Parent's Special Education Claim Fails By Ignoring Administrative Remedies

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 Hsing v. Glasonbury Board of Education, a parent filed a complaint against a board of education, alleging that the board abused and ignored the needs of his son, a handicapped student. The school board filed a motion to dismiss, which is a preemptive request for the court to rule in favor of the school board over the parent. The parent’s claims are based on alleged violations of state and federal education laws.

The decisions of the board of education are subject to an administrative appeals process required by federal law. Because of this, individuals must exhaust these administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. This rule is known as the exhaustion doctrine, which is meant to further the goals of relieving the courts of the burden of deciding questions entrusted to an agency. Most important, a favorable outcome will render review by the court unnecessary because a complaining party may be successful in vindicating his rights in the administrative process. If he is required to pursue his administrative remedies, the courts may never have to intervene. The parent contended that he did not fail to exhaust available administrative remedies to address his grievances because it was not a case arising under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Granting defendants' motion to dismiss, the court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because all of the parent's claims could have been addressed by the state’s administrative process. Connecticut enacted specific laws and regulations to comply with the IDEA, and provided the parent with an administrative remedy that he was required to pursue before he could bring an action in state or federal court. Moreover, the parent was required to exhaust administrative remedies because transportation was a related service for the provision of a free appropriate public education. First, it was undisputed that the parent filed the present action without first pursuing a due process adjudication before an impartial hearing officer or mediation. Second, the parent failed to meet his burden of showing that the action came under a recognized exception to the exhaustion of remedies doctrine.

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: Hsing v. Glastonbury Bd. of Educ., 2003 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3328, 2003 WL 22962412 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 1, 2003)