IndividuallyM v. Kingston City Sch. Dist.

J.M., individually and as parent and next friend to R.M., a child with a disability, Plaintiff, v. KINGSTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

1:14-CV-0542 (GTS/DJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

November 23, 2015

APPEARANCES:

CUDDY LAW FIRM, P.C.

Counsel for Plaintiff

5693 South Street Road

Auburn, New York 13021

SHAW, PERELSON, MAY &

LAMBERT, LLP

Counsel for Defendant

21 Van Wagner Road

Poughkeepsie, New York 12603

OF COUNSEL:

JASON H. STERNE, ESQ.

MARK C. RUSHFIELD, ESQ.

GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge

DECISION and ORDER

Currently before the Court, in this civil rights action filed by J.M. ("Plaintiff") on behalf of her child, R.M., against the Kingston City School District ("Defendant" or "the District") pursuant to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") and Article 89 of the New York Education Law, are Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 13) and Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 14). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is granted, Plaintiff's motion is denied, and her Amended Complaint is dismissed.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Defendant's Counterclaims

Generally, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts a claim that Defendant deprived R.M. of a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") for the 2013-2014 school year, in violation of the IDEA and Article 89 of the New York Education Law. (See generally Dkt. No. 4 [Am. Compl.].) In support of this claim, Plaintiff challenges the decision of a State Review Officer ("SRO"), which reversed the decision of an Independent Hearing Officer ("IHO") presiding over a due process hearing in which Plaintiff challenged Defendant's individual education program ("IEP") promulgated for R.M. (Id.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the SRO incorrectly concluded that the District offered a FAPE without addressing the IHO's findings that Chapel Haven-a private school in Connecticut that Plaintiff wanted R.M. to attend-was an appropriate placement and that the equities weighed in favor of the parent. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-19.) On the basis of these allegations, Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, the following relief: (1) a declaratory judgment declaring the SRO's decision "invalid"; (2) an order directing Defendant to provide the relief originally awarded by the IHO (funding R.M.'s placement at Chapel Haven for the calendar year 2014); and (3) an award of costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the administrative proceeding and the present action pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415. (Id. at 5.)

Generally, Defendant's Answer asserts the following four counterclaims against Plaintiff, each asserted in the event that the Court does not uphold the SRO's determination: (1) a counterclaim requesting that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint because she has not met her burden of establishing the following things: (a) that Chapel Haven provided appropriate individualized instruction to meet R.M.'s special education needs; and (b) thatChapel Haven was not the least restrictive environment for the placement of R.M. for either the 2013-2014 or 2014-2015 school years; (2) a counterclaim requesting that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint because the equities do not weigh in favor of granting prospective residential private school tuition payments; (3) a counterclaim requesting that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint because she has not met her burden of establishing that there was no appropriate State-approved program available to R.M. for the 2013-2014 school year and that Plaintiff was financially incapable of fronting the tuition costs of placement at Chapel Haven; and (4) a counterclaim requesting that the Court find that the IHO exceeded his authority by granting prospective relief as to the 2014-2015 school year, because an IEP had not yet been developed for that school year. (Dkt. No. 6 at 2-4 [Answer].)

B. Relevant Factual Background

After carefully considering the evidence presented by the parties on their respective motions as well as the administrative record of the underlying proceeding, the Court finds that the following facts have been established by a preponderance of the evidence.¹ (Compare Dkt. No. 13, Attach. 1 [Def.'s Rule 7.1 Statement] with Dkt. No. 18, Attach. 1 [Plf.'s Rule 7.1 Response]; compare Dkt. No. 14, Attach. 2 [Plf.'s Rule 7.1 Statement] with Dkt. No. 16 [Def.'s Rule 7.1 Response].)²

1. R.M.'s Educational Background

R.M. was born in March 1994³ and, at the time this action was commenced, was classified by the District's Committee on Special Education ("CSE") as a student with autism. She attended District schools until her parents removed her and placed her in a day placement at the Ridge School in Hyde Park, New York, where she completed seventh through tenth grade (through the 2010-2011 school year). According to Plaintiff, R.M. was removed from public school in or around seventh grade because she was suffering "increased anxiety going to school" due to "severe bullying issues[.]" (Transcript of Impartial Hearing ["Hrg. Tr."] at 257.) Plaintiff also testified that R.M. "was sexually molested somewhere between fifth and sixth grade," apparently by another female student. (Id. at 257-58; Def.'s "Exhibit 4" at 3 [Psychological Evaluation of R.M., final date of evaluation October 23, 2010].) In June 2011, R.M. successfully completed the New York State Global History and Earth Science Regents exams while at the Ridge School.

For the 2011-2012 school year, the CSE recommended placing R.M. in the Ulster County Board of Cooperative Education Services ("BOCES") program "with support for student [sic] on the autism spectrum." (Plf.'s "Exhibit N" [2011-2012 IEP].) In October 2011, Plaintiff filed a due process complaint, demanded an impartial hearing, and requested that the District pay thecost of R.M.'s attendance at Chapel Haven, rather than BOCES, due to R.M.'s "extreme phobia of public school." (Plf.'s "Exhibit S"). Chapel Haven is a two-year, non-public residential life skills program in Connecticut for adults between the ages of eighteen and twenty-seven. Chapel Haven does not offer academic courses and is not a state-approved school with which the District could contract to provide services to students with disabilities. Ultimately, R.M. received home instruction at District expense for the 2011-2012 school year and attended, in person, two classes at Dutchess Community College, earning a B+ and B.

During the 2012-2013 school year, pursuant to a settlement agreement between Plaintiff and the District, R.M. attended Chapel Haven (at the District expense, for that year only). The hearing record reflects that the District made significant effort to find an appropriate placement for R.M. for 2012, but that she was ultimately rejected from nineteen in-state proposed placements. (Plf.'s "Exhibit II" at 2-3 [Letter from Kingston City Schools' Department of Special Education to NYSED, December 23, 2011].) BOCES was among the placements considered, but the District concluded that BOCES was inappropriate at that time because R.M. was "'too anxious" as a result of her reported history of bullying and therefore could not attend a program with "emotionally disturbed" students. (Id.) While at Chapel Haven, R.M. attended a class at a local community college, independently traveling to and from the class by public bus. Her social deficits also improved; she became more outgoing, experienced less anxiety, built friendships, and went out into the community by herself.

2. CSE Meeting For the 2013-2014 School Year

On or about June 21, 2013,⁴ the CSE convened to develop R.M.'s IEP for the 2013-2014 school year. Beth Lewis-Jackson ("Lewis-Jackson"), who was the District's Director of Special Education and had known R.M. since 2007, chaired the meeting and took part in developing the IEP. The following individuals were also present: Plaintiff, R.M., a student advocate (Jodi Liston), a family friend (Linda Kondor), two representatives from Chapel Haven (telephonically) (Jessica Gale and Kathryn Veilleux), the social worker from the Ulster County BOCES Autism Spectrum Program for Independent Education ("ASPIE") (Bruce Mardiney), and, from the District, a school psychologist, special education teacher, and guidance counselor.

At the beginning of the meeting, Plaintiff stated that R.M. was "doing very well at Chapel Haven," becoming "more confident" and making friends. (Plf.'s "Exhibit LL" at 3.) Gale, R.M.'s advisor and special education teacher at Chapel Hill, concurred, and noted that R.M. was "working extremely hard" and had "been open to trying new things." (Id. at 4.) R.M. audited a college course the previous semester and was scheduled to interview for an internship opportunity at a hospital close to Chapel Haven the following fall. (Id.) Kondor stated that she was "very impressed with how quickly [R.M.] learned to navigate the public transportation system in New Haven." (Id. at 17.)

Jay Dorin, a District guidance counselor, raised the concern that R.M. needed to complete all of her Regents exams or "RCTs" to make her eligible to graduate. (Id. at 4-5.) Dorin and Plaintiff believed that R.M. had taken and passed Regents exams in Global Studiesand Earth Science with grades of 92 and 91, respectively. (Id. at 4-6, 20.) Plaintiff stated that R.M. was receiving assistance with English from a special education teacher and planned to take the English Regents in January 2014 and the Math Regents in June 2014 (Id. at 8-9.) Dorin proposed that Plaintiff meet with him the following week to ensure that he had received all of R.M.'s transcripts and to calculate R.M.'s total earned credits, and Plaintiff agreed. (Id. at 9-13.) Plaintiff was hopeful that R.M. would be prepared to graduate in June 2014. (Id. at 10.)

At the request of Lewis-Jackson, Gale explained the internship for which R.M. had applied. (Id. at 14-15.)...