Connecticut State Department of Education

Final Decision and Order Case #26-0533

May 8, 2026

Hartford Board of Education v. Student

Appearing on behalf of the Student:
Parent, Pro Se

Appearing on behalf of the Board:
Herbert Z. Rosen, Esq.
Berchem Moses PC 75 Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460

Appearing before:
Adrienne Lawston, Esq.
Hearing Officer

Final Decision And Order

Procedural History:

The Board filed a Request for Due Process Hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (IDEA) via email on March 26, 2026. The undersigned Hearing Officer was appointed to preside over this case on March 30, 2026. At the April 8, 2026 Prehearing Conference, Attorney Herbert Rosen appeared on behalf of the Board. Parent, pro se, appeared on behalf of the Student. For purposes of determining the timeline, the 45-day deadline for mailing of the Hearing Officer’s decision started to run on March 27, 2026. The deadline to mail the final decision and order is May 8, 2026.

This hearing was conducted remotely on April 27, 2026, based on the Parent’s request and agreement by the Board.

Statement Of Jurisdiction:

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

Issues:

  1. Is the Board entitled to conduct the Student’s triennial reevaluation (exclusive of the Autism evaluation) without parental consent?
  2. Is the Board entitled to conduct an autism evaluation as part of the Student’s triennial reevaluation without parental consent?

Summary:

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Parent stated on the record that she consented to the evaluations at issue, except for the autism evaluation. The Board does not have written consent. With respect to the proposed triennial reevaluation (excluding the autism evaluation), the Board’s request to proceed with the assessments identified in the February 5, 2026 Consent to Conduct a Reevaluation Assessment is granted. This determination is based on the Parent’s stated consent at hearing and, independently, on the Hearing Officer’s finding that the Board met its burden of proof. With respect to the proposed autism evaluation, the Board’s request is denied. The Board did not meet its burden of proof to establish that it provided sufficient information to obtain informed parental consent.

Applicable Standards:

Burden of Proof
  1. In a due process hearing, the Board bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-14.
Informed Consent and Reevaluation
  1. The IDEA requires that a student with a disability be reevaluated at least once every three years unless the parent and district agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary. 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(b)(2); Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76d-9(a).
  2. Parental informed consent is required prior to conducting reevaluations involving assessments. 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(c)(1)(i); Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76d-8(b).
  3. “Informed consent” requires that the parent be fully informed of all information relevant to the proposed evaluation, in the parent’s native language or other mode of communication. 34 C.F.R. § 300.9.
  4. A Parent’s failure to respond to a request for consent to conduct a reevaluation within ten school days from the date of notice to the Parent is deemed a refusal of consent. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76d-8(b).
  5. If a parent refuses consent for a reevaluation, the district may, but is not required to, pursue the reevaluation by initiating a due process hearing. 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(c)(1)(ii).
Informed Consent and Prior Written Notice
  1. The IDEA requires that parents be provided with prior written notice that describes any proposed evaluation, explains why the evaluation is proposed, and describes the evaluation procedures to be used. 34 C.F.R. § 300.503; Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76d-8(a).
Evaluation in All Areas of Suspected Disability
  1. The IDEA requires that a student be assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability. 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(4).

Findings Of Relevant Fact1:

Student Classification
  1. The Student is eligible for special education and related services under the classification of Other Health Impairment (with ADD or ADHD) (Board Ex. 8; Hearing Officer Ex. 1).
Reevaluation Requirement
  1. The Student’s triennial reevaluation is due June 8, 2026 (Board Ex. 8).
Proposed Triennial Reevaluation
  1. The Board proposed a triennial reevaluation in the areas of Academic, Intellectual/Cognitive Functioning, Behavioral/Social/Emotional, Communication (Speech/Language), Pragmatics, Motor Development (Fine), Adaptive Behavior, OT Sensory, and Autism Specific, and requested parental consent pursuant to its February 5, 2026 Consent to Conduct a Reevaluation Assessment. The Board had convened multiple PPT meetings between May 2025 and February 2026, during which evaluators described proposed assessments, PPT members discussed the reevaluation plan, and the Parent was provided opportunities to ask questions. The Parent requested written documentation, and some documentation was provided by the occupational therapist (Board Exs. 12–15, 18–23; Tr. pp. 37–38, 40, 45–52, 69–71; 113, 114–115, 116).
  2. The proposed triennial reevaluation is necessary and designed to assess the Student’s current functioning, progress, and educational needs and to inform programming and services (Board Exs. 14, 22; Tr. pp. 53, 57, 69–70, 84–85, 87–89, 106, 110–112).
January 22, 2026 PPT Meeting
  1. The Director of Special Education communicated with the Parent via emails dated January 12 and January 13, 2026 regarding scheduling a PPT meeting to review consent for testing and determine whether additional assessments should be added, with evaluators present to answer questions. After scheduling for a date and time requested by the Parent, the PPT meeting was set for January 22, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. The Parent agreed to attend. A Notice of PPT Meeting dated January 13, 2026 indicated that the purpose included planning the triennial reevaluation (Board Exs. 19, 20; Tr. pp. 48–49).
  2. At the January 22, 2026 PPT meeting, evaluators described proposed assessments, and the Parent had an opportunity to ask questions (Tr. pp. 49–50). However, the Parent ended the meeting early, stating she was driving and lacked cell service (Tr. pp. 59–60, 62). The record does not establish that the autism-specific evaluation was discussed at this meeting. No additional written documentation of this meeting was entered into evidence beyond the notice and emails referenced above.
  3. The meeting was rescheduled to February 5, 2026 (Board Exhibit 21).
February 5, 2026 PPT Meeting
  1. By Notice of PPT Meeting dated January 30, 2026, a PPT meeting was scheduled for February 5, 2026 (Board Ex. 21).
  2. At that meeting, the school psychologist and occupational therapist were present. The Board proposed adding an autism-specific evaluation to the triennial reevaluation, in addition to a proposed Adaptive Behavior and OT Sensory evaluation (Tr. pp. 52–53; Board Exs. 22–23).
  3. In developing evaluation recommendations, the school psychologist reviewed records, including prior evaluations, data entries, and input from staff, and considered areas including cognitive functioning, behavioral/social-emotional functioning, adaptive skills, attention/executive functioning, and autism-specific concerns (Tr. pp. 84–86).
  4. He also considered concerns reflected in prior evaluations, including pragmatic language, and BASC-3 results indicating concerns in adaptability, social skills, functional communication, hyperactivity, aggression, and withdrawal (Tr. p. 86).
  5. The purpose of the proposed autism evaluation was to conduct a comprehensive assessment and determine whether autism should be considered as a primary disability. (Tr. pp. 52–53, 85–88; Board Exs. 22, 23).
  6. The extent of discussion regarding the autism evaluation at the February 5, 2026 PPT meeting is unclear from the record. The Parent became upset during the meeting, and the interaction included yelling and swearing (Tr. pp. 62, 87).
  7. The Parent had requested further discussion/documentation regarding autism testing, which was the reason the February PPT meeting was scheduled. After the February meeting, there was no further discussion about the autism evaluation and no written documents were provided (Tr. p. 62–63, 91).
Prior Written Notice
  1. In Prior Written Notice dated February 5, 2026, the Board added proposed evaluations for Autism Specific, Adaptive Behavior and OT Sensory to evaluations previously identified, and the purpose was to conduct a comprehensive evaluation to consider all requested assessment areas, identify a primary disability, and ensure all areas of need are addressed in the IEP (Board Ex. 22).
  2. Earlier Prior Written Notice included a September 15, 2025 notice, adding Speech/Language and Pragmatics assessments to the May 8, 2025 Consent to Conduct a Reevaluation Assessment, which included assessments in the areas of Academic, Intellectual/Cognitive Functioning, Behavioral/Social/Emotional, and Motor Development (Fine) (Board Exs. 13, 14).
Consent
  1. The Parent did not provide written consent for any of the proposed evaluations (Tr. pp. 45–46). At the due process hearing, the Parent stated on the record that she consented to all proposed evaluations except the autism evaluation (Tr. p. 133).

Discussion: Conduct Of Hearing2

Pursuant to State regulation, and consistent with the Hearing Officer’s authority under State and federal law to conduct and control the hearing, the Hearing Officer may address conduct affecting the hearing in the Hearing Officer decision. During the hearing, the Parent repeatedly interrupted the Hearing Officer, counsel, and witnesses, spoke over participants, used profane and extremely disrespectful language, and disregarded Hearing Officer directions, requiring frequent intervention and impeding the orderly presentation of evidence.

The Hearing Officer had authority to impose remedial measures, including limiting participation or exclusion, but declined to do so. In exercising that discretion, the Hearing Officer considered the procedural posture of the case, including that the Board initiated the due process complaint, and that this appeared to be the Parent’s first due process hearing. The Hearing Officer therefore afforded the Parent considerable latitude to ensure a full and fair opportunity to be heard.

This discretion does not constitute acceptance of the conduct. Due process hearings require adherence to basic standards of decorum. Persistent interruption, yelling, profanity, disrespectful conduct, or refusal to follow directives will not be permitted in future proceedings and may result in limitations on participation, exclusion, or orders on the existing record, including default or dismissal where appropriate.

These observations are made solely to address the administration of the hearing. The decision is based on the evidentiary record and applicable law.

Discussion: Facts And Conclusions Of Law

The Board’s proposal to conduct a triennial reevaluation, including an autism assessment, was undertaken in accordance with its obligations under the IDEA to reevaluate eligible students at least every three years and to assess in all areas related to suspected disability. The record reflects that the Board’s actions were directed toward obtaining the evaluative information necessary to assess the Student’s needs, and that the proposed scope of evaluation was consistent with the IDEA’s requirement that assessments be sufficiently comprehensive.

Triennial Reevaluation (Excluding Autism)

The Board met its burden of proof.

The IDEA requires that the Student be reevaluated at least once every three years. The record establishes that the Board proposed a comprehensive reevaluation designed to assess the Student’s current functioning, progress, and educational needs. (Findings of Fact ¶¶ 3–4, 10–12).

The Board satisfied its procedural obligations. It provided prior written notices and consent forms, convened multiple PPT meetings, and made repeated efforts to address the Parent’s questions, including offering direct access to evaluators at PPT meetings and providing some supplementary written documentation (Findings of Fact ¶¶ 3, 5–12).

Although the Parent did not provide written consent, she stated on the record at hearing that she consents to these evaluations (Findings of Fact ¶ 17).

Independently, the evidence establishes that the proposed evaluations are necessary and appropriate, and that the Board provided sufficient information to support informed consent. Accordingly, the Board is entitled to proceed with the triennial reevaluation, excluding the autism evaluation.

Autism Evaluation

The Board did not meet its burden of proof.

The Board established that an autism evaluation is warranted as part of the Student’s triennial reevaluation (Findings of Fact ¶¶ 10-12). The record supports a finding that autism was reasonably identified as an area of suspected disability and that assessment in this area is consistent with the IDEA’s requirement that students be evaluated in all areas related to suspected disability.

However, the Board must also establish that it provided the Parent with sufficient information to support informed consent for the proposed autism evaluation.

Although the Board identified a basis for proposing the autism evaluation, the record reflects that: (1) the autism evaluation was introduced late in the process; (2) the hearing record is unclear as to what specific information was provided about the autism evaluation at the February PPT meeting; and (3) the Parent requested additional information that was not provided (Findings of Fact ¶¶ 6, 8–9, 13–16).

Even where a parent’s conduct at PPT meetings limits the effectiveness of verbal discussion, the Board’s obligation to provide sufficient information to support informed consent remains. Under such circumstances, that obligation may require the provision of clear and responsive written information addressing the proposed evaluation.

On this record, the Hearing Officer cannot conclude that the Board provided sufficient information to enable informed parental consent for the autism evaluation. Accordingly, the Board has not met its burden of proof that it is entitled to proceed with the autism evaluation without parental consent.

Final Decision And Order:

  1. The Board’s request to proceed, without parental consent, with the triennial reevaluation (excluding the autism evaluation) as delineated in the February 5, 2026 Consent to Conduct a Reevaluation Assessment is GRANTED.
  2. The Board’s request to proceed with the autism evaluation without parental consent is DENIED.
  3. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Decision, the Board shall provide the Parent with written information in hard copy by mail sufficient to permit informed consent for the proposed autism evaluation. Such information shall include:
    1. A detailed explanation of the basis for the Board’s determination that autism is an area of suspected disability;
    2. Identification and description of any screening tools, checklists, or data relied upon;
    3. A description of the specific assessments proposed as part of the autism evaluation;
    4. An explanation of the educational purpose of the autism evaluation and the potential benefits of conducting such an assessment.
  4. The Board shall provide the above information together with a renewed request for parental consent for the autism evaluation.
  5. Nothing in this Order precludes the Board, if parental consent for the autism evaluation is not obtained, from pursuing any options available under applicable State or federal law at a later time.

1 To the extent that the findings of fact may be viewed as conclusions of law, they should be so considered, and vice versa. ↩︎

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