Lux v. Connecticut State Bd. of Ed.

Decision Date25 November 1977
Docket NumberNo. 100998,100998
CourtConnecticut Court of Common Pleas
PartiesNorbert LUX et al. v. CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al.

Koskoff, Koskoff, Rutkin & Bieder, Bridgeport, for plaintiffs.

Carl R. Ajello, Atty. Gen., and Richard J. Lynch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the named defendant.

Noel R. Newman, Town Atty., Bridgeport, for defendant Fairfield Bd. of Ed CHERNAUSKAS, Judge.

Pursuant to § 10-76h(e) of the General Statutes the plaintiffs Norbert and Valverdina Lux appeal from the decision of a hearing panel of the defendant state board of education concerning a special education program for their son, David Lux. David Lux is a minor child residing in the town of Fairfield. All parties agree that David is an exceptional child, as defined by § 10-76a of the General Statutes, and that he requires special education. As early as 1963, David was evaluated and diagnosed, and the Fairfield school board has consistently recognized his need for special educational services.

David first attended the Crossroads School, a special learning disability nursery school. After a brief period in the Fairfield public schools, the Fairfield planning and placement team, along with Mrs. Lux, agreed, with state approval, to send David to the Foundation School in the fall of 1967. From 1967 until 1971, Fairfield continued David's placement at the Foundation School and paid all the expenses as required by § 10-76d of the General Statutes.

In the spring of 1971, Fairfield personnel reviewed David's program and found that the Foundation School program had enabled David to progress at such a rate that the Fairfield public schools could then provide a learning disabilities program for him.

Fairfield's recommendation that David be placed in a full-time, self-contained learning disabilities class of eight youngsters on an elementary level, with the possibility of being phased out, was rejected by David's parents, who returned David to the Foundation School on a private basis and assumed the costs of the private school program. In the spring of 1972, Fairfield was asked to reevaluate and review the placement decision. After an evaluation the planning and placement team again made a recommendation that David be returned to the Fairfield public school special education program. The plaintiffs again rejected that recommendation and again unilaterally continued David's enrollment at the Foundation School.

In the spring of 1973, the family requested a reevaluation and review which again led to the recommendation that David be placed in a Fairfield public school learning disability program at the junior high school level. Following that decision, and pursuant to § 10-76h(a) of the General Statutes, the parents for the first time requested a hearing before the Fairfield board of education. A hearing was held on October 3, 1973, and the local board decided that David be returned to the public schools. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the state board of education. On December 11, 1973, a hearing was held before the special education hearing board of the state department of education.

On January 23, 1974, the hearing panel issued its decision upholding the Fairfield board's decision that David Lux be educated in the Fairfield public schools and recommending certain revisions in the program which Fairfield had proposed for David. The plaintiffs appeal from that decision and seek reimbursement for the expenses they incurred in educating their child at the Foundation School during the school years of 1971-1972, 1972-1973 and 1973-1974.

In response to the plaintiffs' request for review, the state board assembled a hearing panel of persons knowledgeable in the fields and areas significant to that review, three from outside the state board and a non-voting chairperson from the state board. A full hearing was provided the parties in interest in this matter. No person who served as a hearing panel member had participated in any previous diagnosis, evaluation or prescription of educational programs for David, nor was any panel member a member of the board of education of the school district under review.

In its finding the panel noted: "On the basis of all the evidence adduced through exhibits, expert witnesses, examinations and related testimony the panel finds:

"1. The tests that were administered, the reports, diagnoses and evaluations furnished were of usable level for determining an educational program for David by the Board.

"2. That David is in need of, and can substantially benefit from an educational program designed especially cognizant of his physical, psychological and educational levels of attainment and learning receptivity.

"3. That an educational program fully suitable for David has not been established.

"4. That the Board has the facilities and staff, if it complies with the order of the panel, to meet the educational program to which David is legally entitled under said Section 10-76a to 10-76g inclusive.

"David can be programmed in the Board's learning disability class at the junior high. The program of the Board is adequate for David's educational needs. There is agreement by the panel that his diagnosis is of a severe language disability with multiple perceptual problems. The mandate of the P.L. 10-76a h is being met in the Board's program."

Immediately following the finding, twelve recommendations were outlined which were designed to implement a smooth transition from the Foundation School to the public schools.

To support their contention that the Fairfield board of education had not prescribed a suitable program for David, the plaintiffs point to finding three which states "(t)hat an educational program fully suitable for David has not been established." Relying on the above finding, the plaintiffs challenge as erroneous the apparently contradictory...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Murphy v. Murphy
    • United States
    • Connecticut Superior Court
    • January 4, 1978
    ...386 A.2d 274 ... 34 Conn.Supp. 251 ... Anne MURPHY ... Charles Gordon MURPHY ... No. 032898 ... Superior Court of Connecticut,Fairfield County ... Jan. 4, 1978 ...         Schine, Julianelle, Karp & Bozelko, Stamford, for plaintiff ...         Fain, ... Rather, it ends with an order of the court. There are three Connecticut Supreme Court cases and one Superior Court case which clearly state that a plea in abatement which does not pray for judgment is demurrable. Wooley v. Williams, 105 Conn. 671, 675, 136 A. 583; Mitchell v. Smith, 74 ... ...
  • Board of Ed. of Town of Manchester v. Connecticut State Bd. of Ed.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • February 26, 1980
    ...school does not obligate a local board of education to reimburse the parents pursuant to § 10-76d. See Lux v. Connecticut State Board of Education, 34 Conn.Sup. 257, 386 A.2d 644, which is relied upon by the plaintiff. We do not agree, however, that enrollment of Charles at the Intensive Ed......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT