If you have a question or concern about special education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .
In the case of Mangiafico v. State Board of Education, parents of a student sued the school board for lack of free school accommodations in their town. The family had originally owned property in Farmington, but had to vacate their home and move out of town after a heavy rain storm made their home uninhabitable. The family claims they still maintain strong connections with the town, and are entitled to keep their children in Farmington schools. The board of education disagreed.
Under Connecticut law, local boards of education must ensure that public school is available to each child of school age residing in the district. However, the school board is a state agency, and as such, their conclusions must be up-held by a reviewing court if they are reasonably supported by the record. The question is not whether the reviewing court would have reached the same conclusion but whether the record before the agency supports the decision reached. If a reviewing court finds that there is substantial evidence to support an agency's findings, it cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency. If there is conflicting evidence in support of the agency's stated rationale, the reviewing court cannot substitute its judgment as to the weight of the evidence for that of the agency. The agency's decision must be sustained if an examination of the record discloses evidence that supports any one of the reasons given.
The court stated that a hearing board appointed by the State Board of Education properly found that the parent’s children were not entitled to free school accommodations in Farmington under Connecticut law, because the student’s living situation could be characterized as an indefinite absence which was inconsistent with "actual residence" in Farmington. The board has the authority to issue regulations interpreting Connecticut law. Furthermore, the board may make residency determinations in contested cases. It is within the discretion of the board to interpret "residents" as that term is used in Connecticut statute to include individuals who are temporarily displaced due to natural disaster. At the time of the hearing, the student and his family were living in New Britain, and the Farmington property was on the blighted building list; the parents could not identify a particular date by which they could return to Farmington.
If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.
Source: Mangiafico v. State Bd. of Educ., 138 Conn. App. 677, 53 A.3d 1066, 2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 477, 2012 WL 4872745 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012)
