Unified School District No. 1 v. Dept. of Education, (AC 19311)

Decision Date17 July 2001
Docket Number(AC 19311)
Citation64 Conn. App. 273,780 A.2d 154
CourtConnecticut Court of Appeals
PartiesUNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 v. CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ET AL.

Schaller, Zarella and Peters, JS. Ann E. Lynch, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Gwendolyn K. McDonald, for the appellee (defendant A).

Opinion

SCHALLER, J.

The plaintiff, Unified School District No. 1,1 appeals from the judgment of the trial court upholding the decision of a hearing officer of the defendant department of education to grant to the defendant A2 one year of compensatory education. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) upheld the award to A because the award was barred by laches, (2) awarded compensatory education from March 21, 1997, through August 27, 1997, (3) failed to consider the fact that A conceded that he did not regress between March 21, 1997, and August 27, 1997, and, thus, was not entitled to compensatory education during this period, (4) found that the program offered to A between March 21, 1997, and August 27, 1997, was inappropriate, (5) awarded compensatory education for the periods of February 20, 1996, to May 2, 1996, and from June 5, 1996, to September 9, 1996, (6) upheld the award for compensatory education notwithstanding the finding that A was incompetent and (7) upheld the order that the plaintiff hold a pupil placement team meeting for A within forty-five days of issuance of the order in light of the uncertainty surrounding the release of A from Connecticut Valley Hospital. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. A is a twenty-one year old man who, in 1990, at the age of eleven, moved to Connecticut from Puerto Rico. On October 23, 1991, a public school psychologist evaluated A and found him to have an IQ of sixty-one, placing him in the mildly mentally retarded range. Other testing administered at that time also suggested that A had very low cognitive functioning. On January 21, 1993, A was classified as learning disabled. The public middle school developed an individualized education program for A. During the 1993-1994 school year, A was reclassified as being educable mentally retarded and was placed in a highly structured, selfcontained, bilingual special education program at a public high school.

In April, 1995, A was arrested. On July 18, 1995, A was admitted to Riverview Hospital (Riverview)3 for a determination of competency. Upon admission to Riverview in 1995, A underwent psychological, psychosocial and psychiatric assessments.

Within one month after A's admission to Riverview, a pupil placement team meeting was convened to review his previous and current assessments, to determine A's eligibility for special education and related services, and to develop an individualized education program for him. The hearing officer found that the pupil placement team at Riverview had determined that A was eligible to receive special education services because of his social and emotional maladjustment, that "further assessment regarding his speech and language impairment was required in order to develop appropriate goals and objectives, that `consultation' with an [English as a second language] teacher would be provided, and that neither an extended school year nor other residential placement was required in order for A to benefit from his education."

On the basis of the 1995 individualized education program developed by Riverview, A was placed in an ungraded self-contained classroom in a residential facility at Riverview and provided with language therapy and individual counseling. On October 17, 1995, Riverview discharged A, finding him competent to stand trial.

On November 13, 1995, the public high school in the town in which A's mother lived held a pupil placement team meeting and identified A as a special education, multihandicapped student. On February 20, 1996, A was arrested for burglary and larceny, and was incarcerated at the Hartford Correctional Center (center), at which time a department of correction social worker at the South Block Mental Health Unit observed and assessed him. The department psychiatric social worker interviewed A on February 20, 1996, at which time A indicated that he was not interested in a referral for educational services. On March 21, 1996, A completed a form, however, indicating that he was interested in special education and that he did not have a history of special education, and authorizing the release of his records to the center.

Personnel at the center did not attempt to obtain A's records at that time. The hearing officer found that "[a]ccording to `District Student Find Procedures' ... all inmates who choose to attend school are to be screened for potential handicapping conditions within two weeks of their assignment to school. Such screening is to include `the administration of standardized group intelligence and achievement tests and an interview by the school psychologist or special education teacher.'" A was placed in an English as a second language class at the center on March 21, 1996.

On March 25, 1996, the center placed A in the restricted housing unit administrative detention for his having committed arson and, subsequently, in punitive segregation until May 3, 1996. An inmate placed in restrictive housing or punitive segregation is not permitted to attend classes. On May 3, 1996, A was released from the custody of the department, he was arrested on June 5, 1996, on new charges and again incarcerated at the center. In June, 1996, the center social worker referred A to the state of Connecticut office of protection and advocacy for persons with disabilities (office of protection and advocacy) in the belief that the office could assist A in obtaining postincarceration services from the state of Connecticut department of children and families. On July 8, 1996, A again was enrolled in an English as a second language class. On July 9, 1996, A was released from the custody of the center. A returned to the center on July 10, 1996, for unknown reasons.

From July, 1996, until September 8, 1996, A was seen on an outpatient basis at the center. In August, 1996, A was placed in punitive segregation as a result of several disciplinary reports. On September 9, 1996, A was released to Riverview for a court-ordered competency determination and remained at Riverview until October 31, 1996. On September 9, 1996, a child study team meeting was held at Riverview to evaluate A as an incoming student. Riverview staff certified the previous public school district's determination of A's special education eligibility on November 13, 1995, and implemented the previous school's individualized education program.

A pupil placement team meeting at Riverview was scheduled for October 4, 1996. According to the hearing officer, at that meeting the team determined that (1) "no further assessment of A was warranted at that time," (2) "A was eligible to receive special education services based on the exceptionality of serious emotional disturbance," (3) "[A] should participate in the regular behavior management program at Riverview," (4) "A should receive, as related services, individual counseling and speech and language therapy to address A's emotional issues and language difficulties" and (5) "the goals and objectives developed at the 8-17-95 [pupil placement team meeting] were appropriate for current implementation...."

On November 1, 1996, A was released from Riverview and returned to department custody at the center. Upon his return to the center, A signed a consent form for admission to the mental health unit. The hearing officer found that "according to `District Student Find Procedures'... `the schools at each institution/center within [Unified School District No. 1] continually survey all places within each institution/center in which disabled students may be found.'" The Unified principal and the special education teacher at the center did not survey the mental health unit.

A was evaluated in November, 1996, by Nelson Rivera, a psychologist, who had been asked to review all previous psychological and educational testing of A. Rivera interviewed and tested A, finding A's thought processes to be normal, A's attention and concentration skills to be slightly below normal, A's intellectual ability low, his fund of information "below expectation," his abstract ability poor and his computational skills below average. Rivera found A's adaptive skills low and, along with A's mentally deficient functioning, suggestive of mental retardation requiring a supervised but not institutional setting. Rivera's prognosis for A was "guarded" given his behavioral problems, limited cognitive functioning, learning problems and lack of structure and family support. Rivera set forth the results of the evaluation in a written report dated December 3, 1996. The report was not brought to the attention of the plaintiff, nor was a pupil placement team meeting on behalf of A requested by the plaintiff at that time.

The department of children and families education consultant learned that A's involvement in his English as a second language course had declined to the point to which he was transferred to self-study due to poor attendance and later dropped entirely from the program for failure to complete assignments. On March 21, 1997, the consultant informed the center school psychologist that A was a special education student and that Riverview had developed an individualized education program on October 4, 1996. On March 27, 1997, the center school psychologist, the special education teacher and the English as a second language teacher met and concluded that A's record from Riverview must be obtained to ascertain A's background and educational needs. On April...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Mercer v. Rodriquez
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 8 de junho de 2004
    ...appeals involving claims arising under the disabilities and rehabilitation acts. See, e.g., Unified School District No. 1 v. Dept. of Education, 64 Conn. App. 273, 780 A.2d 154, cert. denied, 258 Conn. 910, 782 A.2d 1253 (2001); Gedney v. Board of Education, 47 Conn. App. 297, 703 A.2d 804 ......
  • Reilly v. Lantz, No. CV 04-4001133-S (CT 5/6/2005)
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 6 de maio de 2005
    ...added.) General Statutes §10-241; Cahill v. Board of Education, 187 Conn. 94, 444 A.2d 907 (1982); Unified School District #1 v. Department of Education, 64 Conn.App. 273, 780 A.2d 154 (2004); cert. denied, 258 Conn. 910, 782 A.2d 1253 Under the Connecticut Constitution, "[n]o person shall ......
  • Florian v. Lenge
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 13 de setembro de 2005
    ...that serves as a bar to a claim for equitable relief. . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Unified School District No. 1 v. Dept. of Education, 64 Conn.App. 273, 284, 780 A.2d 154, cert. denied, 258 Conn. 910, 782 A.2d 1253 (2001). "Laches is purely an equitable doctrine, is largely g......
  • New Fairfield BOE v. Cortese, No. CV03-0349701 S (CT 1/24/2005)
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 24 de janeiro de 2005
    ...education in participating States . . ." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Unified School District No. 1 v. Dept. of Education, 64 Conn. App. 273, 286, 780 A.2d 154, cert. denied, 258 Conn. 910, 782 A.2d 1253 (2001). "Connecticut has chosen to participate in the [Individ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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