My first due process complaint!
UPDATE!!
Received this information yesterday. Very responsive judge, very fair. We got four days if needed.
A hearing will be held in this case at the
Pinellas County Criminal Justice Center,
Courtroom 6, 14250 49th Street, North, Clearwater, Florida, on October 26 through 29, 2015, at 9:00 a.m.
Remember!!!
A resolution meeting is set for September 8
8:00 a.m.
PCS Board Bldg in Largo FL
Join us!!
** Write to your politicians! This matter should be solved on Sept. 8. The district will spend between $10-25,000 if the hearing takes place.
On the other hand, setting a precedent and approving this Tuesday my requests for a neuropsychological evaluation with Brain mapping - QEEG - with a FL licensed psychologist I choose plus corresponding academic/therapy plan --- will cost less than $10,000.
The question must be asked... whose needs will be prioritized?
This is a scary process. I will be facing the individuals that have been granted the power to educate my child. The premise has been her needs are the priority. But 2.5 yrs have proven the opposite. I would not be filing for due process if my daughter had been fairly evaluated from the beginning and an appropriate academic plan was in place.
PARENTS -- DO NOT FEAR THIS STEP.
IT IS NEEDED. IT IS CUMBERSOME YET EMPOWERING!
YOU CAN DO IT.
Sept 1, 2015
Linda Montalbano put together this complaint for my daughter. It was filed today - - delivered to the ESE Dept. Pinellas Cty.
I wish I had a camera to record their faces... it was a combination of uh oh and how dare she...
It has taken me two and a half years to realize this step was unavoidable.
It is outrageous to think a parent must reach this stage, this level of frustration. Indeed, it is the case and the norm.
Nothing, zilch, nada... takes place unless the law becomes a part of your child's education.
In this instance, the law is used and abused by the districts throughout the country and thousands of dollars are wasted to benefit a corrupt system, instead of providing reliable evaluations and science based teaching methods to guarantee our children with special needs will actually be taught how to learn.
Parents... do understand...
You can do this, you must do this...
Your child needs you to follow thru and challenge the system.
Complaint for Due Process Hearing Under IDEA 2004
Pinellas County School District, Florida
This is the school board's 1st notice of my complaint for a due process hearing under IDEA 2004. I will make this complaint as clear on the issues as possible even though school attorneys like James Lobozzo's from Highlands County School Board practice to always write a notice of insufficiency and claim the due process hearing request is confusing and vague. Then the administrative law judge dismisses the due process hearing and a parent is required to write a second request for due process hearing.
1. The following meets all the requirements of IDEA 2004 for a complaint for an expedited due process hearing and more.
§300.532 Appeal (c) Expedited due process hearing. (1)Whenever a hearing is requested under paragraph (a) of this section, the parents or the LEA involved in the dispute must have an opportunity for an impartial due process hearing consistent with the requirements of §§300.507 and 300.508(a) through (c) and §§300.510 through 300.514, except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) through (4) of this section.
2. Issues of this complaint for a due process hearing include:
§300.507 Filing a due process complaint (a) General. (1) A parent or a public agency may file a due process complaint on any of the matters described in §300.503(a)(1) and (2) (relating to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of a child with a disability, or the provision of FAPE to the child).
A. Identification: I do not believe the classification my daughter has covers all the disabilities that are effecting her ability to access her education in the general education class. I believe my daughter has specific learning disabilities and may have dyslexia. School staff in their evaluation did not identify what specific learning disability she has.
§300.8 Child with a disability (c) Definitions of disability terms. The terms used in this definition of a child with a disability are defined as follows: (10) Specific learning disability —(i) General. Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.
B. Evaluation:
1. I made repeated request for independent evaluations last school year because I disagreed with the results of the school evaluations.
§ 300.502 Independent educational evaluation (b) Parent right to evaluation at public expense. (1) A parent has the right to an independent educational evaluation at public expense if the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the public agency, subject to the conditions in paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) of this section.
2. School staff never took me to due process hearing to show their evaluations were appropriate and waved their right to take me to due process hearing now.
§ 300.502 Independent educational evaluation (b) Parent right to evaluation at public expense. (2) If a parent requests an independent educational evaluation at public expense, the public agency must, without unnecessary delay, either—(i) File a due process complaint to request a hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate;
New York Commissioner of Education Decision No. 12191 Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Handicapped Condition, 6-16-89, Antonelli vs. Pine Bush Central School District. "the record is replete, r-e-p-l-e-t-e, with evidence that Petitioner's made several requests for an independent evaluation and that the District was both unresponsive and failed to follow the proper procedures when it denied Petitioner's repeated requests. Based on the evidence, I conclude that although Petitioner's independent evaluations may not have been determinative on the question of whether the child is educationally handicapped, they served as a catalyst that led to an otherwise unresponsive CSE to ultimately classify this student. Moreover, had the District followed the proper procedures at the time the parent made repeated requests for an independent evaluation, these issues would have been resolved."
New York Commissioner of Education Decision No. 12238 Appeal of a Child Suspected of Having a Handicapping Condition 10-23-89, Antonelli vs. Pine Bush Central School District. "it is well-settled that a Board of Education must either pay for an independent evaluation or initiate a hearing to establish the adequacy of its evaluation." "given Petitioner's numerous requests and Respondent's continuing failure to follow the proper procedures in this instance, Respondent has effectively waived its right to schedule an impartial hearing to establish the adequacy of its 1978 evaluations and is therefore liable for reimbursement for the neuropsychological and occupational evaluations."
3. At the August 18, 2015 IEP meeting it was agreed and as was stated in the E-mail I received on August 21, 2015 3:45 PM from Laura Bluett: "The IEP team determined that your daughter needs a neuropsychological evaluation,"
§ 300.502 Independent educational evaluation (b) Parent right to evaluation at public expense. (2) If a parent requests an independent educational evaluation at public expense, the public agency must, without unnecessary delay, either (ii) Ensure that an independent educational evaluation is provided at public expense, unless the agency demonstrates in a hearing pursuant to §§300.507 through 300.513 that the evaluation obtained by the parent did not meet agency criteria.
4. At the August 18, 2015 IEP meeting it was stated I would have to pick off of the school districts list of providers. My advocate Linda Montalbano pointed out that the school district can suggest providers but can't require the parent to only pick from the school list and it was agreed that was true. It was never agreed to: E-mail I received on August 21, 2015 3:45 PM from Laura Bluett: "...which the district has agreed to conduct using one of our contracted providers."
§ 300.502 Independent educational evaluation (a) General. (1) The parents of a child with a disability have the right under this part to obtain an independent educational evaluation of the child, subject to paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section (2) Each public agency must provide to parents, upon request for an independent educational evaluation, information about where an independent educational evaluation may be obtained, and the agency criteria applicable for independent educational evaluations as set forth in paragraph (e) of this section.
5. Dr. Camille T. Fine Florida license psychologist hired by school district to do an independent evaluation on a child who came to Florida from New York with medical doctor and NY licensed psychologist diagnoses of ADHD, Dyslexia and Dysgraphia. She is responsible to the school district to put in her report what the school wants and checks with them before writing her report and providing it to the parent. She makes no diagnoses in her reports written for the school district for Specific learning disabilities because the school district does not want Dyslexia and Dysgraphia identified and then be required to provide scientifically based literacy instruction. She violates her own licensing when she chooses not to make diagnoses in her evaluations for the school district. The denial of any services in school results in the parent taking the child out of school to protect child from the Zero Tolerance Code of Conduct punishments that are to teach child to do school work like the other classmates.
Chapter 490, the Florida Psychological Services Act 490.003 (4) Definitions states:(a)”Psychological services may be rendered to individuals, couples, families, groups, and the public without regard to place of service.”
September 25, 2002 Highlands County School Board, Florida Dr. Camille T. Fine page 207 lines 5-10: "Q And where in your evaluations does it identify that he has any disabilities? A The areas of weakness is elucidated in the text and addressed. Q Did you diagnose? A No." Page 244-245 lines 20-25,1: "Q (By Ms. Antonelli) In the one hour and 15 minute meeting we had on August 27th were you asked questions that were part of the letter the parents sent you? A Well, not really. Not a variety of questions it was just kind of harping on why I didn’t make a diagnosis." page 234 line 7-12: "My position... Now, it was, the evaluation was purchased by the school system. So, to some extent, I need to, before I could go back to the parent and say what the options were from my perspective, I needed to touch base with the school system to let them know what the situation was." Page 109, lines 3-7 “Q And what was your purpose in evaluating the young CHILD? A To obtain a comprehensive evaluation of CHILD learning for school placement and intervention recommendation purposes.” Page 178-179, lines7-25, 1: “Q So, you did this test with the thing of does CHILD qualify not does CHILD have a disability? A No. I did this test with the primary goal of identifying weaknesses in CHILD profile for determining what, if any, interventions need to be put in place to support CHILD learning so that CHILD could perform to CHILD optimal potential or capacity. Secondarily to that is the issue of whether the types of interventions that would need to be put in place to support CHILD learning so that CHILD could maximize CHILD functioning in school. Is it something that requires CHILD to be identified as an E.S.E. student and potentially pulled out or placed in a special class or that sort of thing setting.” Pages 187-188, lines 23-25, 1-14: "Q Now, in the fluency where it’s 25 points below CHILD IQ area, the fact that CHILD fluency is significantly lower than where the reading identifying the words is—A Uh huh. (Affirmative response.) Q—is that an indication that CHILD reading fluency is being slowed down possibly because CHILD’s decoding? A Uh huh. (Affirmative response.)Q Could that be an indication that CHILD may have dyslexia? A Again, it depends on whose definition you use for dyslexia. For me, I would not characterize an individual of any age as having dyslexia unless I had more than statistical, you know, deviations and that sort of thing. We’re looking at the clinical impact of that child’s neurodevelopmental deviations or variability on their actual learning and daily functioning.” Page 124, lines 6-15: “A In the case of an individual who has core neurological sensory motor weaknesses, you would expect them to have significant difficulties with handwriting, getting, you know, graph motor control in terms of the quality of their written output, the amount of written output that they can produce in a certain amount of time or compared to other individuals their age or in some cases relative to fatigue issues how much they can produce before they literally can’t produce anymore written output didn’t actually do a subtest of handwriting.” Page 180, lines 9-13: “If CHILD’s scoring with 126 IQ at 63 on a test, is that a severe discrepancy? A Yes. And we talked about that before. And it’s a severe discrepancy in a specific type of memory, paired associate memory. It’s two separate issues. But my primary goal going into any evaluation is what are this child’s learning needs and what do we need to do about it from an intervention perspective. Secondarily to that is how do we make sure that that gets implemented in a school.” Page 180-181, lines14-25,1-11: “Q Okay. If he’s scoring even in the average at 100 with 126 IQ, is there at least one deviation between where CHILD IQ is at and where CHILD’s scoring? A Yes. Q Is that an indication that there’s something wrong there? A Potentially. Q Potentially. All right. And CHILD’s 26 points so CHILD’s at least one and almost a half of a deviation off. Is that considered severe or mild? A It’s largely irrelevant. Because the purpose of evaluation is to examine things from a psychometric perspective. But, ultimately, when you’re determining whether an individual has a disability or determining whether an individual meets DSM-IV diagnostic criteria something or determining whether an individual meets eligibility criteria for E.S.E., the ultimate test of making those decisions is how that individual is functioning every day in an applied setting. So, no, you can’t take an individual or one or two test scores in isolation and jump to the conclusion that therefore this individual has this disability and needs, you know, displacement, or what have you.” Page 142-143 lines 21-23, 7-12: “…And I’m pretty confident that the memory for names subtests does, in fact, capture the fact that he has a documentable paired associate memory problem.” “So, it’s one indicator. And, yes, assuming that he wasn’t having a seizure or something during that subtest that would totally invalidate the fact that he did poorly on that subtest, it indicates a problematic area but it’s a circumscribed weakness in the totality of the bigger picture.” Page 197, lines 8-24: “Q But without protection of the I.D.E.A. and classification, where does CHILD get the right to learn how to type, touch type and to have access to a computer? A Well, a lot of students have that sort of accommodations documented in a 504 plan. Q And how is CHILD supposed to get a 504 plan when CHILD has absolutely no diagnosed disabilities according to you? A You don’t need to have diagnosed disability to get a 504 plan. You need to manifest that the student, that the student’s learning is at risk or some similar rationale to document the need for those support services. And I don’t think that... I think that the area of the weakness identified in my report do suggest that CHILD’s got these circumscribed areas of weakness that would make CHILD an appropriate candidate for a 504 plan.”
§ 300.502 Independent educational evaluation (a) General. (1) The parents of a child with a disability have the right under this part to obtain an independent educational evaluation of the child, subject to paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section (3) For the purposes of this subpart—(i) Independent educational evaluation means an evaluation conducted by a qualified examiner who is not employed by the public agency responsible for the education of the child in question;
6. Dr. Susan Crum is a qualified examiner who is not employed by any school district. She is a Florida licensed psychologist that does Forensic psychology and is a Nationally Certified School Psychologist. She is certified as a Diplomat with the QEEG Certification Board. She conducts neuropsychological screenings and evaluations, Quantitative EEGs with brain mapping and database comparison, neurofeedback, biofeedback, cognitive rehabilitation, entrainment, CES, treatment for stress-related medical disorders, anxiety, depression, ADHD, autism, chronic pain and chronic fatigue. Competency evaluations and Neuropsychological Evaluations for Highland County Courts, Guardianship Evaluations for Special Needs Children reaching Majority and Guardianship Evaluations for Seniors, Evaluations for the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, January 2009-present. She meets all the requirements of a clinical psychologist and was a Medicare approved provider.
7. The reason's Pinellas County School District and other school districts don't want Dr. Crum to do evaluations is because she does diagnoses and she is there to report her evaluation for the child not on behalf of the school district.
July 29, 2014 Highlands County School Board Florida parent opening statement page 42 lines 13-15: "Mr. Lobozzo won't agree to licensed psychologist Dr. Susan Crum to do the evaluation because she has a reputation of doing diagnoses." page 42-43 lines 22-25,1-23: "Dr. Crum follows the licensing laws of Florida. There is no record of her doing any biased evaluations in Social Security, Workers' Compensation, vocational rehab or any other agency in Florida, New York and New Jersey, where she has been licensed. Dr. Crum has been in court many times and her evaluations stand. Mr. Lobozzo's refusal to have Dr. Crum do the evaluation is because she will provide an accurate detail of evaluation of my son. Imposing a condition that my independent evaluator must not know Linda is unreasonable. Linda has a long-standing relationship with many professionals in many states who she recommends for independent evaluations. To blacklist Dr. Crum because she knows Linda is not a valid reason for denying my son an evaluation by Dr. Crum when she meets the criteria and has the credentials to be an independent evaluator. Federal Regulation 300.502, independent educational evaluation (e) agency criteria. (2) Except for the criteria described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a public agency may not impose conditions or timelines related to obtaining an independent educational evaluation at public expense."
July 29, 2014 Highlands County School Board Florida James Lobozzo opening statement page 58 lines16-25: "Dr. Crum is not appropriate for a variety of reasons, only one of which is her very close association with Ms. Montalbano. They're more than just friends. They're more than just associates. They have engaged in handling and pursuing these due process hearings against Highlands County on a number of occasions, and she has personally filed -- Dr. Crum has personally filed due process complaints against Highlands County."
§ 300.502 Independent educational evaluation (e) Agency criteria. (1) If an independent educational evaluation is at public expense, the criteria under which the evaluation is obtained, including the location of the evaluation and the qualifications of the examiner, must be the same as the criteria that the public agency uses when it initiates an evaluation, to the extent those criteria are consistent with the parent's right to an independent educational evaluation.
C. Educational placement:
8. My daughter's education placement is not appropriate because it does not provide her with a reading program, services and accommodations she needs to access her education. The school psychologist never identify our daughter as autistic and dyslexic so she is not provide with the appropriate therapy, methods and technology that is science based and peer reviewed.
9. My daughter has no science based reading program. No qualified teacher trained in the Orton reading approaches willing to teach the program. Examples of acceptable Orton reading approaches are: Orton-Gillingham, Orton-Gow, Orton-Wilson and Lindamood Bell.
§300.226 Early intervening services (b) Activities. In implementing coordinated, early intervening services under this section, an LEA may carry out activities that include (2) Providing educational and behavioral evaluations, services, and supports, including scientifically based literacy instruction.
10. There are no special classes and no accommodations, supplementary aids and services were tried before determining to fail my daughter and take a year of her education life away from her.
§300.114 LRE requirements (a) General. (2) Each public agency must ensure that— (ii) Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
3. The issues of this due process hearing request are to address violations that have happened within the past two school years starting on August 25, 2013 to present. This is within the statute of limitation sited in the Part 300 regulations of IDEA 2004:
§300.507 Filing a due process complaint (a) General. (2) The due process complaint must allege a violation that occurred not more than two years before the date the parent or public agency knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the due process complaint, or, if the State has an explicit time limitation for filing a due process complaint under this part, in the time allowed by that State law, except that the exceptions to the timeline described in §300.511(f) apply to the time line in this section.
4. I expect the school district to provided me with free and/or low-cost legal and other relevant services available to us apron receipt of this due process hearing complaint.
§300.507 Filing a due process complaint (b) Information for parents. The public agency must inform the parent of any free or low-cost legal and other relevant services available in the area if—(1) The parent requests the information; or (2) The parent or the agency files a due process complaint under this section.
5. A copy of the complaint will be provided to the Florida Department of Education mailed on August 26, 2015. I am following the procedural safeguards and IDEA 2004 regulations which state who we are to give our due process complaint to and we will give one to the school and a copy to the state. I don’t make the time lines the federal government did and I am following those time lines.
6. Date: August 25, 2015
§300.508 Due process complaint (a) General. (2) The party filing a due process complaint must forward a copy of the due process complaint to the SEA.
7. Requesting party: Y. Calderon
8. I have a right to a due process hearing for my daughter at no cost to me her mother.
§300.512 Hearing rights (c) Parental rights at hearings. Parents involved in hearings must be given the right to (3) Have the record of the hearing and the findings of fact and decisions described in paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) of this section provided at no cost to parents.
9. Name of the student:
§300.508 Due process complaint (b) Content of complaint. The due process complaint required in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must include—(1) The name of the child;
10. Not required but we are including Age: Birthday:
11. School of attendance: Dunedin FL Grade:
§300.508 Due process complaint (b) Content of complaint. The due process complaint required in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must include— (3) The name of the school the child is attending;
12. My home address:
13. Not required Telephone: E-mail:
§300.508 Due process complaint (b) Content of complaint. The due process complaint required in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must include— (2) The address of the residence of the child;
14. I, Yadira V. Calderon the undersigned, do hereby file this complaint for an expedited due process hearing under IDEA 2004 against Pinellas School District. It is my right and responsibility to go to a due process hearing for my daughter she is being denied a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).
15. I have no money for an attorney, can’t find one willing to do it at low cost or free. I am forced to do this hearing myself with the assistance of a special education advocate if I can find one to be my person of knowledge to sit and assist me during the due process hearing. This is my right under the Federal Regulations Part:
§300.512 Hearing rights (a) General. Any party to a hearing conducted pursuant to §§300.507 through 300.513 or §§300.530 through 300.534, or an appeal conducted pursuant to §300.514, has the right to—(1) Be accompanied and advised by counsel and by individuals with special knowledge or training with respect to the problems of children with disabilities;
16. I, Yadira V. Calderon will be doing the hearing for my daughter and will be expected the Administrative Law Courts will now allow me to be set up on the docket as a parent representing with no legal counsel and no Qualified Representative.
17. I am required to provide a description of the nature of the problems as it states in the Federal Part 300 regulations:
§300.508 Due process complaint (b) Content of complaint. The due process complaint required in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must include— (5) A description of the nature of the problem of the child relating to the proposed or refused initiation or change, including facts relating to the problem;
18. The nature of the problem issues:
1. My daughter does not have an appropriate IEP and placement with services and accommodations because all her disabilities have not been identified and addressed in the IEP. No evaluations by school staff identified any reading disability.
§ 300.8 Child with a disability (c) Definitions of disability terms. The terms used in this definition of a child with a disability are defined as follows: (10) Specific learning disability —(i) General. Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.
§ 300.307 Specific learning disabilities (a) General. A State must adopt, consistent with §300.309, criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in §300.8(c)(10). In addition, the criteria adopted by the State (2) Must permit the use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention;
2. My daughter does not have an appropriate reading program. School staff have known since at least February 2015 the reading program is not effective and she will fail the first grade. They expected us to pay for a reading program. February 19, 2015 12:25 PM I received an e-mail from Monika Wolcott regarding my concerns about our daughter being retained in the first grade due to her lack of progress in reading. “Please check with your child’s teacher regarding possible extended learning opportunities (limited tutoring services) that may be available to assist students who are severely struggling in reading. This is an optional service available at some schools and parents are responsible for transportation. “At San Jose we opted to offer the Extended Learning Program and STEM to grades 3-5 for students. Thomais is receiving both core and intensive reading instruction in small groups and one on one with Mrs. Woodworth."
§300.39 Special education (a) General. (1) Special education means specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including—(i) Instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings;
3. My daughter needs one on one Applied Behavior Analyst (ABA). The school district's present program is not effective.
T.H. v. Board of Education of Palatine Community Consol. Sch. District, No. 98 C.4633, 98 C 4632 (N.D. Illinois, 1999). On the District's motion for summary judgment and the child's cross motion for summary judgment, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that the district had failed to individualize its early childhood program, which the court termed "absurd" to meet the needs of T.H. The District Court further termed the district's IEP process "dysfunctional" and held that the district was liable to reimburse T.H.'s parents for the costs of their home-based ABA program, as well as all their attorneys' fees incurred through the Level I and II proceedings, as well as at the District Court level (the level which I participated as counsel).
4. August 18, 2015 the IEP team determined and agreed to an independent neuropsychological evaluation with an evaluator of my chose which I picked Dr. Susan Crum.
5. My advocate Linda Montalbano and I were told at the IEP meeting the independent evaluation was approved to be done by Dr. Crum. I sent an e-mail Thursday, August 20, 2015 1:44 PM to confirm what happen in the IEP meeting to:" Brown Lisa - San Jose ES Cc: Brennan Susan; Dow Wanda; Grant Lisa; Ryan Terry; Tucker Lisa; Linda Montalbano; Renner Jill; Farrell Jacqueline; Monica.Verra-Tirado; Commissioner; jacqueline.ingles@wfts.com; Kienas, Ken; +Superintendent's Office; susan@crum.us; chris.latvala@myfloridahouse.gov; amanda.murphy@myfloridahouse.gov; legg.john.web@flsenate.gov; Steve.crisafulli@myfloridahouse.gov" "Subject: Re: T. MOSHOPOULOS mtg Aug 18" stating: "PCS and FLDOE personnel: Greetings. Thank you once again for the opportunity to meet. This time, I hope, greater understanding and commitment is achieved in order to further pursue Thomais' academic path and observe real progress Remember - IEP = I EXPECT PROGRESS Most importantly, the response to my letter of Aug. 7, 2015 written with the assistance of my advocate Linda Montalbano, is a very positive achievement for all. In the meeting -- a neuropsychological evaluation with a QEEG brain mapping by Dr. Susan Crum was approved."
6. School staff conspired after the IEP meeting to find a way to deny me the independent evaluation with Dr. Susan Crum. I received in an e-mail August 21, 2015 3:45 PM to me the following e-mail: "Thursday, August 20, 2015 5:09 PM Lisa Tucker e-mailed Laura Bluett, Terry Ryan and Lisa Grant with the "Subject: FW: T. MOSHOPOULOS mtg Aug 18" stating: "I am not sure how we should respond to this can we work together to draft a reply."
7. On August 21, 2015 3:45 PM, I received an e-mail stating: "Ms. Calderon – the information you were provided with at the meeting the other day was not quite correct. The IEP team determined that your daughter needs a neuropsychological evaluation, which the district has agreed to conduct using one of our contracted providers. The evaluation will be limited to areas that are educationally relevant. Once that evaluation has been completed, the IEP team will reconvene to consider the results – at that time, if you disagree with the evaluation, you can then request an IEE."
§ 300.502 Independent educational evaluation (e) Agency criteria. (2) Except for the criteria described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a public agency may not impose conditions or timelines related to obtaining an independent educational evaluation at public expense.
8. I don't agree to Dr. Camille T. Fine the school districts picked psychologist who has a reputation to do no diagnoses of any disabilities on her evaluations as the school district wants. It is too late for the school district to decide to do a reevaluation after a year of me asking for independent evaluations and they refused to respond and/or take me to hearing.
19. Facts relating to the issue:
1. There is no evaluation by school staff identifying the specific learning disability she may have and there is no scientific research-based intervention. School staff knew my daughter was failing and made no offer to change the reading program.
2. The IEP team agreed to the independent evaluation and approved it to be done by Dr. Crum on August 18, 2015.
3. Dr. Brown, Principal at San Jose - confirmed Thomais will be moved to the 2nd grade
With Mrs. Correll and Mrs. Barnett Lang Arts, Science and Math intervention - Thomais will be in a Gen Ed classroom with Mrs. Barnett PE, Art, Music, playground time, lunch - participation with Gen ed students to be organized accordingly* OT and Language Therapy will continue
4. During Summer Bridge I was not informed about the instances my daughter faced behavior challenges in the classroom. This is unacceptable. I am an involved parent and actions and consequences are valued in our home.
5. My daughter with an IEP and FBA - was not being helped. The main purpose of having remedial summer intervention is to preserve the gains achieved during the year. A teacher who does not involve the parent when problems arise, is not interested in preserving progress.
20. It is required I state a resolution:
§300.508 Due process complaint (b) Content of complaint. The due process complaint required in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must include— (6) A proposed resolution of the problem to the extent known and available to the party at the time
1. I want the independent neuropsychological evaluation and QEEG Brain mapping paid for with transportation expenses with Dr. Susan Crum as agreed to on August 18, 2015.
2. I want the school district to pay for Dr. Crum to do an FBA to develop a PBIP to address my daughters behaviors in school.
3. I want an IEP meeting scheduled after the evaluation and the school district to pay Dr. Crum to attend to review her evaluation.
4. If Dr. Crum's report indicates my daughter needs medical evaluations I want the school district to paid for them and the doctors to be present (telephone) at the IEP meeting.
§300.34 Related services (c) Individual related services terms defined. The terms used in this definition are defined as follows: (5) Medical services means services provided by a licensed physician to determine a child's medically related disability that results in the child's need for special education and related services.
21. Regarding the due process hearing procedures:
22. This is my notice I want the transcripts of the due process hearing. I should not have to do this but June 22, 2005 ALJ Daniel Manry participated with the Pinellas County school attorney Mr. Bowen to deny the parents the transcripts with his lie in his decision that stated “Neither party requested a transcript of the hearing record.” There are no transcripts on file for the June 14th and 22nd 2005 due process hearing that ALJ Daniel Manry had no right to deny the transcripts.
§300.181 Hearing procedures (p)(1) The Hearing Official or Hearing Panel (iii) Provides one copy of the transcript to each party.
23. I will be coming in with video and digital recorders of the entire due process hearing and will be publishing them to make sure there is proof we asked for the transcripts. I will not be trusting the school attorney and/or the administrative law judge to comply with IDEA law and regulations until I have transcripts of the due process hearing in my hands.
24. I want the free transcripts of the due process hearing on CD in Word. The copy to a parent is not the official copy the copy that goes to the state is and this can be done at no extra charges.
§ 300.512 Hearing rights (a) General. Any party to a hearing conducted pursuant to §§300.507 through 300.513 or §§300.530 through 300.534, or an appeal conducted pursuant to §300.514, has the right to (4) Obtain a written, or, at the option of the parents, electronic, verbatim record of the hearing;
25. It is the responsibility of the administrative law judge to arrange the preparation of the transcripts of each hearings. I do not expect the administrative law judge to deny me my rights to the transcripts. I do not give permission to the administrative law judge to decide we're not entitled to the transcripts as ALJ Daniel Manry did on June 22, 2005.
§300.181 Hearing procedures (p)(1) The Hearing Official or Hearing Panel—(i) Arranges for the preparation of a transcript of each hearing;
26. I expect my free copy of the transcript to come to me the same time as the school attorney receives them.
§300.512 Hearing rights (c) Parental rights at hearings. Parents involved in hearings must be given the right to (3) Have the record of the hearing and the findings of fact and decisions described in paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) of this section provided at no cost to parents.
27. All communications are to be in writing before the start of the due process hearing. E-mail is fine with me.
28. I have made the decision the hearing will be open public hearing.
§300.512 Hearing rights (c) Parental rights at hearings. Parents involved in hearings must be given the right to (2) Open the hearing to the public;
29. I expect the hearing to be at a place that will be handicapped accessible that the public can attend without unreasonable restrictions. Example of not acceptable is: the school attorney’s office with minimal sitting for public and changing the location of the hearing on the morning of the hearing with no note for anyone from the public to find out where the room was change.
30. There should be no parking cost as this hearing. It is supposed to be at no cost to the parents.
31. I am the moving party and have the right to decide who I want to invite to the due process hearing. I may have news media attend with all communication venues.
32. My daughter will attend the entire hearing and will testify. She has never been given the right to defend herself this is her time to be able to testify and state her position.
§300.512 Hearing rights (c) Parental rights at hearings. Parents involved in hearings must be given the right to—(1) Have the child who is the subject of the hearing present;
33. I will be testifying.
34. I have no objection for any school witness to testify by telephone conference.
35. I have no objection for school staff to be called before they have to testify so that they don't have to sit in the court room hall all day.
36. I will question the impartiality of the Administrative Law Judge now and complete at the start of the due process hearing. I do not “perceive” I know this is required of all parents because I will not be “deter” by my chance of winning an IDEA 2004 due process hearing in Florida which is less than 1%.
Heldman v. Sobol 962 F. 2d 148 [2d Cir., 1992] "The Act relies upon parental involvement to contribute to the determination of what constitutes an appropriate education for a child. A system perceived by parents as tainted by biased adjudicators would deter parents from fulfilling their role under the Act. The success of IDEA's novel approach to protecting the rights of disabled children, thus, turns to ensuring the right to adjudicative independence."
37. Before the first hearing date I want to know from the ALJ:
1.How many IDEA due process hearings have you done?
2. How many have you ruled in favor of the child?
3. How many have you ruled in favor of the school district?
4. How many IDEA due process hearings have you dismissed when a parent did not have an attorney?
5. How many IDEA due process hearings have you dismissed during the undocumented pre-hearings?
6. Have you dismissed due process hearing request because parents refused to participate in undocumented pre-hearings where the denial of a free transcript is the issue.
7. Do you expect us to be equal to the school lawyer?
8. Do you know what is IDEA 2004?
9. When did you obtain instruction and training in IDEA 2004?
38. I may have more questions generated from the ALJ’s answers and prefer to communicate those questions and answers in writing before the first day of hearing.
39. This is to inform all parties I will be tape-recording all calls from the Florida Administrative Law Judges and school attorney since threatening and denying parents due process hearings for refusing to participate in undocumented pre-hearings and demanding parents pay for the transcripts is a practice of ALJ's and school attorney's. If I am notified by e-mail I am willing to respond in writing back by e-mail.
40. The scheduling of this hearing I am willing to give dates and review dates then respond in e-mail and I expect this hearing to take about 5 days.
41. I do not wave the resolution meeting and I expect it will be completed within 15 days of this due process hearing request.
§300.510 Resolution process (a) Resolution meeting . (1) Within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent's due process complaint, and prior to the initiation of a due process hearing under §300.511, the LEA must convene a meeting with the parent and the relevant member or members of the IEP Team who have specific knowledge of the facts identified in the due process complaint that—(i) Includes a representative of the public agency who has decision-making authority on behalf of that agency;
42. I don't agree for the ESE director waiting until the ALJ makes a decision on the Notice of Insufficiency as James Lobozzo does in Highlands County School District. It does not state after all notices of insufficiency and motions to dismiss are ruled on but it states: "Within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent's due process complaint,"
43. I expect an IEP team to be at the resolution meeting with experience with my daughter.
44. I expect "...a representative of the public agency who has decision-making authority on behalf of that agency;" at the resolution meeting.
45. I don't have an attorney so I don't give permission for the school attorney to attend the resolution meeting
§ 300.510 Resolution process (a) Resolution meeting . (1) Within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent's due process complaint, and prior to the initiation of a due process hearing under §300.511, the LEA must convene a meeting with the parent and the relevant member or members of the IEP Team who have specific knowledge of the facts identified in the due process complaint that (ii) May not include an attorney of the LEA unless the parent is accompanied by an attorney.
46. I don't agree on mediation if I did I would have asked for mediation and not a due process hearing.
§300.532 Appeal (c) Expedited due process hearing. (3) Unless the parents and LEA agree in writing to waive the resolution meeting described in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section, or agree to use the mediation process described in §300.506 (ii) The due process hearing may proceed unless the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties within 15 days of the receipt of the due process complaint.
47. If there is no resolution I prefer the 45 day time line start right after the resolution meeting.
48. I am not waving my right to a decision within 45 days after the 30 day resolution delay time.
This hearing is about my daughter. Time is of the essence my daughter has lost this school year of education because school staff chose not to refer to the ESE to address her inability to learn how to read with the reading method they were using. I will expect the scheduling of the due process hearing right after the resolution meeting. My daughter is with teachers who ignored her inability to learn how to read last year with their teaching method. She has been denied a free appropriate public education. I expect to move forward.
Submitted by:
YV Calderon
