student eligible for special education under the category of Developmental Delay. (B-1.)
  5. The Student was enrolled at the Windemere School in Ellington in 2023-24. (B-4.)
  6. By March of 2024, the behaviors exhibited by the Student during the school year included hitting, kicking, pulling, spitting, biting, scratching and punching others and leaving his seat, leaving the room, leaving the line in the hallway, leaving the carpet, walking away from an adult, throwing an object, climbing on places and shredding paper. (B-4.)
  7. On May 3, 2024, the Ellington PPT revised the Student’s Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) to provide for the Student to be in a separate, self-contained setting except for arrival and dismissal. (B-4.)
  8. The Parent did not return the Student to Ellington and instead enrolled him in Hartford Public Schools. (B-4.)
  9. On October 15, 2024, the Parent filed a due process complaint against the Hartford school district. (B-4.)
  10. The Hearing Officer in that case found a stay-put violation for which compensatory education was mandated and ordered the retention of an independent educational consultant, the provision of parent training, the education of the student in a separate setting and the convening of another PPT but found that the District offered an appropriate program in offering to pay for a therapeutically based placement at public expense. (B-4.)
  11. Eighteen days after the issuance of the decision, the Parent revoked consent for special education. (B-5.)
  12. The day after the revocation of consent, a PPT meeting was held (which the Parent did not attend) which exited the Student from special education but noted the team’s disagreement with that action and pointed out that, as a general education student, the Student would be subject to ordinary discipline without a manifestation determination review. (B-6.)
  13. The Student was removed from school by the Parent and did not return for the rest of the school year. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  14. The Parent enrolled the Student in East Granby public schools for the 2025-26 school year and the Student was assigned to Carl Allgrove Elementary School (Allgrove). (B-10.)
  15. Because the Parent had revoked consent for special education, the Student entered the school as a general education student with no IEP. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  16. After the Student enrolled in East Granby, [REDACTED] received a telephone call from somebody in the Hartford school district advising him that the Student had previously been found eligible for special education and informing him of the prior due process decision and the revocation by the Parent. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  17. The Parent provided consent for Hartford to provide the Student’s records to East Granby a week before the start of school. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  18. The District subsequently received the prior IEP’s of the Student although receiving them all took some time. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  19. The District was also provided with reports concerning incidents requiring restraint and seclusion by the Hartford school district, of which there had been 29 (up to 4/30/25). (B-8.)
  20. Based on the information received, the District initiated a referral for determination of eligibility for special education services. (B-10.)
  21. On August 25, 2025, the District issued a notice of PPT to be held on September 4, 2025. (B-9.)
  22. On August 27, 2025, the Student entered school at Allgrove. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26; B-11.)
  23. During that first day of school, the Student tried to grab a fidget spinner from another student, ran through the parking lot toward a busy roadway, swung his arm at a teacher, attempted to kick the teacher and bit the principal. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  24. The principal called the Parent, told her about the behaviors and said that the Student was suspended for a day (as a regular education student without an IEP) but would be able to return on Friday, August 29, 2025, when the staff would have had a day to plan how to handle him. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  25. The Parent chose to keep the Student out of school until the PPT took place the next week. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  26. The PPT convened on September 4, 2025 with the Parent in attendance. (B-14.)
  27. At the PPT, the Parent admitted that the Student had previously had 197 aggressive interactions with school staff. (B-14.)
  28. The team recommended that evaluations be conducted, including a placement for diagnostic purposes, and that transportation be provided, including the use of a harness. (B-14.)
  29. The District issued a prior written notice (PWN) that the PPT had proposed to initiate an evaluation including a placement for diagnostic purposes with an effective date of September 19, 2025. (B-13.)
  30. On September 19, 2025, the District issued a notice of another PPT to review the referral to special education and consider/plan the initial evaluation. (B-16.)
  31. The PPT met on September 26, 2026 with the Parent and Webb personnel in attendance. (B-17.)
  32. The team recommended that the Student be placed at Webb for diagnostic purposes with door-to-door transportation and the use of a harness in transportation. (B-17.)
  33. Webb is a state-approved therapeutic day school with four classrooms. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/16/26.)
  34. The Student was one of five students in a classroom and had 1:1 or 2:1 staffing. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/16/26.)
  35. The Parent consented to the diagnostic placement. (B-19.)
  36. On September 29, 2025, the District issued a notice of another PPT to review evaluation results and determine eligibility and develop an IEP if eligible. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/16/26.)
  37. On October 8, 2026, the team held a diagnostic meeting to discuss observations of the Student’s first few days of school in which it was noted that a smaller student environment led to greater success for several reasons, including that it was “less stimulating and distracting”. (B-20.)
  38. The team then convened for the PPT meeting at which the PPT determined that the Student qualified for special education services with a primary classification of autism. (B-21.)
  39. The IEP provided for 1620 minutes per week of special education services, 60 minutes per week of speech and language services, 45 minutes per week of small group counseling, 45 minutes per week of individual counseling and BCBA and paraprofessional support. (B-21.)
  40. The IEP specifically stated that education would be provided in a separate setting or program and that the Student would spend 0% of his time with non-disabled peers. (B-21.)
  41. The Parent attended the PPT meeting. (B-21.)
  42. The Parent did not object to any of the recommendations of the PPT. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  43. The District issued a PWN initiating identification/eligibility for the reason that the Student “meets special education eligibility as a student with Autism”. (B-22.)
  44. The Parent consented to the provision of special education on October 9, 2025. (B-23.)
  45. On October 23, 2025, the District issued a notice of another PPT for a restraint/seclusion review on November 5, 2025. (B-24.)
  46. A diagnostic meeting was held that day but it does not appear that a PPT was held at that time. (B-25; Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  47. During October of 2025, the Student required restraint and seclusion on 24 occasions which included hitting, kicking, punching, throwing objects and elopement attempts. (B-36.)
  48. Even given Webb’s highly structured environment, Webb had to provide the Student with an unprecedented level of support. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/16/26.)
  49. At the diagnostic meeting of November 5, 2025, it was noted that the Student needed limited time with peers due to ongoing safety concerns and that he had frequent desires to elope. (B-25.)
  50. On November 12, 2025, the Student had seven incidents which required restraint and seclusion. (B-36; Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/16/26.)
  51. The incidents included the Student charging and headbutting the Administrator, throwing a pen and wrapping his arms around the neck of the clinician. (B-36; Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/16/26.)
  52. The Administrator asked the Parent to come pick up the Student but she stated that she was not able to. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/16/26.)
  53. The Administrator asked the Parent to bring the Student to a meeting at the school at 8:45 the next day but neither she nor the Student showed up. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/16/26.)
  54. The Student never again attended Webb and the Parent later told the Administrator that he was not coming back. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/16/26.)
  55. On November 25, 2025, the District issued a notice of PPT to review or revise the IEP and review the targeted assessment results. (B-26.)
  56. On November 26, 2026, Webb issued its final diagnostic report which made several recommendations including that the Student be provided with a “[h]igh level of structure, routine and support”, “intense staff support” and “highly structured and highly predictable environment”. (B-27.)
  57. The Parent attended the PPT of December 1, 2025. (B-28.)
  58. At the PPT of December 1, 2025, the team recommended that the Student be placed “in an autism specific program with a highly structured routine and setting consistent with the recommendations from the placement for diagnostic purposes” and that “BCBA will be added/continued through the duration of this IEP”. (B-28.)
  59. The Parent objected to a therapeutic placement and wanted the Student to attend Allgrove School. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/16/26.)
  60. On December 4, 2025, the Parent informed [REDACTED] that she would unilaterally be sending the Student to Allgrove School. (B-31; Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  61. [REDACTED] told the Parent verbally and by email that the Student was not enrolled in that school and that she should not send him there. (B-31; Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  62. Nonetheless, the Parent brought the Student to the bus stop and put him on the bus to the school (without the harness that he needed). (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  63. The Student arrived at school but could not be returned on the bus that he came in on due to the lack of a harness. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  64. The Parent was contacted to come and pick the Student up and stated that she did not have transportation. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  65. The District was able to obtain a bus with a harness from Hartford Public Schools to return the Student to his home around 5:30 pm. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  66. The District issued a PWN stating that it was proposing to change the placement of the Student effective December 15, 2025 and sent it to the parent portal. (B-29.)
  67. The District attempted to find placements for the Student and reached out to four school, of which three indicated that they had availability. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  68. The Parent did not cooperate with the District’s attempts to place the Student in accordance with the IEP. (B-30; B-32; B-33; Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  69. The need for structure, intense supervision and avoidance of distraction makes placement in a general education setting in a public school completely unsuitable for this Student. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/16/26; Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26 and Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  70. [REDACTED] has had 25 years of experience in special education, is licensed as a clinical social worker and has a masters degree in social work from the University of Connecticut. (B-39; Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/16/26.)
  71. [REDACTED] has been an administrator in special education since 2013, received a masters degree in special education from the University of St. Joseph and is certified by the State if Connecticut in special education, intermediate administration and superintendent of schools.
  72. [REDACTED] has served as a school principal since 2016, has received masters degrees from the University of Bridgeport and Sacred Heart University and is certified by the State of Connecticut in intermediate administration.
  73. The Parent enrolled the Student in Simsbury public schools effective July 1, 2026. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  74. The District learned of the enrollment in Simsbury due to a request for records from the school system as the Parent did not notify the East Granby district of the enrollment in another school system. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  75. PWNs are provided to Parents through the CT-SEDS parent portal. (Testimony of [REDACTED], 7/17/26.)
  76. The Parent logged into the portal to view documents at least 13 times between October 2, 2025 and December 11, 2025. (B-35.)

Conclusions Of Law And Discussion:

1. Did the District fail to offer the Student an appropriate program for the 2025-26 school year?

While the Parent’s brief is confusing and borders on incoherence and does not contain much discussion of what the Parent would consider an appropriate placement for the Student, the Complaint raises the issue of the Least Restrictive Environment. 20 USC §1412(a)(5)(A) provides, “To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.”

“We have underscored the IDEA’s ‘strong preference for children with disabilities to be educated “to the maximum extent appropriate”, together with their non-disabled peers’…Nevertheless, we have also acknowledged that ‘[w]hile mainstreaming is an important objective, we are mindful that the presumption in favor of mainstreaming must be weighed against the importance of providing an appropriate education to handicapped students. Under the [IDEA], where the nature or severity of the handicap is such that education in regular classes cannot be achieved satisfactorily, mainstreaming is inappropriate…’” P ex rel Mr. and Mrs. P v. Newington Bd. Of Ed., 548 F.3d 111, 119 (2008).

The court (or hearing officer should consider “(1) whether the district has made reasonable efforts to accommodate the child in a regular classroom; (2) the educational benefits available to the child in a regular class, with appropriate supplementary aids and services, as compared to the benefits provided in a special education class; and (3) the possible negative effects of the inclusion of the child on the education of the child on the education of the other students in the class.” Id at 120. If the court determines that a district is justified in removing the student from the regular classroom, the court should determine whether the school has “included the child in school programs with nondisabled children to the maximum extent appropriate.” Id. at 120.

In this case, it is clear that the Student cannot function in a regular classroom. (Findings of Fact #6, 10, 19, 23, 27, 37, 47-51, 56, 69.) The Student is not only unable to access his own education in a regular classroom but is dangerous to other students and staff. (Findings of Fact #6, 10, 19, 23, 27, 37, 47-51, 56, 69.) The administrators who concluded that the Student needed a highly structured, self-contained program have significant expertise in special education. (Findings of Fact #70-72,) The Parent offered no evidence whatsoever that the Student could function in a regular education environment, let alone any expert opinion.

Accordingly, the undersigned Hearing Officer concludes that the IEP offered by the District offered an appropriate program in the LRE and there was therefore no violation.

2. Did the District commit procedural violations amounting to a denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) during the 2025-26 school year?

It should first be noted that not all procedural violations result in a denial of FAPE. 20 USC §1415(f)(3)(E) provides, “In matters alleging a procedural violation, a hearing officer may find that a child did not receive a free appropriate public education only if the procedural inadequacies—

  1. impeded the child's right to a free appropriate public education;
  2. significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of a free appropriate public education to the parents' child; or
  3. caused a deprivation of educational benefits.”

The main contention of the Parent was that the PWNs were somehow deficient or not provided to her. The District provided PWNs for the recommendation to initiate the evaluation of the Student and place him for diagnostic purposes, to identify him as eligible for special education services with a primary disability of autism and to change the placement of the Student. (Findings of Fact #29, 43, 66.) The PWNs were sent to the CT-SEDS parent portal. (Findings of Fact #66, 75.) The Parent regularly accessed the CT-SEDS parent portal. (Finding of Fact #76.) While the Parent claims not to have received the PWNs, there is no evidentiary basis for that claim as she did not testify.

Although the Parent makes a claim of predetermination, her sole basis for asserting that claim is that “the delay in determining eligibility for special education services speaks to predetermination”. Actually, undue haste might be a factor indicating predetermination; the time spent following the process provided by law seems to suggest the opposite. In any event, there is no evidence of predetermination in the record.

The Parent makes the claim that “the parent was not well informed of the process that was happening and the information that was being input in the PPT team documents.” However, a subjective lack of understanding on the Parent’s part does not constitute a procedural violation on the District’s part. The Parent attended several PPTs. (Findings of Fact #26, 31, 41, 57.) The Parent provided consent for the provision of special education and the diagnostic placement. (Findings of Fact #35, 44.) The Parent regularly accessed the CT-SEDS parent portal. (Finding of Fact #76.) In short, the Parent fully and meaningfully participated in the PPT process and there is no evidence to the contrary.

The Parent’s penchant for unilateral actions is not anything that can be confused with procedural violations by the District. Accordingly, the undersigned Hearing Officer finds that the District did not commit any procedural violations amounting to a denial of FAPE for the 2025-26 school year.

3. If the District has committed any violations, what remedies should be ordered?

As the District has not committed any violations, no remedies are ordered.

Final Decision And Order:

The Hearing Officer finds in favor of the District.

1 A case based on the same facts and circumstances was previously brought but dismissed for failure of the parties to request an extension of the decision date. This case was brought immediately thereafter. ↩︎

2 In the interim the decision date was extended to July 7, 2026 and August 6, 2026. ↩︎

3 After the District put on its case, the Parent abruptly left the hearing despite being advised that she needed to stay to the end. After she left, the District requested an extension of the decision date, which was granted on the record in light of the time necessary to obtain transcripts, file briefs and write the decision. The Parent later sent an email objecting to the extension because it was granted without her being present to object on the record and because it would allegedly harm the educational interests of the Student. The objection was overruled as the Parent was absent at that point due to her own unilateral act of leaving the hearing and the Student was enrolled in another district by that point and his placement would thus be unaffected by the decision. ↩︎

4 [REDACTED] was called by the District but was also at the hearing by subpoena issued at the request of the Parent. In the interest of respecting the time of the witness, the Parent was given the opportunity to examine the witness without being bound by the requirement that questioning be within the scope of direct examination so that the witness could complete her testimony in one day without having to return for a separate round of questioning. ↩︎

5 A subpoena was issued for a clinician at Webb but the marshal was apparently unable to serve her. The undersigned Hearing Officer declined a request by the Parent to compel the testimony of the Superintendent of the District as it appeared that she had little involvement in the issues raised in this case. The undersigned Hearing Office declined to issue a subpoena for an employee of the Department of Children and Families as that agency had no involvement in the formulation of the educational program of the Student. The Parent was offered the opportunity to testify on her own behalf but refused to do so and left the hearing. ↩︎

6 P1 consisted of two separate documents which were respectively designated as P-1a and P-1b. ↩︎