Mr. and Mrs. T. v. Lewiston School Committee, Docket No. 99-202-P-H (D. Me. 7/27/2000), Docket No. 99-202-P-H.
| Decision Date | 27 July 2000 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 99-202-P-H. |
| Parties | MR. and MRS. T., as parents and next friends of their son C. T., a minor, Plaintiffs, v. LEWISTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
Richard L. O'Meara, MURRAY, PLUMB & MURRAY, Portland, ME, Beth V. George, Esq., Portland, ME, for plaintiff.
Eric R. Herlan, Esq., DRUMMOND, WOODSUM & MacMAHON, Portland, ME, Lewiston School Committee, for defendant.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Background and Chronology
1. The plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. T., are the parents of C. T., and all three are residents of Lewiston, Maine. Special Education Due Process Hearing Decision, Lewiston School Department v. [T] ("Hearing Dec."), included in Administrative Record, at 298. During the 1998-99 school year, C.T. was twelve years old and a fifth-grade student. Id. at 299.
2. The defendant is the local education agency that is responsible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., for providing a free appropriate public education to children with disabilities residing in Lewiston. Answer/Counterclaim (Docket No. 4), Counterclaim ¶ 3.
3. C. T. is eligible for special education services under the category of "other health impaired." Hearing Dec. at 298. He has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD") and bi-polar disorder. Hearing Dec. at 299.
4. C. T. attended kindergarten and first grade in Maine School Administrative District 52 in Greene, Maine. Transcript, Due Process Hearing # 99.055 ("Hearing Tr.") (Docket No. 13) at 224-25. While in first grade he was evaluated for possible special education services, Administrative Record at 255-56, but "no disability was determined," id. at 239, and only a special reading class was provided, Hearing Tr. at 225-26. C. T. was not "identified" as a special education student at this time. Id. at 49.
5. C. T. and his parents moved into the Lewiston school district in 1994, after he had completed first grade. Hearing Dec. at 300. C. T.'s parents enrolled him in a parochial school, where he repeated the first grade and completed second and third grade. Id. His parents provided C. T. with home schooling, assisted by a tutor, for his fourth-grade year. Id.
6. At his parents' request, Bruce J. Thurlow, Ed.D., evaluated C. T. on November 6, 1996. Administrative Record at 133. Thurlow found that C. T. "demonstrated characteristics of Attention Deficit (Combined Type) and Generalized Anxiety Disorders." Id. Thurlow recommended that C. T. be examined by a physician "to corroborate the ADD diagnosis." Id. On January 21, 1997 C. T. was examined by a nurse practitioner and a physician, and, based on reports from Thurlow and Mrs. T., they referred C. T. for a child psychiatry evaluation. Id. at 283-84. C.T. was evaluated in April 1997 by Thomas S. Jensen, M.D., a child psychiatrist, who stated that his working diagnoses were "ADD-combined type, Major Depressive Disorder, Somnambulism, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and probable reading, writing, and spelling learning disabilities." Id. at 276. There is no indication that Jensen conducted any testing before reaching his conclusion concerning learning disabilities. Hearing Dec. at 301 n. 1. Jensen first prescribed Prozac for C. T., and later Depakote. Hearing Tr. at 253-54. C. T.'s parents informed his third-grade teacher at the parochial school in April 1997 that they had learned that C. T. had attempted suicide in January 1997, Administrative Record at 276, and the teacher recommended that they contact the defendant because the Lewiston public schools had a special education department, Hearing Tr. at 256-57.
7. On May 8, 1997 Mr. T. called Melvin Curtis, the defendant's director of special education. Id. at 20, 257-58; Administrative Record at 137. He told Curtis "what I had gone through with" C. T. Hearing Tr. at 258. On May 12, 1997 Curtis sent a letter to Mr. T. enclosing a "parent handbook" and stating, "At your request, my office will begin the referral process with St. Joseph's School in order to determine special education eligibility for your son." Administrative Record at 137. On October 28, 1997 Mr. T. tried once to contact Curtis by telephone again. Id. at 136.
8. On May 6, 1998 Mrs. T. met with Curtis at her request to discuss a referral to special education for C. T. Hearing Tr. at 488; Hearing Dec. at 301. Curtis testified that Mrs. T. initially asked for the defendant to help defer the cost of the tutor for C. T.'s home schooling. Hearing Tr. at 49. They discussed what needed to be done if C. T. had not been identified as a special education student while enrolled in M.S.A.D. 52. Id. Mrs. T. testified that Curtis told her that C. T. would have to be enrolled in the Lewiston public school system before he could be evaluated for special-education services. Id. at 492. Curtis testified that he "advised" Mr. and Mrs. T. to register C. T. in the public school system. Id. at 54. Mr. T. testified that the superintendent of the Lewiston public schools also told him, during a telephone conversation in August 1998, that C. T. had to be enrolled in the system before he could be evaluated. Id. at 271-72.
9. On May 8, 1998 Mrs. T. provided copies of C. T.'s evaluations, medical records and school records to Curtis along with a letter stating that she would be sending an update from Jensen and a year-end assessment from C. T.'s tutor. Administrative Record at 275. The letter also requests a "meeting" at the school to which C. T. would be assigned. Id. Curtis responded by letter dated May 15, 1998, informing Mr. and Mrs. T. that the information they had provided showed that C. T. had not been identified for special education services at M.S.A.D. 52, so that referral for evaluation would be necessary, and enclosing a referral form to be completed and returned in order to initiate that process. Id. at 273. Mr. and Mrs. T. chose to have the tutor fill out the referral form after she had completed the academic year with C. T., Hearing Tr. at 490, and, according to Mrs. T., she hand-delivered the completed referral form to Curtis's office in early July, id. at 491. The form bears Curtis's signature and a July 28, 1998 date, Administrative Record at 132, and Curtis testified that he received it on that date, Hearing Tr. at 26.
10. Mr. T. contacted Curtis and the superintendent by telephone in August 1998 "to get [the evaluation] moving." Id. at 275-76. During his conversation with the superintendent, Mr. T. asked whether C. T. could be placed at Pettingill School rather than Martel School because Pettingill offered special education services. Id. at 273. Mr. T. testified that the superintendent told him that there was "no way" this could be done. Id.
11. Mr. and Mrs. T. registered C. T. with the Lewiston school system on August 24, 1998. Administrative Record at 272. A Pupil Evaluation Team ("PET") meeting was held for C. T. at the Martel School on August 31, 1998, the first day on which teachers and staff reported for work for the school year. Hearing Tr. at 26-27; Administrative Record at 266-67. At this meeting, Mrs. T. submitted a signed acknowledgement of her receipt of the defendant's special education handbook. Administrative Record at 268. Mr. T. read the handbook in 1997 when he received it from Curtis. Hearing Tr. at 259. Attending the PET meeting were C. T., his parents, C. T.'s fifth grade teacher, the resource room teacher for the school, the principal and the special education coordinator for the school. Administrative Record at 266. The parents presented their reasons for referring C. T. for evaluation of his special education needs. Id. After reviewing C. T.'s school records and the information provided by the parents, the team decided that no special education services were appropriate at that time, that C. T. would be observed in a regular classroom setting for a time, and that the PET would reconvene on October 15, 1998. Id. at 266-67; Hearing Tr. at 66. Mr. T. did not agree with the decision not to begin evaluation of C. T. immediately but felt that he "had no other choice at the time." Hearing Tr. at 281.
12. The special education coordinator for the Martel School testified that the decision to observe C. T. in a regular classroom setting without beginning the evaluation was based on the facts that C. T. "was a new student coming to us," had no history of special education, and had average grades. Id. at 107. The representatives of the school at the August 31 meeting believed that the parents were satisfied with this decision. Id. at 55-56, 108.
13. Mr. T. testified that around September 21, 1998 he asked C. T.'s teacher to stop giving C. T. homework because it took him so long to do and caused him so much anxiety. Id. at 286-88. She agreed, but after about two weeks told C. T. that he would have to begin doing homework again. Id. at 288-89. The teacher testified that this arrangement was requested in November, and that she agreed at that time to reduce C. T.'s workload. Id. at 82.
14. A second PET meeting was held on October 15, 1998. Administrative Record at 260. At this meeting, the parents again requested evaluation, Hearing Tr. at 304, and told the other participants that homework was causing physical concerns for C. T. at home, Administrative Record at 260. The PET agreed to obtain certain evaluations and the parents were given a consent form which Mr. T. signed that day. Id. at 260-62. C.T.'s grades during the first quarter of the school year were Bs and Cs. Id. at 207. His grades began to deteriorate during the first part of the second quarter, Hearing Tr. at 81; Administrative Record at 295, and, although there was some improvement in the second half of the quarter, Hearing Tr. at 82-83, C. T. received Ds and failing grades for that quarter, Administrative Record at 207. Another PET...
To continue reading
Request your trial